The Will To Truth

“The Truth Is Like A Lion; You Don’t Have To Defend It. Let It Loose; It will Defend Itself” - St. Augustine of Hippo

The title of this post refers to a philosophical term defined as an overriding commitment, unlimited in scope, to believing in accordance with evidence and argument. Simply put those who will to truth hold the objectively gained evidence and argument above all else.

Why the philosophy reference? Because it seems that there’s some confusion over what drives Captive Wildlife Watchdog and our activity. According to those whose exploitive practices and hypocrisy we’ve publicly called out, we’re driven by jealousy, hatred, ignorance, and any number of other derogatory deficits. Heck, we’ve even been told that sexual frustration is what makes us so determined to “take others down.”

Yes, that accusation has actually been made.

The truth is that CWW is driven by, well, the truth. The members of CWW are dedicated to exposing and presenting the truth, be it warm and fuzzy, or disappointing and heartrending.

Without the truth, and without the moral fortitude to uphold the truth, how can anything you say or do matter?

As Mia And The White Lion makes its way across the globe collecting accolades from ignorant viewers along with five star viewer ratings (considerably less stars from critical reviewers) we’ve been documenting conflicting facts, misinformation, and incorrect information contained in the public reviewers. Before anyone points out that these reviewers aren’t animal or lion experts, we want to remind readers that the number one purpose of Mia And The White Lion–as per Kevin Richardson, and director Gilles de Maistre–is to “spread awareness” and “education” to those viewing the movie, specifically about the canned hunting and captive lion breeding industries. Therefore if these viewers are now citing incorrect information gained from the movie, the fault for it lies squarely on the movie designed to provide them with that information.

We won’t go into detail about all of the inconsistencies we’ve seen in the reviews of the movie, in this post. We’re just going to address some of the most glaring. For example the most prevalent “lion facts” cited by reviewers involve the decline of the wild lion population, and the current numbers of the wild lion population. For a movie revolving solely around captive bred lions, and the canned hunting industry supplied by those captive bred lions, which is entirely separate from the issues facing wild lion populations, you’d expect for the epilogue to provide information about the 8,000+ lions held in captivity at lion farms, and predator breeding facilities. But instead, it lists statistics about wild lions, their decline, and the projected extinction of wild lions. All of which are galvanizing facts, but which don’t have anything to do with captive bred lions or the canned hunting industry.

In addition to statistics featuring wild lions, rather than captive lions, multiple movie reviews not only cited these wild facts, but also encouraged readers to “help save lions” by donating to/supporting the Kevin Richardson Foundation, or the Kevin Richardson Sanctuary, and included links to both. But as CWW has repeatedly pointed out, neither Kevin Richardson, nor his sanctuary, have effected any direct change in regard to the challenges facing wild lions. Aside from talking about them, Richardson has done nothing to abate actual on-the-ground change where wild lions are concerned. Ever. In sharp contrast, every facet of Richardson’s career has revolved solely around captive bred lions, which he hand-raised himself, and trained, and interacts with.

So how can donating to Richardson save wild lions?

It can’t.

Then there’s the constant references to how this movie is based on a “real story”. We cannot stress enough that literally no part of Mia And The White Lion is based on any event that occurred in real life. Period. StudioCanal has widely advertised this movie as being based on a “true story” but this is a complete lie. Likewise, Gilles de Maistre has repeatedly made a point of how the fact that actress Daniah and Thor the white lion actually have a working relationship means that the “story of this friendship is real” within the movie. That’s sort of true, if you discount the fact that working with an animal and training it through positive reinforcement is a “friendship”. Not that there isn’t a bond there, but it’s not the perfectly innocent and romanticized friendship described by de Maistre. Of course, de Maistre is a devout believer in Richardson’s “whispering” skills, subscribing to Richardson’s own claims that his lions are never “trained”. Perversely, Richardson admits that he rewards his lions if they do what he asks them to do, but he insists that does not constitute “training” them. Rewarding a wanted behavior, however, is the very definition of positive reinforcement training, and it’s something anyone working with big cats engages in, including zoos.. In behind the scenes clips, the actress playing Mia can clearly be seen waving raw meat at Thor, then tossing the meat where she wants the lion to go, and the lion moves as asked, then devours the reward.

Notice the chunk of meat in the actress's hand.

Once she has Thor's attention, she tosses the meat onto the roof of the car, and the lion goes where he's supposed to, receiving the meat as his reward. This is called positive reinforcement.

As for the movie being “based on a real story”, you can read de Maistre’s own statement here. (The website was deleted after CWW began reporting on the movie, but you can still view it as an archive) Spoiler alert: he never knew any child who hand raised a lion and then ran away with it in order to save it from being sold into the canned hunting industry.

The wildest inconsistencies we’ve seen in reviews of Mia And The White Lion, however, have been regarding the lions used to make it. de Maistre’s (now deleted) website which was set up for, and devoted to, the making of the movie (then called Charlie The White Lion) stated clearly that lions would be “acquired” for the purpose of making the movie, along with the fact that buying the lions and caring for them was discussed at length before it was ever done. Once CWW began questioning the movie, though, and that website was deleted, no public statement regarding the lions, or where they came from, or where they would live out the rest of their lives has never been made. In the void created by the absence of honest, concise information, reviewers and fans of Richardson’s have simply filled in the blanks with assumptions and cobbled-together misinformation.

The original write up detailing the fact that the future of the lions at Richardson's sanctuary was fully funded and secured before lions were ever purchased to be used in the movie.

Some reviewers remark on how the lions used in filming now live free in Timbavati “just like Charlie in the movie”. This is extremely troubling on multiple fronts because it not only isn’t true, but it showcases the fact that the film promotes the idea that a captive bred, hand raised, human habituated lion can simply be turned loose into a protected reserve and live like a wild lion. This is not true. To date, there has never been a captive bred, hand raised, human imprinted lion ever successfully released into the wild.

And it’s not just dazzled lay-folk envisioning a hearts and rainbows ending. Paula Kahumbu, former Chief Executive Officer at Wildlife Direct attended the premier of Mia And The White Lion, where she spoke directly to both Richardson and de Maistre. After she posted about the event on Facebook, several commenters asked Ms. Kahumbu if she was aware that the lions used in the film had been bought from Ukutula, and were now living at Richardson’s sanctuary. Ms. Kahumbu replied, stating within her comment that “I was not told that the lions were purchased, but that the lions are in a sanctuary in Timbavati were they will never be hunted.” Here we have a wildlife professional speaking directly to Kevin Richardson, and movie director Gilles de Maistre, and she was told that the lions used in the movie were living on a reserve in Timbavati at the same time that Richardson’s social media profiles were telling fans that the lions were at Richardson’s sanctuary where they would live out their lives.

Ms. Kahumbu spoke directly with Richardson and de Maistre, and was told something entirely different from what Richardson was telling fans on his own Facebook page.

Despite answering questions at press conferences in a different way, Richardson told fans in no uncertain terms that all the lions used in the movie would live out their lives at his sanctuary.

How is it possible for the two people entirely responsible for purchasing, raising, and filming the lions used in this movie to fail provide concise answers to the question of where the lions came from and where they are now? Richardson’s Sanctuary and the Timbavati reserve are some 500-600km apart. One is a privately run personal business, one is a public park. There’s not much room for confusion here, so why was Ms. Kahumbu told by Richardson and de Maistre that the lions used were in Timbavati when they were actually at Kevin’s own Sanctuary?

Other reviewers stated that the lions belonged to Kevin Richardson and had originally come from his sanctuary. Some of them claimed that the Thor, who played Charlie, was Kevin’s lion, the well known Thor. But the original Thor died in 2013, an this Thor was apparently named in honor of the original. Not confusing at all, since both are male white lions which stared in a film about a male white lion. Then there are the comments under Richardson’s social media posts about Mia And The White Lion where former volunteers at Ukutula comment, recognizing cubs they’d met at Ukutula, which they’d been told were going to be used in a movie. In one case, former Ukutula volunteers even refer to the cub by name (Neige) and one of them commented stating that Kevin himself came and picked the cub up. A white lioness named Neige, can be seen in videos and social media posts made by volunteers at Richardson’s sanctuary.

Former Ukutula volunteers excitedly discussing how lion cubs from Ukutula were later picked up by Richardson.

The same lion (now an adult) discussed by name by former Ukutula volunteers pictured, and named, living at Richardson's sanctuary.

But while neither Richardson, nor Gille de Maistre have publicly come out and announced where they purchased the lions they used to make Mia And The White Lion, CWW has repeatedly discussed the fact that Richardson and de Maistre patronized Ukutula Lion Park, a notorious lion breeding, cub petting, and lion walking facility which has been verified by Blood Lions as a supporter of the canned hunting industry. They used the facility both for casting the child actors, and for selecting and purchasing the white lion cubs later used to make the movie.

From the now deleted website detailing how children were auditioned at Ukutula, a known supporter of the canned hunting industry.

Eventually even diehard Richardson fans started asking where the lions used in the movie had come from. Admittedly, most of them did so with the intention of proving the “haters spreading lies that they’d been bought from Ukutula” wrong, but their plans backfired when, eventually, Richardson’s social media pages responded to the queries by admitting that the lion cubs had been bought from a facility which sold lions to the canned hunting industry.

In a flippant response to one comment thread where fans had already been arguing over whether or not the lion cubs had, in fact, been purchased from a well known breeder that supplied lions to canned hunters, Richardson’s Facebook page stated:

“It’s no secret the lions were purchased from a cub petting facility, and rather than being in canned hunts or bred for years in (sic) end for cub petting, they will live out their lives at our sanctuary. Terrible of us, hey?”

Despite that Richardson has just verified that he intentionally bought lions from a farm that breeds them for canned hunting, thus putting money directly into the canned hunting industry, the first reply to Richardson’s comment immediately minimizes this fact, saying:

“they get a chance to live and with love, other places they are just profits…”

As if buying captive bred lion cubs which had been forcefully removed from their mothers, and training them to perform for the purpose of making a feature-length entertainment movie somehow isn’t using them for “just profits”.

Fans of Richardson have been all too eager to excuse the reality that Richardson bought cubs from within the canned hunting industry, claiming that it doesn’t matter because now the cubs are “safe” with Richardson. Within every comment feed discussing the origin of the cubs, fans insist that it’s more important to embrace the fact that the lions are now safe, willfully disregarding the fact that Richards participated in handing money to the very industry of captive breeding, cub petting and canned hunting he professes to loathe.

After the original acknowledgment that the cubs were bought from a facility which both allows cub petting, and sells to canned hunting, Richardson’s social media pages have been extremely careful in responses to specify that the lions came only from a cub petting facility.

Any questions which could be construed as critical are generally ignored.

The nuanced clarification is important because it attempts to separate cub petting from canned hunting, at least for the purposes of where Richardson obtained the lions for his movie. It attempts to put distance between Richardson’s name, and the term canned hunting in regard to Richardson’s patronage. By specifying that Richardson helped buy cubs from a cub petting facility it minimizes his participation in the horrific industry of canned hunting. Saying that you “rescued cubs from a cub petting facility” makes you out to be a hero. Admitting that you rubbed elbows with canned hunting outfits and bought matching white lions like someone picking out fruit at the grocery store is much, much less flattering.

It remains evident, however, that Richardson’s original intention was never to take a hardline on the backstory of the lions used in the movie Mia And The White Lion. Although director de Maistre had a flush website up devoted to the movie just one year into filming which detailed huge points of conflict such as buying lions to use, and patronizing cub petting facilities in order to cast children for the movie based on their interactions with lions which had been #bredforthebullet (no safe haven for those lions, they’re full grown by now, and either pumping out more cubs, or hanging on someone’s walls, because, you know, art takes sacrifice, and their only use was for auditioning children) Richardson himself said nothing about being involved with a movie showcasing children and kids.

Auditions for child actors, and purchase of cubs occurred at Ukutula in 2014, which was, perversely, the exact same time in which Blood Lions was carrying out an undercover investigation at Ukutula to expose their well know connection to the canned hunting industry

Thus when CWW first began documenting Mia And The White Lion (then titled Charlie The White Lion) fans of the ‘Lion Whisperer’ accused us of lying, and making up the facts we posted. Fans of Richardson refused to believe that he would ever be involved with allowing children to work with lions. After all, Richardson had never announced that he was working on such a movie. Clearly, we were just trying to smear his name.

After our first articles about the movie, de Maistre’s website devoted to it quietly disappeared, all evidence that Richardson was involved in making a movie where children interacted with lions gone. Supporters of Richardson commented on our posts announcing that there was no such website, that we’d fabricated it. The website was not entirely gone, of course. It had been deleted, but you can still find all the text from it if you utilize the WayBackMachine and type in www.CharlieTheWhiteLion.com.

For years, literally, Richardson’s social media pages stoically refrained from answering questions posed by fans who had read our articles. Even with the movies director de Maistre posting photos of himself and Richardson, children with lions, and glimpses of scenes along with the hashtag #miaandthewhitelion or #miaetlelionblanc Richardson’s pages made no comment, or acknowledgement that he was involved. Only once the movie was on the verge of release did Richardson’s pages announce his involvement in it, offering the excuse that StudioCanal had not yet given him permission to announce his involvement until that moment. Since the director had long since been stating that Richardson was involved, it seems more likely that Richardson’s avoidance has more to do with trying to distance his involvement in a movie where lions and children interact from the real life tragedy of one of Richardson’s human habituated lions killing a young woman at his sanctuary. After all, nothing will squash the success of a movie like fatal scandal. Mia And The White Lion was filmed at Richardson’s sanctuary during the same time that Megan van der Zwan was fatally mauled there. If the media had bothered to grasp this fact, and connect the two to the same sanctuary, and same lion trainer, it could have badly damaged the success of the movie before it was ever released. That was a bullet narrowly dodged. Pun totally intended.

Even after he announced his involvement with Mia And The White Lion, Richardson’s pages ignored questions about the lions used in the movie.

Only after CWW published multiple articles about the movie pointedly questioning the ethics of buying lions from within the canned hunting industry in order to make a movie did Richardson admit that lions had been purchased at all. Up until then, fans had assumed that the lions used already belonged to the ‘Lion Whisperer’, especially since they were interacting with human actors (this is an interesting point in and of itself, that people assumed habituated lions belonged to Richardson because that’s all he works with) After the proverbial cat was out of the back, Richardson’s profiles did what they could to avoid discussing the purchase of the lions, and what would happen to them afterward. Only once, early on did they admit that the animals had been bought from a facility that sold to canned hunters and that they were at Richardson’s sanctuary where they would stay.

Afterward, all references specified only a cub petting facility, and pointedly used the term “rescued”, as can be seen in the screenshots posted higher above.

It took more articles from CWW being published before Richardson’s pages admitted that the lions used in the movie were already at Richardson’s sanctuary, and would be staying there. By then Richardson was promoting his #landforlions fundraiser (which actually raised money for Richardson’s own captive lions, if you read the fine print) and it was a bit awkward to admit that he was raising money for his own lions, to which he’d added 5-6 more lions, whom were already fully funded for life by a trust fund. With Richardson finally acknowledging that lions had been bought for a movie, and that he’d help train children to work with them, and that they’d be living at his sanctuary for the rest of their lives, even Richardson’s fans began asking questions about the ethics of buying animals from the industry you want to shut down.

After all, “retail rescue” has become just another industry of exploitation within the captive breeding industry, and it’s something that all professionals (both wildlife and domestic) warn against. If you buy an animal, it is not rescuing it. Even groups which widely support Richardson, such as CACH state this point blank. They’ve been careful not to public comment on Richardson’s own “retail rescue” of buying lions from the canned hunting industry, but they still point out that buying animals is, emphatically not rescuing them, it’s merely supporting the industry that bred them.

Instead of addressing these concerns in an open manner, Richardson’s pages began banning fans, and deleting comments. It was simply easier than giving out more information which would cast Richardson in a bad light. After all, the movie was about to release, and that would ensure a wave of new fans coming in. No need to worry about pissing off a few here and there who obviously weren’t utterly devoted to Richardson anyway. Each comment thread where someone pointed out the hypocrisy of buying captive bred lions and training them for use in a movie became a tangle of mismatched comments, disappearing texts and new comments by different people either asking why questions had disappeared, or announcing (with no small amount of shock and awe) that they’d been banned by Honest Abe the ‘Lion Whisperer’ simply for pointing out an ethical quandary. Fortunately for Richardson, in most cases, once a comment had been deleted, or a commenter banned, other, more devoted, fans quickly took over the situation, berating the faithless for questioning Richardson’s honor, and intention, and buying into the “lies of haters” who would suggest that Richardson ever exploited lions.

An example of a comment thread where commenters found themselves banned, deleted, and/or attacked by other fans for daring to question Richardson.

Meanwhile, interviews promoting Mia And The White Lion were being published (all of them idolizing the use of real lions, and real children in the movie) wherein cast members avidly discussed things like working with the lions, and how they’d spent time at a “lion farm” in order for Richardson and the Director to audition children by allowing them to play with lion cubs, and then so that specific cubs could be selected for use in the movie. Many of these interviews also repeated the false information that the entire movie was based on a real story, and real characters. Since many of these interviews directly involved either de Maistre or Richardson, one wonders why they never clarified that the story was not true, and not based on real characters. Or, perhaps, this is simply a clear example of their willingness to manipulate things to suit their situation. After all, the actress did have a bond with Thor, and both of them are real living beings. So it’s not that much of a stretch to just claim that the movie characters are based off a real story involving people and animals. Even though those people and animals wouldn’t exist without the fictional ones which they were portraying.

Screenshot from an interview given by de Maistre showing his assertion that the movie was based on a real story, and how he showcased the interaction between the hand raised lions and child as a selling point.

The entire sordid handling of Mia And The White Lion by Kevin Richardson’s social media pages is what’s commonly referred to as “media manipulation”.

Media manipulation is a series of related techniques in which partisans create an image or argument that favours their particular interests.[1] Such tactics may include the use of logical fallacies, psychological manipulations, outright deception, rhetorical and propaganda techniques, and often involve the suppression of information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply diverting attention elsewhere. In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul writes that public opinion can only express itself through channels which are provided by the mass media of communication – without which there could be no propaganda.[2] It is used within public relations, propaganda, marketing, etc. While the objective for each context is quite different, the broad techniques are often similar.

By ignoring questions, diverting attention, subverting naysayers, accusing those that oppose him and his actions as liars, and offering intentionally misleading information and misinformation Richardson’s pages have carefully manipulated his fan base not only into embracing the fact that he participated in the canned hunting industry but also into actually declaring him a hero for doing so.

And now that the movie is out, and doing extremely well (while not providing many facts about the industry which helped make it) the manipulation continues.

Under a post on Richardson’s Facebook page made just days ago about breeding onsite, addressed in part to “those who continue to lie and insist we do” (CWW has never seen any accusations anywhere that Richardson breeds his lions, so we’re unsure of what provoked such wording) one comment reads:

“I read an article that said you bought 3 lions for the white lion movie that were breed by a guy that provides lions for canned hunts (sad emoji)”

This comment immediately received a heated reply from another fan:

“Bred*. Provide the source please or go spew that fake nonsense elsewhere. The White lions of Timbavati are one of the many established prides with white genes. Go on, post your sources, we’ll wait.”

Not only is this response typical of Richardson’s fans because of its antagonistic nature, but also because of its completely irrelevant rationalizing. The lions used in Mia did not come from Timbavati, nor are they there now. The established pride of lions in Timbavati have literally nothing to do with the movie, or the question posed by the first commenter.

Another fan quickly added:

“even if he did is that then technically a RESCUE!!!!!!”

Well, no. As we’ve already stated, all professionals in the lion conservation industry (and the professionals in domestic animal circles) clearly state that buying lions is not rescuing them. Not that this fact stops multiple people within the same lion conservation groups from doing it.

Richardson’s page finally did, in fact respond to the original comment, and Richardson’s answer was enlightening, both because it acknowledges yet again that Richardson did acquire the lions from a “notorious cub petting/canned hunting facility” but it simultaneously refers to the act as “rescue”. The gaslighting nature of Richardson’s response showcases his media manipulation of basic facts.

If buying lions from canned hunting facilities is all it take to save them, they why aren’t folks like Richardson promoting the endeavor? Why isn’t Richardson fundraising to buy all the captive bred lions from canned hunting facilities and save them? Of course he couldn’t house them all, but if buying them from the canned hunting facilities is all it takes to rescue them, why isn’t Richardson using his considerable platform to encourage other sanctuaries and conservation organizations to buy rescue lions who are #BredForTheBullet? If all we need to do is buy the captive bred lions from the canned hunting industry why don’t we do it already?

The reason Richardson isn’t publicly suggesting that conservation organizations buy captive bred lions from canned hunting facilities, of course, is because it doesn’t do anything but give money to canned hunting facilities. Richardson only calls buying lions from such facilities “rescue” when he does it.

And then there’s the caustic “Spin it any way you like it.” finale, clearly indicating that the commenter is misleading others with their accusations.

This simple line by Richardson, the expert conservationist, positions the ignorant commenter, who is, according to Richardson, spreading predesigned misinformation about him and his actions, in the crosshairs of every other fan reading the comment thread. It makes Richardson’s position explicitly clear by stating that the commenter is “spinning” the facts intentionally to make the innocent Richardson look bad.

Of course, the original commenter was utterly cowed by Richardson’s demeaning response virtually apologizing for their statements, and suggesting that perhaps Kevin, with his influence, could shut down these facilities. Never mind that Richardson has just admitted to patronizing these facilities for his own profit.

And the success of Richardson’s manipulation is blatantly clear from the last comment in the thread:

“Those canned hunting facilities must be forbidden. Why doesn’t the government ban them? They are breeding lions like lambs to the slaughter. It’s enraging! Anyone taking part in hunting should be sent to prison.”

Huh. Okay. But you’ve made this comment saying that those who take part in canned hunting facilities should go to jail in a thread where Kevin Richardson, famed ‘Lion Whisperer’ has admitted to utilizing a canned hunting facility… Clearly, the final commenter doesn’t mean Richardson should go to jail. Just other people who participate in canned hunting facilities. Richardson, even though he bought lions just like the hunters using these facilities, is absolved from participating in the exploitation and abuse, simply by virtue of being Richardson, the ‘Lion Whisperer’. Even though he did, in fact, hand money to a canned hunting facility.

This is where CWW’s will to truth shines through. In the last several years, our information, and our facts about Richardson’s participation in canned hunting facilities for the purpose of making Mia And The White Lion have never wavered, and never faltered. They have only grown in depth, the reach of this exploitation being verified time and again by both Richardson and de Maistre, as well as the actors participating in the movie. We have been called liars by fans of Richardson, until Richardson himself confirmed what we’d been saying all along. We’ve been accused of manipulating reality, until Richardson and de Maistre confirmed the real events we’d already described. We’ve been admonished for hating on someone who “rescued” lions from the canned hunting industry, when in fact all they did was buy those lions just like any hunter, handing money directly to the canned hunting facilities and supporting them, until Richardson himself admitted to buying lions from the canned hunting facility. We’ve been attacked for outing the truth every step of the way, but in the end, the truth we’ve been telling has been confirmed again, and again.

We’ve also been attacked for “stalking” the public social media accounts of the young stars of Mia And The White Lion, stars whom can apparently be official spokespersons for the Kevin Richardson Foundation, and whom can “spread” Richardson’s special brand of awareness, but whom CWW is then criticized for quoting as examples of how Richardson is hiding behind these children while using them to spread his own warped version of “awareness”. Just today, the actress portraying Mia in the movie shared a “behind the scenes” video to her official Instagram page in which she announces that “because of this film, these lions have a forever home at Kevin Richardson Wildlife Sanctuary”.

But that’s simply not true. According to director Gilles de Maistre, a lifetime trust and contract was in place which dictated that the lions would live out their lives at Richardson’s sanctuary before they were ever purchased in order to make the movie. Thus legally, these lions were purchased so that they could be used to make the movie, not the other way around. The film did not allow the lions to live at Richardson’s sanctuary, the lions were legally bound to live there before they’d ever been purchased in order to be used to make the movie. Despite being accused of “stalking” and “attacking” the actors and actresses who made this movie, CWW has never criticized them for their part in promoting this sham exploitation.

They simply don’t know any better.

Richardson took innocent children and ignorant adults, and trained them to handle lions, and taught them that the lions were better off with human contact. Richardson is the one who instilled these ideals into impressionable young children. In this day and age, when all ethical conservation groups are moving away from using real animals in film, and when ethical conservation groups are encouraging the industry not to use real captive wild animals, Richardson intentionally bought half a dozen captive bred lion cubs from a canned hunting facility, trained children to work with them, and used that novelty to market his movie as better than “other” movies using CGI animation. And because Richardson was the undisputed “expert” in charge of the entire movie, all the actors and actresses who spent years making the film are now simply repeating the lies and misinformation Richardson trained them to believe.

Using the hashtag #bancannedhunting in regard to a movie made with lions bought from a facility which supports canned hunting.

The information provided by CWW in regard to Mia And The White Lion has never changed, and has never been incorrect. Meanwhile, Richardson has changed his position and story multiple times, manipulating his fans into actually supporting his participation in the canned hunting industry. Contrary to the accusation that those who oppose him are misleading readers, Richardson himself is the only spin doctor present, first refusing to provide information, then altering that information repeatedly, changing stories, and going so far as to provide completely false information (such as telling Ms. Kahumbu that the lions used to make the movie are now living on the Timbavati reserve, when they’re actually at Richardson’s sanctuary) in order to assure that he is viewed as a hero for what he’s done, and in order to secure his own livelihood interacting with captive bred lions.

Let Richardson continue spinning his falsehoods and misinformation. CWW upholds the will to truth, and we will continue exposing that truth, even when no one else has the fortitude to do so.

Hard Choices, Which Only You Can Make

Hard Choices, Which Only You Can Make

Recently, there have been many questions raised by Captive Wildlife Watchdog about Kevin Richardson’s active, and continued, involvement with the purchase and use of captive bred lions in commercial productions like the upcoming movie Mia And The White Lion. In response, supporters of Richardson have cited the movie Born Free, along with Joy and George Adamson, alluding to the idea that Richardson’s activities are just as important to spreading awareness and aiding in lion conservation as the Adamsons and their lions were, and likening Richardson to the Adamsons.

Since the Adamsons have been brought up repeatedly, we felt it important to address the subject. The facts presented here have been objectively gathered from various sources. They will undoubtedly startle and upset some readers, but they are in no way intended as any sort of attack on the Adamsons. They are simply unbiased facts regarding the family and its actions.

While George Adamson attended boarding school in England, George and his brother Terence originally fantasized about becoming Big Game Hunters in Africa.

• At the age of 18, in 1924, George traveled to Kenya to work on his father’s sprawling coffee plantation.

• Disliking the work, George tried gold prospecting and several other odd jobs before signing on as a professional Safari Hunter.

• After several years of professionally killing trophy animals for Safari customers, George joined Kenya’s Game Department.

• In 1956 while tracking a “maneater” lion George Adamson shot and killed a lioness. There are two accounts of the killing. In one, George shot the lioness after mistaking her for the maneater he was hunting, and in another, Adamson shot the lioness when she charged him. Either way, Adamson shot and killed a lioness.

• Upon discovering that the lioness he had killed was the mother of three cubs, George took the cubs back home to his wife Joy.

• Two of the three cubs, being large and healthy, were promptly sold off to a Dutch zoo.

• Because the third cub was undersized and easily managed, Joy kept her as a pet, and named her Elsa.

• After living with Elsa as a pet for three full years, the Adamsons decided to “re-wild” the adult lioness and try to reintroduce her to a natural habitat.

• Despite this professed goal, the main “adventures” within the later published “Free” books (as Joy’s Elsa trilogy is often called) are the Adamson’s continual attempts to actually retrieve Elsa and her cubs after they’ve wandered off into the wild bush. In addition, even after Joy acknowledged that Elsa had proved her ability to fend for herself, the Adamsons continued to kill antelopes and provide them for the lions.

• The Adamson’s lions (being Elsa’s cubs, which though born wild were still considered pets by the Kenyan government because they were habituated to the presence of and interaction with the Adamsons) became such a nuisance, killing cattle, goats, and sheep which belonged to neighboring herdsmen, that Kenyan officials finally ordered the Adamsons to round them up and remove them.

• Officials in Tanzania agreed to allow the lions (Elsa had since died) to be released into the Serengeti National Park.

• The Adamsons, however, also moved into the park, and began making regular trips outside the boundary to shoot animals, and then bring them back to supplement the feeding of their “re-wilded” lions.

• Park officials were subsequently forced to formally forbid the Adamsons from feeding the lions, who without their “help” did, in fact, thrive in the wild, and subsequently left the area.

• The Adamsons then spent 19 months searching for, and trying to reengage with the now-living-wild lions–rather than allowing them to live free and without human interaction–before finally being forced to give up the effort.

• By this time, the book written by Joy which documented Elsa’s life as a pet, and then her release, as well as that of her cubs (though their release only happened after the Adamsons were banned from interfering with them) had become a best seller, and a movie adaptation of “Born Free” was in the works. *As a little known aside, George Adamson never received a penny of money from the “Free” books. All royalties went to Joy alone, and were subsequently used for various conservation projects (some of them her own) which she believed in supporting.

• The huge success of the books and movie, and the fame of the Adamsons allowed them to demand that local authorities exempt their own programs from game park regulations. Particularly because Joy’s worth as a benefactor (she had been wealthy even before her commercial success) outweighed her nuisance, the Adamsons and their projects were tolerated by the Kenyan government.

• George Adamson (now retired, and living near Meru National Park) helped obtain, and train, the 24 lions which were used to make the movie Born Free.

• George then took three of the lions used in the movie stating his desire to rehabilitate and release them, and returned to Meru (he wanted to take all the lions, but the Kenyan government considered his prior efforts to be less than successful, and had doubts, and only allowed George to take three animals)

• While working to “re-wild” the lions, George also took on the task of “re-wilding” a lion named Christian (who shot to internet fame in 2008 after footage of him hugging his former owners hit the airways) who had been purchased from Harrods of London, and then raised as a pet by his “rescuers”.

• One of Christian’s former owners, Ace Bourke, would later say (showing a deep understanding of the situation) that “One of the many lessons we learned from our experience with Christian was that while some see us as “saving” Christian – and we did have the best (if naive) intentions, we were unwittingly participating in and encouraging the trade in exotic animals.”

• Christian eventually succeeding in learning to live on his own in the wild, leaving the area with his new pride.

• One of George Adamson’s favorite lions, Boy, however, went on to maul and kill George’s assistant, a man named Stanley. According to several accounts, Boy then proceeded to drag the man’s corpse into camp and began eating it, at which point George shot and killed the lion.

• This occurred some five years after George originally took the lions (there were now seven lions in total, as George continued to add more without every releasing any, proving the government’s dubiousness to be wise) to be “re-wilded” and released.

• After the fatal mauling, George and his lions were permanently expelled from the reserve.

• By then, the only place the government would allow Adamson to once again set up his “rehabilitation” program was a place called Kora, which was considered a veritable “no-man’s land”. This exile would provide the final break between Joy and George who began living separately.

• Going her own way, Joy continued to breed, and work with cheetahs. Pippa the cheetah had four litters before her death, and Penny the leopard had two cubs. Joy wrote multiple books about the captive big cats and their offspring, though her continued intimate interactions with the cats after they “returned to the wild” begs the question of whether or not the cats were, in fact, ever successfully “released”. Joy Adamson was murdered in 1980.

• That same year, one of George’s lions badly mauled his brother, Terence, prompting the Kenyan government to shut down Adamson’s program once and for all.

• In 1981, George briefly attempted to start a leopard training program, but the effort quickly faltered.

• George Adamson was murdered in 1989 at his primitive camp in Kora, where he lived with some sixteen of his “re-wilded” lions, along with several servants.

• Guests at the camp recall how in the evening, George would “call” his lions with a megaphone and then exit the fenced camp in order to walk among them, feeding them hunks of camel meat, a mirror of the Adamson’s prior inability to refrain from forcefully interacting with their lions even once those lions have been “released” into the wild.

• At the time of his death, George was also in possession of three adolescent lion cubs, which he had obtained the year prior from an up-country ranch, something the Kenyan government had reluctantly allowed after having banned Adamson from obtaining new lions for almost a decade.

George Adamson’s programs and efforts were always controversial within Kenya. Even established contemporary conservationists at the time maintained that his projects were unimportant, dismissing him as a sentimental eccentric. Joy was viewed in similar fashion, as she very vocally attributed her bond with Elsa, and other animals, to the powers of telepathy, and insisted that they spoke to each other as two humans would, simply without words. This, along with her books, were viewed by the scientific and conservation community as anthropomorphizing and detrimental to the perception of wild animals by the general public.

George himself, had little interest in trying to document anything he did for science, declaring that he would not “reduce his lions to behavioral charts and graphs” so any functional knowledge that might have been gained through his efforts was lost within the biased, and personally-shaded entries of his private diary.

Articles eulogizing George at the time of his death in 1989 referenced the fact that a “romantic vision of Africa may have died with him.”

And that’s really what this is all about.

A romanticized ideal of humanity’s relationship with wild animals and captive wild animals versus the real version of it.

Captive Wildlife Watchdog is focused on the very real perils facing wildlife, and captive wildlife. One of those very real perils is the romanticization of wildlife itself.

The romantic ideal of Elsa and her offspring exists in the photos and videos of them playing with the Adamsons.

The reality of them exists in the maulings, fatalities, other injuries, and property damage caused by those same lions, as well as the subsequent death of the lions when they were killed by either locals, or in the case of Boy, George Adamson himself.

The romanticized ideal of Kevin Richardson exists in his own book, and the various movies, commercials, ad campaigns and photos which show him lounging and playing with his lions.

The reality of those captive lions exists in the fatal mauling of Megan van der Zwan by one of Richardson’s animals in February of this year.

Reality is something the Adamsons found out the hard way decades ago. Both George and Joy were injured multiple times by their own lions. Joy was later repeatedly injured by her leopard, Penny. George’s brother, Terence, was badly mauled by one of George’s lions. Stanley, George’s assistant was fatally mauled by one of George’s lions. Even a Japanese journalist was mauled–more than once–by a lion in George’s possession. It was the last two incidents which caused the government to permanently shut down George Adamson’s program, deeming it too risky because of the habituation of the lions to humans.

We know that big cats habituated to human interaction are much more likely to eventually injure, maul, or kill a human, at some point in their lives. And we know that once this happens, the habituated big cats who perpetrated the incident are, at worst, killed, and at best, forced to live under guard, and without the human interaction they were subjected to before the incident.

Why then do we repeatedly defend, and persist with embracing the forced habituation of captive big cats to humans?

Why do we romanticize these interactions, and idealize the bond created by forced habituation and conditioning?

Why do we continue to declare that the romanticizing and idealizing of captive wild animals is somehow beneficial to conservation simply because it captures the imagination of a public which doesn’t understand that it’s viewing a carefully constructed story rather than a forthright reality?

Yes, the Adamsons captured the worlds imagination. Yes, the Adamsons had “good intentions”. Yes, the Adamsons eventually managed to convey a handful of lions from captivity to a wild existence.

But one must also then say that:

Yes, the Adamsons created situations which resulted in the death of both humans and lions. Yes, the Adamsons “collected” lions, most of which were never successfully “re-wilded”. Yes, the Adamsons forced their lions to continue to interact with them by pursuing them in a wild setting them, feeding them in that wild setting, and then documenting for profit (in the case of Joy) those interactions.

The Adamsons were neither perfect, nor horrible. They had good intentions, but they made many mistakes. Their overall goal, despite their own struggles with “letting go” and their failings at large in the matter, was to return once-captive lions to the wild where they believed they belonged. They did not set out to exploit Elsa, even if they ended up willingly using many other lions in order to portray Elsa in a big screen movie. George, despite being considered by current generations to be a figurehead in lion conservation, resisted even properly documenting his own efforts, while Joy, pursued using captive big cats for profit in order to raise money to conserve wild versions of the same. The Adamsons represented both the most beautiful ideals of big cats, and the worst realities of them.

The questions Captive Wildlife Watchdog would pose to our readers, are:

Do you want to learn from the reality of the Adamsons, and evolve from them and what they did? Do you want to help create the understanding that in reality wild animals need to be wild, and do not need humans at all, but rather need to be allowed by humans to exist as they were intended to exist?

Or do you want to continue as the Adamsons did, repeating the same mistakes they made, creating the same result, that result being beautiful and romanticized stories involving captive big cats forced by circumstance to bond with humans while never living wild as they were meant to?

Are you willing to endorse the use of captive wild animals for commercial entertainment if that entertainment claims to contain a conservation message? Do you find the trade of a captive wild animal’s life in captivity in exchange for a beautiful story about how they should not be forced to live in captivity acceptable?

Or do you want to endorse the idea that wild animals which are forced into captivity through no fault of their own should be provided with as natural an existence as possible? Do you believe that humans have no right to impose their will upon that of an animal which cannot distance itself from them, and that we should, instead, remove our inappropriate influence from their sphere of existence whenever it’s possible to do so?

These are choices we cannot force on any of our readers. You must come to your own decisions. It is not wrong to admire the Adamsons and what they attempted to do, nor the beautiful, idealized, story they gave to the world. The members of CWW have all seen, Born Free, and read the books written by the Adamsons. We have all taken the impact and influence of those stories and shaped ourselves with them.

But we have also chosen to move on from them, to tackle the reality of the issues behind those beautiful, idealized stories. And in order to do that, we cannot, and will not, support the creation of more beautiful, idealized stories, which serve only to cover hard reality with a lovely, marketable, veneer of romanticism.

*****Addendum

Since posting this note, CWW was contacted by a follower, who forwarded a message to us, that they had received from someone else. We have verified that the author of the below statement did, in fact, personally know both Joy and George Adamson. He, himself, has decades of experience with wild, and captive wild animals. Because this was forwarded to us through a third party, we have left his name out, but again, we have verified that he knew the Adamsons personally, and greatly respected both of them. Please note the fact that this conservationists also personally knew the rancher involved, who was, himself, a conservationist.

“Having lived in the same Reserve in Kenya as Joy Adamson gave me some insight into this complex, intelligent and very tough old broad. Thus, while a very stern and callous individual in her dealings with other humans, she did also realize that she had quite a unique story on her hands and having the top publishers and editors in England as friends assured continuity in the warmth of the story throughout, even if it meant fudging a fact or two about Elsa's death.

The death of our beloved Elsa at the tender age of five was not "when she succumbed to Babesia felis, a form of babesiosis, a tick-borne blood disease similar to malaria" but instead directly related to the "local sentiment beginning to turn against Elsa and her cubs" as reported by Joy. If the story continued in this accurate telling, we would then have discovered that Elsa had begun hunting and killing the easiest non-human "game" - cattle on private ranches.

The Adamsons had little luck finding anywhere that would accept Elsa and her cubs with her growing reputation for killing livestock. This search dragged on so long as to see Elsa ramping up her attacks on the herds of cattle, so much so that it got to a point that the ranchers firmly believed that it was only a matter of time until she would turn her attentions to the only animal easier than cattle to kill, people.

Elsa was shot and killed by a ranch owner whose cattle were under increasing attacks from Elsa. They had gone as long as they felt they possibly could.

As things would play out, I would not only get to know and visit with Joy, but would coincidentally become quite close friends with the rancher in this tragic and fateful saga. A true conservationist, who I believe probably did try as long as possible to avoid this unfortunate and tragic ending.

FINAL NOTE
Most of my early work with captive wildlife was focused on big cats, having worked with as many as 60 free roaming lions and tigers at once. And, I also went on to successfully rehabilitate a zoo born baboon to a free living troop in the African bush. Yet, I always thought trying to rehabilitate a predatory animal that had already experienced a close loving relationship with humans was a recipe for tragedy. Joy came to believe this, though she was working with a very small leopard Penny, at the time of her death. George always remained steadfast, in his view any lion that he came across deserved a chance to be "Forever Free".”

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

Over the last week there has been an influx of articles regarding the problems associated with captive wild animals being used for entertainment and profit. This rush of attention was preceded by the fatal mauling at the Marakele Predator Centre in South Africa. Not fatal for the human involved, but fatal for the male lion, Shamba, who carried out the attack. Part of the attention garnered by the incident can be attributed to the fact that it was captured on video by a tourist. After dragging the park’s owner, Michael Hodge, into the brush, Shama was shot and killed by other workers after he refused to leave Hodge’s side.

With a salacious video that includes the screams of horrified women, and a live action mauling that meets the public expectation of what The Ghost And The Darkness would be like in real life, the story was bound to go viral. Which, considering the state of lion conservation is not entirely a bad thing. However, the disproportionate level of definitive criticism offered toward Hodges and his Marakele Predator Center, when laid out beside the comparatively ambivalent reactions to the human-fatal mauling that took place at Kevin Richardson’s sanctuary just a few months ago, is brow-raising at the very least.

Despite having been critically injured, and ending up in the hospital, Hodges and his wife have suffered death threats so serious in nature that the Marakele Predator Center has now been closed, their website and social media pages deactivated. In sharp contrast, after the fatal mauling of Megan Van der Zwan at the sanctuary of famed Lion Whisperer, Kevin Richardson, thousands of fans lavished support on Richardson, even offering to start fundraisers for him, and the lion responsible for the fatality.

While the comment section of Richardson’s Facebook post about the mauling at his sanctuary was jammed with assertions that it was the fault of the dead young woman, not Richardson, that his lion killed someone–even though Richardson had removed the lion from its enclosure knowing that two young women were present at one of the bush camps at his facility–the public reaction has been much, much different toward Hodges.

The below quotes are from Richardson’s Facebook post regarding the fatal mauling that occurred at his facility:

“I cannot help but feel anger at the arrogance and stupidity of any human that would think it’s ok to get out of your protective vehicle”

“I don’t feel you could have done anything different to avoid this.”

“she died because of her own transgression”

“Please folks, instead of adding insult and accusation, try giving Kevin some much needed support and kind words to help keep his spirits up. Let him know that we continue to support him and his efforts.”

And here are some of the reactions toward Hodges:

"Know your place, we are not the Kings of any jungles.”

"You murdered an innocent being, due to human ego and error.”

"He was bred, caged and exploited for profit from birth by a greed-driven individual with a god-complex who thought that 'his' lion wouldn't attack him."

The lay members of the public aren’t the only ones to offer a lopsided response to the not-so-different mauling incidents.

While exceedingly few experts within the field of conservation gave any formal opinion to news outlets regarding the death of the young woman at Kevin Richardson’s facility (and if they said anything, they carefully avoided naming Richardson) there’s been no shortage of judgement passed on the incident which took place at Hodge’s Marakele Predator Center. This article put out by News24 contained sharp disapproval dispensed by recognized experts.

"Whether they have been bottle fed from birth or not, lions are wild animals and deserve to be treated with respect, with no human interaction,” – Blood Lions campaign.

"Furthermore, we strongly discourage wildlife interactions as this could result in the same display of behaviour, putting the public at risk as well as compromising the animal's well-being and possibly resulting in their unnecessary death”. – Martie Rossouw, manager of the NSPCA Wildlife Protection Unit.

"The lion's behaviour shows why habituated lions such as this one, apparently bottle fed since birth, can never be released back into the wild. They have lost their 'wildness' and the boundary between prey and playmate is blurred,” – Audrey Delsink of the Humane Society International.

Delsink goes on to state that experiences involving captive born and raised lions offer no conservation value and were not supported by the predator conservation or scientific community.

If these are the genuine positions of experts within the conservation community, then why the gross disparity between reactions to the two incidents?

• Both Richardson’s and Hodges’ lions were hand-raised by them from cub to adult.

• Both Hodges and Richardson worked with the lions on a daily basis.

• Both Richardson and Hodges are attributed with having a “special bond” with their lions.

• Both Hodges and Richardson utilized their lions in order to “raise awareness” about lion conservation.

• Both Richardson’s and Hodges’ facilities allowed guests to stay overnight, and both offer “up close” experiences.

Hodges’ lion, Shamba, was renown for leaping onto the bonnet of the caged truck containing guests offering photo opportunities for guests.

Richardson’s lions were memorably photographed sitting on the bonnet of a Mercedes Benz G Class vehicle for a car ad.

While Marakele breeds lions and predominantly functions off the revenue provided by guests, Richardson’s facility charges thousands of dollars to people who wish to “volunteer” there, as well as hosting guests in its bush camps. Unlike Hodges, however, Richardson also hires his lions out to make movies, and commercial advertisements. While Hodges breed his lions and Richardson does not, Richardson did orchestrate the procurement of several lion cubs specifically for the purpose of then teaching children to interact with the cubs as they grew to adulthood in the process of making the movie Charlie The White lion.

Photo credit Andrew Van Ginkel

Taken from the Instagram of the director of the upcoming Charlie The White Lion. The ultimate irony, is that this photo showing children who have been trained to interact with lions by Kevin Richardson was posted almost exactly one month after one of Richardson's lions fatally mauled a young woman not unlike Daniah, pictured here.

And yet, for some intangible reason Richardson–who actually spent an entire decade being paid to raise lions for canned hunting organizations before he began making movies of himself playing with his own lions, which had been purchased from the lion farm where he worked–is seen as an important figure in conservation, while Hodges is seen as a blight on it. The truth is that Richardson is merely the reverse face of the same coin in captive wildlife exploitation. The only real difference between the two is in how they present themselves.

Hodges peddles his lions with all the flare of P.T. Barnum, embracing the exploitation he engages in with cavalier hat-tipping confidence. Everyone knows that the majority of what they get from Barnum is fake but they enjoy the show anyhow, as long as it goes according to expectation.

Richardson, meanwhile, keeps his exploitation subverted by the mystique of his contrived persona, hiding it in plane sight like David Copperfield making airplanes and train cars disappear right before the eyes of enraptured onlookers. Viewers often start out dubious, but end up captivated, and subsequently convinced that he’s the “real deal” even though he bills himself as a magician.

At their core, the two are both nothing but illusionists with differing performances. One show might be better than the other but that doesn’t mean they aren’t both shows. It’s high time that the conservation community removes its rose colored glasses and addresses the exploitation of captive wildlife worldwide for what it is.

Exploitation.

The Trouble With Putting “E” Before “O” In The Alphabet Of Importance.

The Trouble With Putting “E” Before “O” In The Alphabet Of Importance.

We had a visitor here on Watchdog the last few days. The woman who runs Kevin Richardson’s social media sites (the Lion Whisperer Facebook page, and Lion Whisperer Instagram account) decided to come over and “call us out” in a comment on our latest note about Richardson, and those defending him. It’s not the first time she’s attempted to belittle, and discredit Watchdog, or others (notably Artemis Grey, who we’ve seen her trash-talking on various pages and groups where Ms. Grey has been blocked and cannot defend herself) who do not simply go along with Richardson and his ilk. After an exchange of comments, and accusing us of using David Yarrow’s photographs without his permission (it wasn’t Yarrow’s photo) among other things, Richardson’s page manager deleted her comments from our note. Apparently, however, she was so offended by us and the (wrong) belief that we’d used the artwork of a KR supporter that she felt a little name-dropping over on the Lion Whisperer pages would be appropriate.

We presume that her posts were meant as a snub, but unfortunately, they reveal far more of the truth behind Richardson and his empire, as well as the ignorance and lack of understanding of Richardson supporters, than anything else.

Through a series of “Guess the Photographer” posts KR’s page manager has boasted that:

“Over the years, we have had the distinct honour of working with some of the world's most talented photographers. The incredible array of photos that we have of our animals would make the finest art galleries green with envy.”

Just on the face of this post, the aroma of “We’re important, and you are not” is so strong it could make your eyes water. Add a few curse words in there, and it could be Eduardo Serio going on about how many super famous friends he has, and how his haters are just jealous of those connections.

The thing is, the world’s most talented photographers are just that: photographers. They’re celebrities, they aren’t conservationists. E before O in the alphabet of importance. It’s all about who you are, not what you do. And getting photographs of captive wild animals that the finest art galleries would be envious has nothing to do with conserving wild animals, in wild habitats. Watchdog doesn’t argue that the photographers named over on the Lion Whisperer’s page are extremely talented. But to some extent, they’re also either ignorant, they’ve been mislead by Richardson, or they’re intentionally participating in engagements they understand don’t actually have anything to do with the conservation of wild lions. And in all of these cases, it’s Kevin Richardson’s–the “world renown animal behavioralist Lion Whisperer’s–job to “take the high road” and teach the photographers about conservation, rather than joining them in exploiting his animals.

And yes, sanctuaries need to raise money to support themselves. This is something Richardson does quite handily by charging “volunteers” thousands of dollars per week for the privilege of “volunteering” to care for all his animals. What sanctuaries do not need to do, is engage in capitalist ventures, and endorsements gained through the exploitation of the animals they’re supposed to be caring for.

Because we’re sure that Richardson’s page manager will be trolling, even if she doesn’t have the fortitude to comment again, we’re going to link directly to the websites of the photographers, but not use their photos here. Also, because we’re sure that we’ll be accused of not being brave enough to tag the artists themselves, let’s address that point. These photographers are artists. They’ve spent their lives honing and working on their art, and we respect that. We will not be tagging the photographers directly simply because this is not their fight, this is not their area of expertise, and therefore we do not wish to cause them undue ill-will, even if they knew they were exploiting animals. At the end of the day, avoiding this exploitation was Richardson’s job, not that of the artists.

Let’s start with David Yarrow.

https://davidyarrow.photography

Yes, we know he’s world famous, we know he’s connected to Tusk Trust Charity which is supported by the Crown, etc. but that doesn’t mean he’s above reproach, and the members of Watchdog wouldn’t have any trouble sitting down with Yarrow himself, or any member of the Royal family, for that matter, and discussing the numerous issues with Yarrow’s actions of late. We first called Yarrow out when one of his prestigious photos of a Richardson lion was donated to a gallery known to support Black Jaguar White Tiger. That gallery immediately auctioned the piece of art off for tens of thousands of dollars, and directly handed the money to Eduardo Serio, of Black Jaguar White Tiger. Yarrow knew this. He was there. We’ve got photos of him shaking Serio’s hand, and talking about what a wonderful evening it was. Because, you know, putting tens of thousands of dollars into the pocket of an already wealthy animal abuser makes for a great evening. KR supporters immediately began defending Yarrow claiming that he didn’t know who Serio was, or what the gallery was going to do with the photograph he donated. Fine. To be painfully fair, Watchdog will stipulate that Yarrow didn’t know anything, and had no idea who Eduardo Serio was (despite that the gallery in question hosts multiple artists who adore BJWT, and regularly supports BJWT, and also has Yarrow’s work hanging) Fast forward to now, and here’s Yarrow photographing Richardson’s lions, using a young model who has visited BJWT and openly loves Serio, for the purpose of creating an ad campaign for luxury watches, to be exhibited in an art show, which would have been hosted by the *same* gallery that donated to money to BJWT before, with a new photo donated to that gallery, with the intent to auction that photo off, and donate the money to an animal nonprofit. In fact, the *only* reason this ad campaign was not revealed at a posh party, and the donated photos auctioned off, is because one of Richardson’s lions happened to kill someone right before it was scheduled, so the event was cancelled.

You don’t get to use the “ignorant card” more than once. Yarrow happily uses captive wild animals as photo props (including wolves walking down bars in pubs, and lovely nude women with cheetahs) for ad campaigns and other commercial endeavors, including simple art. Being hired by a watch company to photograph an ad, is not conservation. Neither is using captive wild animals in that ad. Using captive wild animals for a book that’s supposedly showcases dwindling wild animals is also not conservation. It’s just getting paid to take photos of captive wild animals.

In the same vein, let’s move on to Adrian Steirn.

https://www.adriansteirn.com/index

Now, Mr. Steirn has taken some utterly breathtaking photos, and documented plenty of genuine conservation efforts (look up his work with rescued pangolins) but he’s also fallen into the “Lion Whisper awe” trap. Most notably, it was Steirn who shot one of the best camouflaged-while-also-blatantly-obvious commercials for a car ever made. Mercedes Benz, being the successful capitalist company they are, decided to unveil their G-Class vehicle by having it filmed with lions climbing all over it. This is a car commercial. Full stop. The insidiousness of it, though, is in the fact that the car commercial part is center stage, but background only. Instead, Mercedes Benz peddled their new G-Class vehicle as being “the protagonist of a project like never before. Brave, brilliant and dangerous, all in one.” The challenge was (using the car being advertised) to take a photo (in only 48hrs) “that would illustrate the lions’ fight to survive.”

You can watch the whole campaign here. (note the discussion of the lions’ habituation to humans, which Watchdog has mentioned repeatedly, and cited as a huge issue, and which directly influenced the events of the recent fatal mauling).

http://mercedesblog.com/the-mercedes-benz-g-class-as-wild-as-the-lions/

The most painful catch? The entire thing involved captive lions being carted into the territory of wild lions, and photographed by someone who was being filmed while photographing them. Steirn’s photos were used to “illustrate the lions’ fight to survive.” while the film of Steirn getting that photo was used to sell a car. So you’ve got two film crews encroaching in the meager territory of wild lions (the Eastern Pride, as it’s locally called) in order to photograph captive lions being forced to perform, in order to highlight the fact that wild lions are dying. The irony of it all is staggering, and brings to mind a quote from the beloved fantasy book, The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle.

“She can only disguise, and only for those eager to believe whatever comes easiest. She cannot turn cream into butter, but she can make a lion look like a manticore to eyes that want to see a manticore. Just like she put a false horn on a real unicorn so they can see the unicorn.”

You can easily disguise the truth for people who want to see something other than the truth, but those same people then need the truth to be disguised as itself in order for them to see it for what it is. There’s no profit in photographing wild lions, because you can’t control them, you can’t structure anything, you can’t cram it into 48hrs, and you surely can’t haul a brand new vehicle around to showcase, while having a full second film crew filming you and that vehicle. So instead, they took two captive lions, put one in a cage, and the other loose, in the middle of wild lion territory, took a photo, and then marketed it as being for the conservation of the wild lions they displaced while capturing the photo. And remember, this is all just a glorified car commercial.

Also remember that Richardson repeatedly drives his captive lions into the established territory of the Eastern Pride which lives on the DGR just so he can “walk” with his lions, and use them in commercial endeavors like watch ads, and car commercials. Please see the below stills taken from the Lion Whisperer video “Loading the Lions” (start watching at 3.24 minutes for the brief wild lion sighting) They drive directly by wild lions in order to then turn captive lions loose into the territory of those wild lions. It’s beyond unconscionable that Richardson is intentionally stressing, and harming existing wild lions, and getting applauded for doing so.

Moving on to Jeroen Hofman.

https://www.jeroenhofman.nl/work/?pid=89

Again, another amazing photographer. But also again, a photographer who photographed Richardson and his lions for an ad campaign (are you seeing a theme here?) Hofman’s photos of Richardson prowling through the grasslands of South Africa, impeccably dressed in a Van Gils suit, alongside a male lion have practically become ubiquitous. Consider that. A guy selling a suit–selling a product–using the appealing masculinity of a lion to do it has become the embodiment of a “well dressed man on the prowl.” You can’t even argue that this has anything at all to do with conservation. It’s literally just using captive wild animals to sell merchandise. And, of course, Richardson was paid for it. Also, again, this took place in the territory of the wild Eastern Pride who’s just trying to survive.

Finally, we come to Gary Lankford.

http://www.lankfordfilms.com/photography

Though he has an entire film company under him, Lankford is, perhaps, the least “commercial” photographer so recently cited over on the Lion Whisperer’s page, inasmuch as we haven’t found any ad campaigns shot by him using captive wild animals (though he avidly photographs rodeos, which are renown for being abusive to the animals involved, so that’s a whole other issue) Instead, Lankford states that he hopes to help support Richardson’s efforts to “save African lions and their habitats.” (link to full quote below)

http://www.photographercentral.com/photographer/23514985618381/gary-lankford-austin-texas

It’s unclear whether Lankford realizes that the photos he took of Richardson’s captive lions (and which he’s using to further his own career) were actually taken while those lions encroached on the habitat of existing wild lions, habitat for while lions which he says he wants to protect through his support of KR, the very person encroaching on that habitat which is so precious to the very remaining wild lions.

Yes, all of these photographers are incredibly talented artists. They’re celebrities in the art world, but they aren’t conservationists on the ground. Lion Whisperer proponents often say to those of us who speak out in opposition of Richardson

“What do you do? It doesn’t matter what you say, only what you do!”

Well we can emphatically tell you what we don’t do. We don’t sell out captive wild animals in ad campaigns for commercial goods. We don’t haul captive wild animals into the territory of tenuously surviving fully wild animals for the purpose of creating ad campaigns for commercial goods. And we don’t work with photographers who do those things.

Because, ethics. They aren’t up for debate. And in our alphabet, Conservation comes before Celebrity.

Idealistic Communes

Why Idealistic Communes Are Both Legendary, And Almost Non-Existent

There is a distinctive mythos attached to the idea of communal living. From the reverently famous Peaceable Kingdom series by Edward Hicks, (and the underlying theology of the “peaceable kingdom” on earth) to nefariously infamous communes like Jonestown and Charles Manson’s Manson Family, the iconic idealism of living together in harmony has been around since the beginning of time. However, there’s a good reason that communes remain an idealistic version of society, rather than how we actually function: because they just don’t work the way they’re supposed to.

Most of the time communes–even when formed by socially bonded, and unified people–just “don’t work out” in the long run, and break apart. Or, if the area on which a commune is built is owned by a person willing to continue the process, the members of that commune turn over many times through the years, never maintaining for long. Occasionally, communes devolve into truly horrific ends, such as the massacre of Jonestown where nearly a thousand people died, rather than admit the failure of their commune, or the murders committed by the Manson Family.

But however a commune ends, or continues to limp along, sustaining them is, even according to avid believers, very difficult, and success is based off personality factors, infrastructure, not ideals, as the mythos suggests. Merely believing the same things does not, in fact, lead to sustainable living conditions.

Which brings us to dear old Eduardo Serio, of Black Jaguar White Tiger, otherwise known as Papa Bear, and his lengthy “Papa Bear Chronicles”. As the hashtag suggests the Papa Bear Chronicles chronicle Serio’s largely directionless commentary on “life”. One such post, made several weeks ago, addressed Serio’s “haters” with a decidedly superior air, proclaiming that “contrary to 99 percent of “Sanctuaries”, my kids live in Prides, so they’re super happy playing with each other” and therefore don’t need “entertainment”. He goes on to say that other big cat groups “don’t have the capacity to look after whole Prides which obviously require more money, more personnel, more knowledge and intuition.”

This lofty post was subsequently followed just recently, by an unrelated post in which Serio thanks a known BJWT supporter, saying that “Beverly, Merida, Matilda, Bedrock, and Bedrock Love their new playground”.

Now, aside from the fact that this graciousness directly contradicts Serio’s own post stating that his cats don’t need any enrichment aside from their own interactions, the “playground” pictured is little more than scraps of wood nailed together, and in a weird configuration, at that. It took us a few minutes to sort out that the structure was nothing more than a replica of the children’s play equipment so often featured in Serio’s backyard. Because child’s play sets are completely appropriate for big cat enrichment–enrichment that BJWT cats don’t even need.

But I digress. Back to communes, or, in the case of BJWT “Prides”. You see, despite all of his droning of life theories, and higher enlightenment, all Eduardo Serio does is parrot the musings and theology of actual philosophers (and some of those hold grievously flawed beliefs) All he does with his “Prides” and the internal structure of BJWT, is attempt to replicate the Peaceable Kingdom, with himself featured as David in the lions den, or Jesus, or God, for that matter, able to walk amongst the “wild beasts” without harm, due to the purity of his own heart. Think I’m being sarcastic? Just go check out the Papa Bear Chronicles, I’m drawing from Serio’s own ramblings.

What Papa Bear doesn’t explain to the adoring fans who hang on his every illogical, and misrepresented words of wisdom, is the fact that by forcing his animals into these communal “Prides” Serio is actually robbing them of their own birthrights as big cats.

In his “Papa Bear Chronicle” regarding the lack of enrichment for BJWT cats, he posted a photo of an actual sub-Saharan pride of lions, lounging in dust, surrounded by nothing, not even brush. This was the perfect foil against the “haters” who question his lack of enrichment. However, it does nothing to address his own cats, because of all Serio’s “Prides” only a few are actually comprised solely of lions. The rest of them contain multiple species of cat. And of all of those multiple species of cat, only lions inhabit sub-Saharan conditions on a full-time basis. The other species present in these forced “Prides” evolved for thousands of years–and wild members continue to inhabit–rainforests, and other heavily forested, tropical regions.

Lions, in general, are poor climbers, and while in recent years, there’s been documentation of “tree-climbing lions” in several areas, the behavior is largely learned by observation within those isolated prides. Mechanically, lions are not built for climbing, and as a species, they remain “ground-bound” aside from occasional lounging, or climbing up short trees to get a better view of their surroundings.

In sharp contrast, leopards spend some 60% or more of their life off the ground, and in trees, or other elevated positions. Though they might cross paths with lions in a natural setting, leopards are completely solitary animals. Furthermore, science postulates that one of the definitive factors dictating their evolution as “tree dwellers” was the present of lions in shared territories, as lions view leopards as part of the food chain, and regularly kill and eat leopards.

So, right off the bat, Serio is forcing two apex predators from completely opposing evolutionary tracts, one of which historically consumes the other for food, into a “family group”. Then he immediately removes a fundamental foundation stone of the existence of the leopard, by providing them with no way of getting off the ground.

Jaguars are also extremely solitary and territorial creatures (one reason Eddie has never been able to get some of his to live in his beloved “Prides”, though he suggests the problem is with the cats’ personalities, not their species) who spend huge amounts of time in trees. In other areas (jaguars are the widest ranging of all panthera) jaguars are forced to use rocky outcroppings and even cacti to stand-in for treetops. But the preferred territory of jaguars is dense forests, where they are the predominant ambush killer of the big cat world.

Jaguars might spend days at a time up in the canopy

Papa Bear’s barren wastelands of cubicle style open ground enclosures provide the polar opposite of the world that jaguars have evolved to inhabit. It’s no surprise, then, when many of Serio’s jaguars hide in their night boxes, as those tiny shelters are the only available cover for an animal accustomed to spending its entire life hidden from view.

Tiger habitat, meanwhile, also consists of deep forests, both deciduous and rain.

A Sumatran tiger caught on a study camera

They do not, however, enjoy sub-Saharan deserts.

Tigers can spend cumulatively years of their lives in water. Some have even been documented swimming between islands.

But alas, according to Papa Bear’s Chronicles, his tigers don’t need “pools” because they have other big cats to play with! Never mind that tigers, leopards, and jaguars are all–by natural evolution–devoutly solitary animals, uninterested in living in “Prides”. And never mind that leopards–the smallest, and meekest of these species–are often, in a natural setting, eaten by lions, and killed by other larger big cats.

While Papa Bear beats his chests and boasts about his “Prides” he fails to acknowledge the fact that within his forced family “Prides” every member of every species of cat is denied the most basic yearnings and requirements needed to offer that cat the most natural and enjoyable life possible.

Eddie’s 100% is comprised of only about 25% of what each species of animal actually needs. Largely, shelter, food, and water. Just the barest things required to sustain life. But for each mixed “Pride" he boasts about, every species within it is being deprived of 75% of what they need to enjoy life. BJWT fans will insist that the cats are all “happy” but they base their perceptions off of primarily what Papa Bear says, rather than actually grasping the dichotomy of each individual species.

For a domestic house pet, like a dog or domestic cat, simply providing food, shelter, water, and companionship is all that’s needed in order to declare that the animal possesses a happy, sustainable life.

But these factors are only a fraction of what’s needed to make captivity acceptable for a wild animal.

And if you don’t understand that, then you really are viewing the cats of BJWT as pets, which is exactly how Eduardo Serio houses and maintains them.

If BJWT fans truly believe that all lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, ocelots, etc. need to in order have a happy life is food, water, shelter, and human companionship, then all they see at BJWT are large pets, not captive wild animals.

Despite often posting for photos like this, Serio claims than his animals are not pets, and are not maintained as pets

BWJT is nothing more than a commune of species which looks idealistic, but which like so many communes before it, is forced, unnatural, and imminently doomed to fail.