Natural Bridge Zoo: Who cares for the animals?
** This story contains content and images that may not be suitable for all readers.
In March 2024, prosecutors convinced a Rockbridge County Circuit Court jury that 71 animals at the zoo had been treated cruelly or deprived of adequate care in a way that threatened their lives. The jury found that 29 other animals had not been abused, and they were ordered to be returned to the zoo.
The zoo’s owners, Karl and Debbie Mogensen, say the 71 animals that are in the county’s custody are worth $1.3 million and should be sold. “The county improperly seeks to deprive respondents of more than $1.3 million in assets without any effort whatsoever to obtain the fair market value of the animals, who were in good health and present significant value,” attorney Erin Harrigan, who represents the Mogensens, wrote in a motion filed April 1.
Harrigan argued in court filings that the county cannot “gift” the animals to zoos that have been taking care of them since they were seized. She says the zoos should pay for the animals, or the county should offer the animals for sale to the public.
The Mogensens say the costs of caring for the animals should be deducted from any sales. And they say they are entitled to any balance left over.
But Michelle Welch, director of the state Attorney General's Animal Law Unit, says the Mogensens’ solution violates state law. “The statute explicitly prevents owners who have abused companion animals from profiting off them after they’ve been removed from the owners’ custody,” she wrote in a court filing.
The trial in Rockbridge County Circuit Court began Feb. 26 and lasted six days with testimony from 23 witnesses. The jury of four men and three women deliberated for more than 30 hours over two days before returning 100 verdicts, which dealt with each animal individually.
Jury verdict forms and court exhibits of photos of the animals during the December raid.
In March, a Rockbridge County Circuit Court jury ruled that 71 animals had been treated cruelly or deprived of adequate care in a way that threatened their lives. The jury found that 29 other animals had not been abused, and they could be returned to the zoo.
The prosecutors used photos and reports from veterinarians who examined the animals during and after the raid to make a case for the mistreatment of each one. Veterinarians on the scene during the raid described a strong smell of ammonia and feces, a lack of water and food, and no exposure to light in many of the animals’ enclosures.
Prosecutors also relied on testimony about tortoises with upper respiratory disease, a ground hornbill with internal parasites and a gibbon that tested positive on a preliminary test for tuberculosis.
Descriptions and photos of animals seized during the December raid.
Who's holding the zoos accountable?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected the zoo on March 27, 2024, and found that it lacked basic paperwork: It had no up-to-date inventory of the animals it has. The zoo also didn’t have birth and death records for animals, according to inspection records. And it didn’t have an environmental enhancement plan for birds, a plan required by federal law to promote the psychological well-being of birds with enrichment and social needs.
“Failure to develop and document an environmental enhancement program for birds can negatively impact their health and well-being, causing unnecessary psychological distress,” according to USDA inspection records.
The Natural Bridge Zoo is classified as a “zoological park” open to the public. Zoos that display animals publicly must be licensed, according to federal law.
The USDA regulates all zoos and other organizations licensed and registered under the Animal Welfare Act. Signed into law in 1966, the AWA regulates the treatment of animals in research, teaching, testing, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the AWA. APHIS inspectors conduct unannounced reviews of licensed facilities throughout the country. The inspectors also respond to complaints raised by the public about possible animal welfare violations.
Licensed zoos are also subject to state animal welfare laws, which can be stricter than federal requirements. In 2015, Virginia became the first state to create an animal law unit in its attorney general’s office. It remains the only state with an animal law unit. The unit’s lawyers and investigators pursue allegations of animal cruelty and bring legal challenges, as they did in the Natural Bridge Zoo case.
Zoos also have the option to seek accreditation from organizations, like the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), which hold zoos to a higher standard of animal welfare than the federal government.
Because the Natural Bridge Zoo is privately owned and receives no federal, state or local funding, it does not have any obligation to seek accreditation. Smaller, privately owned and often unaccredited zoos are colloquially referred to as roadside zoos.
Stephen Wancea, a veterinary technician and hospital manager at the Nashville Zoo at Grassmere, said any accreditation is better than none, but the AZA's is the best.
"Most people do consider the AZA your gold-standard of accreditations,” said Wancea, who has worked at roadside zoos and larger accredited zoos. “They have much higher requirements, much lengthier processes, a much larger application process.”
The Nashville Zoo is one of just 236 AZA-accredited institutions in the world, as of March, according to the AZA website. In Virginia, three institutions make the list: Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center, the Virginia Living Museum and the Virginia Zoological Park.
Cherie Bermudez, accreditation coordinator for the AZA, said the group will work with any zoo to help it earn accreditation. But she says the organization doesn’t get many roadside zoos reaching out.
“When it comes to animal welfare, population management, conservation and where you’re putting your dollars, we often have differences in philosophy with private owners,” Bermudez said. “We don’t really want to be associated with them, and they don’t want to be associated with us. So, its mutual.”
A history of violations
Debbie Metzler, director of captive animal welfare at the animal rights nonprofit People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said the Natural Bridge Zoo has been cited for violations of the AWA over 150 times since 1994.
Metzler said the USDA has suspended Karl Mogensen’s license twice and fined him a total of $60,000 since 2007. The suspensions lasted 30 days each, with one of them occurring before the zoo had opened for the season.
Metzler said the USDA rarely revokes a license.
“We typically do see the USDA citing them for a lot of issues," she said. "They just don't escalate it beyond that, which is basically just a slap on the wrist.”
Debbie Leahy, senior strategist for captive wildlife at the Humane Society of the United States, said the group conducted an undercover investigation of the Natural Bridge Zoo in 2014.
“It was a horror show,” she said. “Just extreme neglect, you know, really sick and injured animals going without veterinary care, filthy conditions, all sorts of mishandling.”
The Humane Society learned that five tiger cubs were born and immediately taken from their mother. Leahy said zoo staff wanted the cubs to be hungry so the animals would interact with visitors who paid extra to be photographed while feeding them.
The undercover investigation also captured Gretchen Mogensen striking the cubs.
Hidden camera images from the 2014 Humane Society Investigation: Zoo visitors holding and feeding tiger cub (left). Gretchen Mogensen, daughter of zoo owner Karl Mogensen, striking a tiger cub (right).
The Mogensens did not respond to several emails requesting comment. They also did not respond to a call to the zoo.
Harrigan, the Mogensens' lawyer, said in an email that she could not comment beyond what she had written in court filings.
The Humane Society’s 2014 investigation also accused the zoo of failing to provide animals with veterinary care and clean, safe conditions. Several animals died, according to the Humane Society’s report: A capuchin monkey was accidentally poisoned by rat bait. A mandrill bled to death from an untreated wound. A macaque monkey went weeks without treatment after his tail was bitten off, an injury so severe it left the bone exposed. A baby camel died after being caught between a gap in the gate and wall of her enclosure.
Hidden camera images from the 2014 Humane Society investigation. Pregnant giraffe found dead in her cage (left). Baby camel caught between gap in gate and wall of enclosure (right).
The Humane Society filed a complaint with the USDA, which sent a team of inspectors to the facility in January 2015. After a four-day inspection, the USDA cited Natural Bridge Zoo for 31 AWA violations. In subsequent years, the USDA conducted frequent inspections and continued to cite the zoo for violations. Leahy said the zoo was ultimately fined $41,500.
“In our experience, unless management changes at a facility, it doesn't matter what kind of enforcement actions you throw at them,” she said. “They're just going to maintain the status quo, you know. They just consider these fines a cost of doing business.”
The zoo vs. the county
Rockbridge County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Russell scheduled a hearing for June 10 on the issue of who should pay for the animals’ care since they were seized in December.
Harrigan, the Mogensens’ lawyer, questioned whether the county had documented the “reasonableness” of the costs for caring for the 71 animals that won’t be returned to the zoo. She said the receipts contain charges for animals that the jury ruled should be returned to the Mogensens.
The zoo owners’ attorney also argued that the receipts contained “wildly disparate boarding and veterinary charges for the same class of animal with no meaningful distinctions and no facts or assertions by those submitting the receipts for establishing the reasonableness of the fees.”
Welch, the head of the AG’s Animal Law Unit, argued in court filings that the bills don’t cover the costs of caring for the 29 animals that the jury ruled should go back to the zoo.
She also dismissed the Mogensens’ “blanket objection to paying for … any veterinary care.” She said the veterinarians were professionals who believed that the care they provided was reasonable. “They also have legal and ethical obligations to examine and treat animals in their care,” she wrote.
Welch did not respond to several emails and calls requesting comment.
Prosecutors have provided limited information about the whereabouts of the 71 animals that the jury said were cruelly treated. Welch wrote in a court filing that Karl Mogensen had contacted and threatened a giraffe transporter with violence. “It is entirely appropriate to ensure that the people who are caring for these animals are safe from such threats,” Welch wrote.
“If respondents cannot make sense of explicit expenses outlined by care providers, most of which are simply line-item invoices,” she wrote, “it is hard to anticipate what they would understand.”
