The Enduringly Ephemeral Nature of Social Media and Captive Wildlife Exploitation

So much of our world is ephemeral that we’ve become accustomed to impermanence, even reliant on it. Poor choices, sad memories, awkward interactions, the discomfort of all are lessened by time, or distance. If we make a mistake today, we can try again tomorrow. If we say something we shouldn’t have, time gives us the chance to look back and learn. There’s always next time.

Exceedingly few things are capable of creating a mythically enduring generalized impact on the public, while simultaneously fading from existence in any specific detail within their minds.

Social media is one thing that can.

As the saying goes, the internet never forgets, but at the same time, it’s very poor at recalling the particulars. A video goes viral and everyone will remember what it showed, but not the context surrounding the video’s origin, why it took place or what the reality behind the imagery is. The exact details become a blur of hearsay and rumor, sometimes much debated, even when evidence of the genuine facts can be presented. This allows those with the intention of misleading the public much latitude in their actions, and even in how they coverup less desirable truths about their actions and intentions. One need only wait and bide their time before reposting their media with a new narrative. When they do so, chances are good that three things will happen:

1. Whatever indelible draw the media presented to the public originally will have the same attraction to a new audience.

1. The vast majority, if not the entirety, of the subsequent audience will have no idea that the media is not actually new, and that the true story behind it is not what is being presented to them now.

And

1. Those experiencing the media and story for the first time, caught up in its viral attraction, will not be easily dissuaded from whatever gut reaction they’ve had towards what’s been presented to them. Whether their response is positive or negative, they will be disinclined to alter their position regardless of the verified facts presented to them.

Thus, trying to counter the influence of popular CON-servation players on the internet is an uphill battle, at best, and even firmly anchored positions can be lost if one stands still too long. The efforts require constant attention, often taking an immense toll on the mental, physical, and familial ties of those doing the work. CWW has been on hiatus for months now, due to these factors as our members turned their focus on ill family members, and other daily-life issues that required our devotion and attention. It is our intention to now resume our efforts to counteract the lies, misinformation and false facades used by CON-servation players who would have the internet and public worship them as heroes.

Several major players have already been successfully unmasked for the criminals they are:

Eduardo Serio remains in hiding, the few surviving animals of his Black Jaguar White Tiger empire in various zoos and facilities.

Doc Bhagavan Antle of T.I.G.E.R.S. and Myrtle Beach Safari has been convicted of four separate felonies, including wildlife trafficking and intent to traffic, and he is currently awaiting sentencing on these charges.

Jeff Lowe of the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park (which he swindled away from Joseph Maldonado the ‘Tiger King’) has been permanently forbidden from taking possession of, delivering, carrying or transporting any ESA-protected animals that have been unlawfully taken or exhibiting such animals to the public.

Joseph Maldonado the ‘Tiger King’ himself remains in jail for a myriad of crimes both against animals and humans.

It should be noted that none of the above mentioned people were covered by mainstream media to any extent before their arrest and convictions. Only after it became profitable to report on their profiting on the abuse and exploitation of animals did mainstream media bother with them.

And will the above mentioned men ever serve jail time specifically for the harm they caused to the animals in their care? It’s extremely unlikely.

Eduardo Serio has yet to ever be arrested, and even if he were, he has citizenship in the United States, but his animal abuse took place in Mexico. Those factors, coupled with his celebrity connections makes it almost a sure thing that he will never see jail time for his abuse of the animals in his care.

Although arrested and charged with felony wildlife trafficking, conspiracy to wildlife traffic, conspiracy to violate state laws protecting endangered species, Bhagavan Antle was acquitted of five counts of animal cruelty, and another four charges of the same were subsequently dropped by the judge in his case. He was only convicted on trafficking and conspiracy to traffic.

Jeff Lowe has been arrested multiple times for various things, but while his animals have been confiscated, and he’s been permanently banned from owning and exhibiting them, no jail time for his abuse against them is visible in the future.

Joseph Maldonado, the famed ‘Tiger King’ currently resides in jail for his participation in a murder-for-hire plot against Carole Baskin. Although Maldonado was also convicted of killing five tigers, selling tiger cubs and falsifying wildlife records, his sentence when broken down amounts to roughly two years for those killings, with another twelve years going to the illegal trafficking of animals, and the remainder addressing the murder for hire issue. Two years is hardly justice for the hundreds of animals who suffered and died under his care.

But our work is not about justice in the sense of jail time. It never has been and it never will be. Our version of justice is being able to pull back the veils of public persona from these abusers and show that beneath those carefully constructed images, all of them possess the same self-serving nihilistic arrogance and self-possession.

Every single one of the exploiters CWW calls out share several irrefutable facts:

1. They receive money for their public interactions with the captive wild animals in their care. Intention is both subjective, and moot. They publicly handle captive wild animals for profit.

1. They have purchased captive bred wild animals for the purpose of interacting with them for public spectacle and profit.

1. They have used the guise of supporting, or promoting conservation as the justification for their actions when in reality much of the profits, if not all, that they derive from their activities goes directly back into their own foundations and businesses.

There are no exceptions. Everyone CWW discusses share these facts in common.

And often times these exploiters have dedicated employees who sole purpose is to churn out social media content supporting them, while attempting to deflecting anyone who questions them and their actions. Anything they cannot explain away they can simply ignore for a few months, especially if those questioning them aren’t around to relentlessly continue questioning them, and keep those questions square in the public eye. CWW has no employees, or funding, so its contributors must work around their 9-5 jobs and lives, which is why we have been forced at times to pause in our social media presence. Moving forward we will be posting our articles on our new blog, and sharing them to Facebook. The blog is now live, but the current content is from several years ago, as we chose to focus on our Facebook presence rather than the blog. We will be adding older articles to the blog in order to catalog them, along with fresh content addressing current and ongoing issues. We hope you’ll join us for the journey!

Loopholes Of Gray Space

Recent headlines have been flush with praise for the charges brought against the systemic abuse of lions perpetrated by North West lion farmer, Jan Steinman of Pienika Farm. Dozens of lions at his property were found to be suffering from mange, while two cubs were seen dragging themselves, unable to walk for unknown reasons. A variety of smaller species of big cat, such as caracals were found in small enclosures, so grossly obese from the confinement that they were unable to even groom themselves. The announcement that charges were being filed against Steinman was met with widespread approval, and dozens of articles covering the subject have since hit the airways.

But while these articles applaud authorities for their investigation and the subsequent charges against Steinman, the majority fail to explore what this means, or doesn’t mean, for the captive lion breeding industry. Without the appropriate context, and itemized possible repercussions, the public is perceiving a false sense of justice and progress in the fight against the captive lion breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting industry.

It’s unlikely that Steinman will face any jail time, or that his Pienika Farm will suffer any longterm consequences in the wake of the charges being made. Rather, Steinman will be slapped with fines, and forced to treat the animals suffering at his establishment. It’s possible that Steinman will be banned (it’s unclear whether banishment would be permanent, more likely it would be temporary) from the South African Predator Association. Especially since Steinman is listed as being a council member of that association. And that will likely be the extent of the matter. You see, instead of banning the captive breeding of lions for cub petting, lion walking, canned hunting, and the lion bone trade, there is and ongoing, and immense, pressure to simply regulate the industry in order, according to proponents of the idea, to assure that lions are humanely bred and raised.

The suggestion that breeding lions in captivity is inhumane, is, according to those who support the regulation of captive lion breeding, largely a contrived falsehood put forth and promoted by animal rights extremists who don’t understand the industry, or how to properly manage wildlife and captive wildlife. While the recent articles addressing Steinman’s abuse of lions and the charges against him tout this case as yet one more galvanizing sign that the public should call for a total ban on captive lion breeding, the vast majority of that industry is viewing this media glut as a showcase of how little understanding the public has of both the CLB industry, and the management of wildlife in general.

In recent years the conservation industry has become an amalgamation of of pro-hunting and -anti-hunting entities which both exploit the ideology that nothing in conservation is “straight forward” and that conservation as a whole is comprised entirely of shades of gray. Both sides of the coin insist that anyone who argues otherwise is an extremist who doesn’t understand the complexities of wild and captive wild conservation.

We’ve seen these accusations from both hunters, and non-hunters here on CWW firsthand. Hunters occasionally show up in the comments of CWW posts insisting that trophy hunting (for our purposes trophy hunting is specifically what we’re referring to, rather than substance hunting, which is not something that’s normally a factor in situations of lion or other big cat hunting) actually helps the conservation of lions and other big cats and wild animal species. Likewise fans of entities like Eduardo Serio, Dean Schneider, Kevin Richardson, and even the Irwins, and Doc Antle, etc. all claim that what those entities do, handling captive wild animals, and in some cases allowing others to handle or interact with captive wild animals, is, in the end, beneficial to the wild conservation of them. Although these two factions vehemently disagree specifically about hunting, they both adhere to the exact same methodology, both claiming that conservation is comprised of “gray spaces” and both claiming to rightfully inhabit such “gray space” and both claiming that they’re supporting conservation 100%.

And, when someone like CWW dares to point out that participating in industries which damage conservation in the immediacy cannot bring about longterm support of it, both these factions lash out, accusing CWW of being extremist and ignorant as to the complexity of conservation matters, or of having some sort of personal agenda in “attacking” those we don’t agree with.

The basic inability of those who participate in the exploitation of wild and captive wild animals to view their own activities with an objective and impartial gaze is what triggers their conflict with anyone who raises concerns about them. They have no qualms about calling down others who engage in the same activities in which they engage, yet they are unable to admit that their own participation is also a problem. Rather, they will go to great lengths to justify their own actions, and contrive purported benefits and/or positive results gained through their activities.

In the realm of trophy hunting, those who support it, like Safari Club International, often fall back on claims that trophy hunting brings huge amounts of money into the conservation industry, and into local communities. Regardless of how many studies you cite verifying that comparatively little local monetary gains are achieved through trophy hunting, and that there is no scientific evidence to prove that allowing trophy hunting boosts populations or species in any way, and that it can cause catastrophic damage to species like elephants, supporters refuse to give up their positions.

In the case of commerce conservationists, like those we've mentioned, the primary excuse and justification for their exploitation of captive wild animals is the assertion that they’re “raising awareness” and “educating the public” about the animals they handle and exploit. Regardless of how much evidence you provide to show that the public perceives and retains a different message than the one exploiters claim to convey, they refuse to cede their position, or acknowledge that the activities they participate in are part of the problem. Groups continue to use them of saving endangered wild animals to raise money for Kevin Richardson to use in the care of his captive bred captive animals.

In both cases, it’s a matter of self preservation. If the fans who support trophy hunters, or exploiters of captive wild animals admit that what they’re supporting damages conservation efforts, then their heroes become the enemy. They become the cause of the problem. This is one reason that the supporters of those CWW discusses have such poor reactions to our unbiased reporting, and attempt to discredit or otherwise malign us. It’s the only defense mechanism they can adopt, especially when in some cases those same supporters will criticize others who do the same thing as their revered heroes.

The greatest danger in embracing the ideology of “gray spaces” is the fact that once you remove the definitive lines between conserving animals and exploiting them, where do you redraw that definition? How do you separate what is conservation from what is exploitation? If two people engage in the exact same activity, but one of them has cultivated a persuasively attractive persona, does that charisma alone make them a conservationist? Are leading conservationists really decided by something as trivial as a popularity contest?

Tragically, it seems as though that’s quickly becoming the case. Although similar “popularity contests” between cute or attractive endangered species and less appealing endangered species have been sharply criticized, the reputation alone of popular figures is being used more, and more, to justify the actions of the person in question. If the supposed “message” supplied by a person is deemed worthy, the method in which they deliver that message is being devoutly defended, even when that method involves directly putting money into the captive breeding, cub petting, canned hunting and other exploitative industries that are crippling and destroying current wildlife populations. And the damage isn’t confined to purchasing captive bred lions or other animals in order to “rescue” them.

The captive lion breeding industry has been protected, yet again, with defenders insisting that proper regulation can solve the problems within. Some conservation groups such as The True Green Alliance–which describes itself as being devoted to creating a society which is properly informed about the principles and practices of wildlife management–have released persuasive, and excellently written articles advocating for canned lion breeding, and concisely explaining why the arguments against it are being driven by extremists who don’t understand the matter in its entirety.

Japan has refused to ban ivory, instead insisting that firm regulations can adequately stem the import and sale of illegal ivory, despite studies showing that the opposite is true.

Botswana, according to this article, also by TGA, is now moving to follow South Africa in refusing to be influenced by the positions of non-African entities where conservation is concerned. According to Botswana’s Minister of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism Onkokame Mokaila, the single factor most responsible for any failings within African wildlife conservation is directly due to the fact that “outsiders” continue to “dictate to Africa on how it should manage and use its wildlife resources.”

Private rhino owners within South Africa now control some 50% (conservatively) of all the rhinos in existence, and they have been pressing to lift all bans legalizing the trade of rhino horn for years. Their voices are only getting stronger. And with growing social media commerce conservationists like The Real Tarzann garnering millions of followers and fans by promoting these private rhino owners, the strength of those private owners is only growing. In the video that launched Tarzann to star status on Instagram, he actively lobbied viewers to support the “conservation of rhinos” by following him, and supporting those he was working with. The rhinos seen in his video happened to be owned by Buffalo Kloof Game Reserve, which breeds–and sells–rhinos, including rhinos which are then killed by high-paying trophy hunters. Yet Tarzann advertised them as being the leading rhino conservationists, and his millions of Instagram followers don’t differentiate between a hunting game reserve which breeds rhinos like cattle, and the conservation of wild rhinos, in wild spaces.

The same sort of misleading presentation has seen Kevin Richardson’s #landforlions campaign touted as a new and exciting way to protect wild lions. Fans of Kevin Richardson were urged to donate to the #landforlions campaign in order to help stave off the loss of habitat which is threatening wild lions. Eventually nearly $200,000 USD were raised through the effort, but what Lion Whisperer fans seemed to misunderstand is that this money will never be used to buy wild land, where wild lions are currently struggling to survive. Rather, the money raised through this campaign will be used–as per the information on the campaigns Thundafund page, and as cited in articles promoting the campaign–to purchase the land where Richardson’s sanctuary is located, and will be used for Richardson’s captive bred lions, and other captive bred animals. Only after all of those animals have passed away of natural causes–as much as 20-30 years from now–will the land be available as a protected area for wildlife. Richardson’s Foundation page estimates that unless something changes, wild lions will be extinct by 2050, which is also the earliest that any of the land purchased through his #landforlions campaign would become available for use by wild lions. Yet even when Richardson himself provides these contradictory points of information to his fans, those fans continue to believe that wild lions will somehow benefit from Richardson’s #landforlions campaign, even though wild lions will be extinct by the time that land is made available to them. And that’s presuming Richardson does not continue to purchase more animals for his sanctuary. After all, he now has five young captive bred lions which were purchased for the express purpose of making the feature length film Mia And The White Lion. Those five lions will live out their lives on the same land that Richardson fan’s thought they were buying for wild lions. Interestingly, there is no longer any page devoted to this campaign on the Kevin Richardson Foundation’s website, and the only place where the campaign is fully explained is on the Thundafund page devoted to it.

Screenshot from the Thundafund webpage devoted to the #landforlions campaign run by Richardson.

Another campaign that seems largely misunderstood by fans of the famed ‘Lion Whisperer’ is the #cupforacause which promotes the idea of giving up the cost of a cup of coffee each month in order to “improve the lives of lions”. Because Richardson focuses solely on discussing the decline of wild lions, human conflict with wild lions, habitat loss of wild lions, etc. fans seem to think that giving up a cup of store bought coffee, and in turn donating that price to Richardson’s Foundation every month, will somehow improve the lives of wild lions, but this isn’t the case. No where in any literature or video discussion can we find any specification that the monies donated to the KR Foundation will ever be spent to directly improve the lives of wild lions in specific ways. Rather, it will be used to improve the lives of Richardson’s captive bred lions–some of which already enjoy a trust fund explicitly for their care, courtesy of the Crowned Prince of Monaco. The use of the term wild lions is nothing more than a selling point.

Perversely, fans of Richardson seem incapable of holding him accountable for anything he does, choosing instead to excuse any and all problematic actions. The end result, they claim is worth whatever Richardson does to present the message. Buying lions, and making movies with them, hiring out his animals to be used in props for commercial advertising, interacting with his animals and promoting such interactions, all things those fans would criticize if others engaged in them, are permissible for Richardson because he’s “spreading awareness” about the plight of wild lions. How the conservation of wild lions, in wild places, can be effectively impacted by using captive bred captive lions, to pose with models in a watch advertisement is not clear. But according to Richardson’s fans, it does.

Following the trend of interacting with captive wild animals in order to discuss the conservation of wild animals, Dean Schneider has bought multiple lions and other captive wild animals, explaining that he’s done so in order to “rescue” those animals, and “spread awareness” to his fans. His claims have been readily spread by ignorant news media outlets who understand that they can make a splash with the story. Just like The Real Tarzann (you might recognize the name of the author here, it’s the same one who wrote about Schneider, then publicly lied about CWW and subsequently deleted his own article and scrubbed it from all websites) Richardson, and Eduardo Serio.

All of these commerce conservationists and their fans and followers vehemently argue that conservation is not clear cut, and is instead comprised of gray spaces. Sometimes, in order to conserve animals, you must exploit them. This is nearly the same argument verbatim that trophy hunters use to justify their own interests. In order to conserve the majority of a species, it’s necessary to allow some of them to be killed. Proponents of ivory and rhino horn trade say the same thing. In order to control such trades, and protect elephants and rhinos, you must sacrifice some elephants and rhinos and allow the sale of their body parts. Those who defend captive lion breeding agree. In order to protect wild lions, and keep lions everywhere from becoming extinct, you must allow them to be bred and traded for exploitation by the public.

So where does the gray ever end?

If Dean Schneider buying lions and playing with them is conservation, why not just encourage people to move to Africa from other countries and buy lions from breeders?

If Richardson buying lions and using them to make movies and ad campaigns is conservation, why not just open ranches where lions are bought from breeders and trained for use in entertainment media?

If controlling the ivory trade rather than banning it can save elephants, why are countries like China reducing the desire for ivory by banning it? Why not make all ivory legal everywhere, if legalizing the trade is the best way to conserve elephants?

If farming rhinos and selling their products is what will save rhinos, then why have countries spent millions, or billions of dollars to stop the trade of rhino horn?

Within the gray spaces so covetously defended by those who support them the answer to all of these questions can be answered, with ‘Yes, that’s acceptable.’ if those defenders decide that circumstances are agreeable.

The only place where one can state with a calm, unbending ethical “No, it’s not acceptable to buy and use lions for profit, it’s not acceptable to kill elephants for ivory, it’s not acceptable to farm and harvest rhinos for rhino horn.” is outside the ambiguity of undefined gray spaces.

As we careen toward the eradication of huge swaths of environments and the species living within them, and toward the destruction of our planet as we know it, the last thing the earth needs us to do is make more allowances for exploitation and destruction. If you have to justify what you’re doing, if you have to provide lengthy explanations as to why what you’re doing isn’t the same as what others are doing, if you have to lay out arguments to try and back up claims that what you’re doing saves animals, while others doing it harms animals, that in and of itself is an admission that you understand you’re position is so ambiguous that it requires definition.

Honesty and ethics stand on their own, easy for anyone to see at a glance. It’s not a complicated shell game of participation and exploitation under the guise of stopping participation and exploitation. It’s black and white, true or false. Not shapeless gray and morally ambiguous.

Dean Schneider's "Inspirational Stories"

Photo by ShareGrid on Unsplash

Dean Schneider Hires People To Create His “Inspirational Stories”

Because there’s been a great deal of discussion the past week over media sites publishing false, misleading, or unverified information promoting Dean Schneider, and his Hakuna Mipaka, CWW wanted to address why it’s happening. While it’s commonsense to research the proposed content of an article you intend to publish on a media website, the current state of the Internet, and social media in general, favors the quick and the eye-catching. So when there’s a buzz word or subject flying around, and you’re presented with beautiful graphics, and photos, accompanied by the ideal “Cinderella Story” most content writers for media sites pounce on the opportunity.

If the images and/or videos are enough to tell the story with minimal text, that’s even better, because it provides the content writers of media sites with virtually their entire post, which allows for a faster turnaround. In some cases, writers are hired cut-rate. This means that they’re producing posts designed to bring in traffic, not contain verified information, and even worse that quantity-over-quality glut forces even ethical media sites to rush in producing their own stories, lest they be plowed under on the freeway of social media’s momentary attention span.

This is one reason that brands hire content teams dedicated to strategizing, creating, and promoting content that advertises that brand. Enter Dean Schneider and his “inspirational” fairytale of selling everything he owned to head off “McCandless style” into Africa to “rescue mutilated animals” or “Save Wild Animals From Poachers” depending on the headline. Of course, just as with McCandless, the reality is far, far less glamorous than the romanticized fictional account. True outdoors(wo)men and Alaskans loathe the hyper-idealized idolization of Chris McCandless (if you don’t know who he is, you can read about him here) which causes continuous problems every year, and has ended in multiple deaths. In the same vein, true conservationists loathe the hyper-idealized “peaceable kingdom” mythos contrived and promoted by entities like Dean Schneider and Eduardo Serio.

When The Epoch Times published a longer, more flushed-out article titled nearly the same as Bored Panda’s fake one, and less than a week after the entire Bored Panda debacle, CWW was promptly notified of the new ET’s article. (We reached out to ET and they removed the article, though they refrained from telling us how they obtained the information within their article, or whether they’d been contacted by Schneider or his staff about it) When we posted about the article, however, commenting that it almost seemed as though Dean was just issuing statements to media sites and those sites were just posting his content without researching him or verifying anything, at least one comment appeared immediately on our post declaring pointedly that:

“He had nothing to do with this. Apparently there’s a few articles being done about him but most haven’t even approached him for an interview.”

The comment was then deleted before CWW had the chance to reply and ask if the commenter had spoken directly with Schneider or his PR crew, since they were so emphatic that no one had “even approached him for an interview”. which is intimate information, indeed.

What this commenter, and all of Schneider’s fans, and defenders don’t seem to realize, or understand, is that Schneider literally advertises jobs for content creators to work with him. Although the details are listed under a tab labels “Jobs” on the Hakuna Mipaka website, salary is not included. This is, apparently, one of those “I’ll pay you in exposure” deals. Because, you know, artists don’t need or deserve money, they should just be grateful for the chance to get some exposure. The date on the current ad is for December 2018, but the stipulations indicate that whoever was “hired” could stay for three months, meaning that if Schneider hires a new person for the job, a new ad will be forthcoming sometime in March or April.

The fact that Schneider is using a photo of his pet monkey sitting on a camera to advertise a job for someone to take photos of Schneider and his captive wild pets tells you everything you need to know about his exploitation of captive wild animals.

Even more brow-raising than the lack of salary for this “job” is the lack of expertise required. Expertise in big cats, ungulates, captive wild animals, animal husbandry in general, or anything pertaining to running a sanctuary supposedly devoted to the care of captive wild animals, that is. On the animal husbandry/biology/science spectrum, the only “expertise” you need for Schneider’s “job” is appreciation of nature, and respect/openheartedness toward animals. That’s it. Easy peasy.

Not so easy peasy when you continue to all the important photo and video editing and creation skills you need, like advanced knowledge in Adobe Premier Pro, Lightroom and Photoshop, basic knowledge in Adobe Indesign, Illustrator, experience in videography, and a background in video and photography projects, along with the ability to work on all of the above on your own, and in a timely fashion, at the whim of your “employer”. None of which matters, of course, in caring for captive wild animals, but all of which are essential for creating a vivid, marketable brand to sell to the public on social media platforms, and other media outlets.

The chance to play with captive wild animals, take great photos you can use later, and be near Dean himself stand-in for monetary payment in this "job".

Branding 101: create great content, and promote it.

If it weren’t for photos and videos on social media, Schneider literally wouldn’t exist to the outside world. It’s the only thing he has making him “relevant” to the millennial crowd. Well, that, and the gullibility of the younger generation hooked to their computers and living vicariously through the exploits of their social media heroes. But to be a commerce conservationist who relies on social media stardom, and revenue created through partnerships, paying volunteers and video views, that’s all Schneider needs to maintain his “relevancy”. Great content, telling a great story (real or fabricated) which is distributed widely, and directs people to come love him and his pages.

Articles praising Dean Schneider and containing very similar content, with very similar titles, are cropping up because that’s the entire point of promoting a brand. Presenting a unified front of your company or venture. Schneider’s intention is to sway viewers to support him through the creation of content intentionally designed to promote him and what he does. And in Schneider’s own words:

Image from Schneider's job ad.

*** Headliner and foot banner images, Dean Schneider

The Rising Stars of Commerce-Conservation

Lead Image Source : Puma

The Rising Star of Commerce-Conservation: David Yarrow & Kevin Richardson Exploit Captive Lions to Conserve Wild Ones

As a follow up to yesterday’s critical discussion of the ethics, or lack thereof, possessed by David Yarrow, we wanted to provide readers with a little more depth into why Yarrow’s ethics and lack of transparency about which of his “wildlife” photos actually contain wildlife matters. Also, we wanted to address the subject of responsibility in such matters as pertaining to both Yarrow, and his many-times-partner, Kevin Richardson.

Citing the now ubiquitous quote from Uncle Ben of Spiderman “With great power comes great responsibility.” If you are reaching millions of people with information which you intend to be educational in regard to the subject matter involved, you have a moral obligation to assure that the information you are providing to those millions of people is as accurate and truthful as possible.

If you are reaching millions of people with information which you intend to be educational in regard to the subject matter involved and that information is knowingly misrepresented in order to misinform the public to your monetary advantage, then you are simply committing market abuse.

With David Yarrow’s background in finance, the term “market abuse” will be well understood. For those who aren’t familiar with the term in this context, “market abuse” is defined by the Financial Conduct Authority as “insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of insider information, and market manipulation”. Regulations against, and punishment for such activities are, in no small part, what led to the death of “the good old days” of market trading, which Yarrow so abhorred that he left the financial arena. Of course, there is no photography industry version of the FCA, there are no legally-binding regulations within the world of wildlife photography that prevent a photographer from engaging in insider trading, unlawful disclosure of insider information, and market manipulation.

But that doesn’t mean those terms can’t, or don’t, apply to the world of photography.

Because David Yarrow markets his photographs (many of them containing Richardson’s captive lions) as being for the benefit of conservation and wildlife and for the purpose of raising awareness about both, he has a fiduciary responsibility to both the public to whom he’s issuing those photographs, and the realm of conservation which he’s professing to represent. Per his own statements, one of the only two ways photography can help conservation is by raising awareness with the public. Therefore Yarrow has a fiduciary responsibility to both the conservation industry, and the public, to act in an accountable, ethical manner. So does Kevin Richardson, whose animals are often featured in Yarrow’s “wildlife” photography. Though supporters of Kevin Richardson have–since CWW began criticizing him–repeatedly insisted that Richardson does not actually claim to be a conservationist, Richardson own website now prominently declares that Richardson is “a world-renown wildlife conservationist” under its Meet Kevin Richardson tab. Similar to Yarrow marketing his photographs as being “wildlife photography” if Richardson is marketing himself as a “wildlife conservationist” then he has a fiduciary responsibility to the public he’s intentionally influencing.

Yarrow is, as one of the best known “wildlife” photographers, obligated by this fiduciary responsibility to abstain from market manipulation in respect to his photography when that photography is being used to support and represent conservation and/or wildlife in the form of wildlife photography. As Yarrow himself has boasted, that art has no borders, what matters is whether or not a photograph is framed as “wildlife photography” or “art”. Yarrow markets his own work widely as “wildlife photography” which puts him squarely in the responsibility chair when it comes to market manipulation, and insider trading.

Since we’ve established that Yarrow–because he promotes himself, and his work, as being done for conservation and wildlife, and representative for and of conservation and wildlife–holds a fiduciary responsibility to both conservation as a whole, and the public to whom he’s presenting himself, we can unequivocally state that Yarrow’s photography empire exists (the same way Richardson’s does) largely, even primarily, through the processes of insider trading and market manipulation.

Yarrow knows that he’s presenting staged photos of trained captive animals to the public as “wildlife” photographs, and he knows that that public is ignorant of these facts, while he also understands that this public will purchase his staged photographs under the pretense of purchasing photos which contain images of wildlife, for the benefit of conservation. He’s even now entered a lucrative partnership with the Mantis Group under the guise of “aiding the global plight for conservation” with his photography skills.

And suddenly, it’s all too clear why Yarrow views the relatively new regulations placed on the financial trading industry as so repugnant as to bring about the end of “the good old days” when investors could, with impunity, grossly profit by misleading those who trusted them.

Yarrow has gone so far as to reference the conservation of wild lions when discussing his famous TAG Heuer campaign photo of Cara Delevingne and a trained captive lion. Whenever he discusses the photo shoot (and we should note that Yarrow considers his photograph, “Cara” to be one of the most powerful photos he’s ever taken) Yarrow takes the time to reiterate how much Kevin Richardson, whose captive lion was used to create the photo, does for “raising awareness” about the plight of wild lions. He never fails to direct attention to Richardson for raising awareness “to the plight of the lions in Africa” even when thanking him for a commercial campaign made with captive trained lions or a photograph that appears to show a wild lion, but actually shows a captive one.

TAG Heuer has done likewise, describing the photo of Delevingne and Vayetse a lion hand-raised and trained by Kevin Richardson as an “homage to the supreme beauty of living creatures. The images carry a message of respect, support and admiration towards animals through an intense, fearless and contemporary campaign,”

By carefully asserting that a commercial photoshoot bought and paid for by a company in order to promote and market their product line using trained, captive lions somehow helps support the conservation of wild lions, Yarrow and TAG Heuer alike are excusing the fact that they exploited captive wild animals for profit.

In case there’s confusion here, renting out lions to take photos is not conservation.

Period.

This has long been one of the primary issues CWW has with Kevin Richardson’s rebirth as a supposed conservationist. Regardless of his promotional material claiming that Richardson acts in the name of conservation, his own websites still advertises his lions as being for hire to anyone interested in using them for ads, commercials, other marketing campaigns or even films and videos (the headline photo used in this section actually shows Richardson working with Yarrow, amusingly enough). While Richardson carefully avoids publicly discussing these activities, he continues to engage in them, just as Yarrow happily waxes poetic about working with Richardson but fails to address the fact that he’s paying for the service of trained lions.

Just two spaces over from "conservation" is a tab advertising Richardson's lions for hire.

The fact that consumers see Richardson’s rent-a-lion business as somehow less exploitive simply because it takes place in South Africa, instead of at an American film studio is mind boggling. And the fact that the media surrounding such ad campaigns as TAG Heuer’s market them as involving “wildlife” and “wild animals” only exemplifies the inauthentic nature of the commerce. Delevingne even stated in this interview, that the one thing she wanted people to take away from her work with Richardson and Yarrow for TAG Heuer, was for them “To respect animals and their habitat.” apparently failing to recognize that nothing in her ad campaign respected lions in their natural state or habitat.

That TAG Heuer’s ad campaign was shot “in real conditions” (in fine print under the watch) is even specified as a selling point in TAG Heuer’s ads imagery.

Photo taken from Grazia.com.au

Just what constitutes the definition of “real conditions” isn’t explained. Real lion behavior? No. Real presentation of a wild lion in a wild habitat? No. Real danger, and very real exploitation? Yes.

The utter repugnance of whoring out trained lions for profit aside, there’s the ongoing–and tragically self-fulfilled–problem of intentionally habituating captive lions to humans, even rewarding them for approaching humans.

In these images taken from various sources, including media which shows the making of TAG Heuer’s most famous ad campaign, provide evidence just what sort of manipulation went on in order to nab that one striking photo.

Richardson starts out well behind Delevingne, using meat to bring the lion closer and closer.

Using chunks of meat thrown on the ground, Richardson encourages Vayetse to come within just feet of Delevingne.

The meat rewards offered by Richardson are clearly visible in this shot.

Despite Richardson's continued insistence that his lions aren't "trained" they nevertheless seem very astute at performing specific tricks on command, such as lifting feet, swiping, silent roaring, and snarling.

Despite several articles about the photoshoot stating that Delevingne had been "assured" that Vayetse would not harm her in Richardson's presence, the lion is too close to Delevingne for Richardson to stop him if he'd attacked.

And there were, apparently, a few instances wherein Delevingne had to scramble for her "safety cage". Image from en.vogue.me

Rather than oooh and ahhh over the danger of Delevingne being in such close proximity to a full grown male lion without any protection, CWW is gobsmacked with horror over the hard documentation of intentionally encouraging a lion to approach a strange human. We’ve known, of course, that Kevin Richardson promotes direct interaction between captive lions and humans.

It’s the only thing that’s made him who he is. If you remove Richardson’s interactions with his lions, you have no commercially viable product. Which is why Richardson does what he does. For the profit of it, and for the gratification of being admired for doing it. It’s why he’s done it since he started at Lion Park in 1997.

But to see a widely released video showing Richardson encouraging one of his lions to approach a young woman, to see Richardson literally dangling meat rewards above that young woman’s head in order to obtain a commercial photograph, well it’s shocking. Even more shocking is the statement, seen in several accounts of the photo shoot, that Delevingne had been assured that Richardson’s lion would not harm her in his presence.

The claim that Richardson maintains such finite control over his lions–and a given situation–as to be able to promise that those lions will not attack another person exposed to them and/or that if something goes wrong he’ll be able to protect that exposed person, is so inconceivably megalomaniacal as to be beyond words.

This screenshot from TAG Heuer's behind the scenes video shows only a few yards between Delevingne and Vayetse with Richardson out of the shot entirely. As African lions can easily jump 10-15 in single pounce, three or four yards would vaporize in fractions of a second, should Vayetse have chosen to attack Delevingne.

Unless Richardson has a hired professional marksman, in position, with the lion maintained in constant target, under orders to shoot the animal without hesitation the moment it even appears to pose a danger to someone other than Richardson, it’s simply not possible to even begin to assure clients that they will not be harmed by the lion, with, or without, Richardson’s presence.

Never mind that Yarrow, who took the photo has said repeatedly in various interviews, as well as in the behind the scenes video, that the logistics of a photoshoot with a world famous model in direct proximity to a lion were extreme because, “You’re dealing with lions that won’t attack Kevin but they will attack everyone else,”

So which is it?

Was Delevingne safe from the lion because he would not attack her in Richardson’s presence? Or was she in constant danger because the lion would attack everyone except Richardson?

Wait, we know this answer. It involves a girl named Megan van der Zwan.

Just days before TAG Heuer was set to release their now-famous photos of Delevingne sitting a few feet in front of a captive lion owned by Kevin Richardson, another of Richardson’s captive trained lions attacked and killed a not-famous young woman on Richardson’s sanctuary.

But, according to Richardson’s one public statement addressing the fatal mauling of van der Zwan by his train captive lioness, it’s van ser Zwan who was at fault for “being outside the car”.

Screenshot of the only public statement (specifically the text in quotations) made by Kevin Richardson on the death of Megan van der Zwan. After this post was made, the press statement was reposted numerous times, resulting in multiple thousands of comments applauding the fact that van der Zwan was dead, cheering the lion on for killing her and declaring that she got was she deserved. Such responses were entirely intended by the careful, legally-minded wording of Richardson's statement which gave the impression that van der Zwan was "outside the car" on a Big Five reserve. In reality, van der Zwan was in a luxury tent camp used by tourists on Richardson's sanctuary grounds.

Never mind that just months after van der Zwan’s death, Richardson advertised two night stays at the very camp where she was fatally mauled as a reward for anyone who donated $14,000 USD or more to his fundraiser. This contradictory behavior showcases the fact that Richardson’s statement on Megan’s avoidable death at the teeth of his trained lion was made solely to direct blame on her, and avoid damaging ongoing projects he was involved with. Not the least of which was filming the completion of Mia And The White Lion, which also took place on his sanctuary, and also involved a young woman directly interacting with captive lions.

We now know that two young women were intentionally directly interacting with captive lions on Richardson’s Sanctuary, under Richardson’s guidance during the same period of time that a third young woman who was not exposing herself to any danger at all, was ambushed and fatally mauled by one of Richardson’s captive lions which was loose on the Sanctuary grounds.

Interesting that when Richardson lures his captive lions toward a young woman for David Yarrow to photograph, literally dangling meat over that young woman’s head, it’s acceptable to the public. Admirable, even, for them to see photos of Delevingne calmly sitting with her back exposed to a captive lion while Richardson rewards that lion with meat for approaching Delevingne. Someone admired it so much they spent $120,000 to own the photo. Hundreds of others have bought less expensive versions of the photograph. And when Daniah DeVilliers interacts with Richardson’s captive lions, living with them for three full years, calling them to her, and rewarding them with meat, it’s also acceptable, and admirable. Millions have flocked to watch Mia And The White Lion, which was filmed onsite at Richardson’s sanctuary during the same time that Megan van der Zwan was killed there.

But then when a captive lion owned by Richardson, trained by Richardson, and rewarded with meat by Richardson for approaching strangers, and/or performing for cameras, subsequently acts outside of Richardson’s control, and approaches a strange young woman and kills her , it’s entirely the fault of the dead young woman for being “outside the car” even though she was in a supposedly safe camp, nowhere near where Richardson and his lions were supposedly located.

In the aftermath of the fatal mauling of Megan van der Zwan, TAG Heuer announced that it was cancelling the campaign and opening gala stating that “Due to the deeply sad and shocking death at a reserve, which was used as a backdrop to the campaign… We have decided to cancel out of respect for the family of the deceased. The relatives of the woman, rather than business, are our primary concern.”

It sounded sincere, but with many millions future dollars at stake and, already out a scrapped multi-million dollar opening launch, the reality turned out to be much less so. TAG Heuer simply rescheduled their campaign gala (where an exclusive print of Delevingne and Richardson’s lion sold for $120,000 USD) and waited a couple of months to launch the ad campaign. Seven months later, the Maddox Gallery reinstated it’s show of Yarrows photos of the campaign, to much acclaim. Side note, both the Maddox Gallery, and Cara Delevingne fully support Eduardo Serio of Black Jaguar White Tiger, and Maddox has sold Yarrow’s photos of Richardson’s captive lions in order to raise proceeds for BJWT. Yarrow even attended a Maddox event held in his honor wherein one of his photos was auctioned off to raise money for BJWT, and

When asked about her experience working with Kevin Richardson’s captive lions (in an interview after filming for TAG Heuer, but before the fatal mauling of Megan van der Zwan) Cara Delevingne quipped:

“You know, at the end of the day, if a lion had a little nibble on my leg, I think it would be a pretty cool story…”

The members of Captive Wildlife Watchdog, and of Megan van der Zwan’s devastated family would beg to strongly differ, with you on that opinion, Ms. Delevingne.

But thanks to the continued efforts of entities like David Yarrow and Kevin Richardson to mislead the public in such matters, it remains en vogue to fabricate photographs using captive wild animals and then market them as wildlife photography, the sales of which will support the conservation of wild animals. And invariably, entities like Eduardo Serio, Dean Schneider, The Real Tarzann, will continue to follow suite, selling their own brands of fake conservation on the open market.

Only once we start supporting the preservation of wild animals, in wild habitats outside of the capitalism of using captive animals to pose as wild ones, will we be able to hamstring the growing monster of commerce-conservation.

Mia And The White Lion Premiers In Monaco

Its Acclaim Highlights The Viability of Commodifying Captive Lions For Profit

It was a big weekend for “Lion Whisperer” Kevin Richardson. The movie for which he helped purchase and train several captive bred white lion cubs, Mia And The White Lion, enjoyed a premier screening first at the Grimaldi Forum of Monaco, then in Paris. In attendance at the Monaco screening were members of the cast, including the children Richardson trained to work with the lions used in filming, as well as Richardson himself and director, Gilles de Maistre. Even His Serene Highness Albert II, Prince of Monaco participated in the event, posing for photos with Richardson and the teen stars of the ill-conceived film.

Richardson’s social media pages posted photos, and even a short video clip from what seemed to be a question and answer session. In the clip, Richardson states that lions ending up in the canned hunting industry is a big reason behind why he became involved in making Mia And The White Lion. He goes on to state that his foundation “fights against” the canned hunting industry, and that it’s his hope that the movie Mia And The White Lion does well, and gives a “voice to lions” and brings world-wide attention to the issues of captive lions, and the canned hunting industry which is continually fed by the captive lion breeding industry.

But there are several profoundly troubling quandaries associated with Richardson’s claims, and with his attempts to justify both the movie, and his participation in making it.

The most glaringly blatant of these problems is the fact that if your foundation truly–and ethically–fights against an abusive industry, you do not participate in that industry.

Period.

Not for the sake of saving a few animals, not for the sake of spreading awareness, not for any reason at all.

If your foundation is willing to compromise itself, and be complicit to the very abuse it claims to stand against in order to achieve its own goals, then the ethics of your foundation are for sale. The only question is how much it will cost for someone to buy them.

In the case of Mia And The White Lion, that price is, at least in part, quite obvious: Richardson receives worldwide fame for his participation (plus whatever he was paid and will receive in revenue from sales) as well as the several young, soon-to-be-worldwide-famous magnificent white lions used in the making of the movie, who will be in Richardson’s care for the rest of their lives. Richardson has already used one of these lions for the creation of high-end art photography (although since this young lion was named Thor, after the white lion Richardson previously owned, many fans didn’t realize that this lion was actually a new addition to Richardson’s sanctuary) and we can presume that since Richardson believes that his lions benefit emotionally from interacting with them, and the lions used to make MTWL were hand raised from birth, and trained to interact with humans, Richardson is not going to abstain from continuing to interact with them in the future.

One of the fine art photos of the new Thor, already for sale.

Fans of the “Lion Whisperer” have already publicly in various comment threads made it clear that they’re willing to overlook the fact that Kevin Richardson participated in buying lion cubs from Ukutula, South Africa’s most notorious lion farm, which has repeatedly been connected to the canned hunting industry, because “at least these lions are safe now”. Yes, a few, special, white lion cubs will not grow up being handled by children and then get shot. Instead, they already grew up being handled by children, and now they’ll spend their entire lives being handled by Richardson. But what about the some 3,000 other, not-special, tawny lion cubs which were born in captivity in the years since Richardson helped buy the handful to make MTWL? The 3,000 other captive bred lions which either have already been killed within the canned hunting industry, or which will eventually meet that fate? How many more lion cubs were born due to the thousands of dollars that were put into the canned hunting industry by Richardson and those funding the purchase of lions for use in MTWL?

We’ve also already seen fans argue that Richardson “rescued” the lion cubs used in MTWL, and that whatever money was spent to buy them is negligible compared to what canned hunters spend. But that simply isn’t true.

White lions have been worth four or five times as much as tawny lions in the canned hunting industry for decades. Heck, the recent, and ongoing saga of Mufasa the white lion, who is being touted as so valuable that the government would rather auction him to hunters than sell him to those who would save him is based solely on the extreme value of male white lions within the canned hunting industry. So it’s simply not plausible that Richardson could secure the purchase of multiple male white lions from an established breeding farm for less than the fair market value of the same number of adult male white lions. Therefore the purchase of those cubs by Richardson is no less a participation in the canned hunting industry than hunters purchasing them for sport.

And honestly you could even argue that hunters would only exploit the lions once, when they bought and killed them. Richardson not only helped buy them, and use them in a feature length film, but he’ll be using them to “raise awareness” by interacting with them for the rest of their lives, over and over again.

There are distinct differences between “raising awareness” about an issue, and capitalizing off that issue for your own gain, but these differences are something Richardson has carefully endeavored to blur for his fans.

The fact is, canned hunting has been in the public eye since Richardson first started working for Lion Park, who was, at the time that Richardson worked for them (and continues to) participate in selling lions to canned hunting contacts.

The widely watched investigative program, “The Crook Report” which was known for undercover documentaries first exposed the true horrors of canned hunting to the worldwide public in 1997. In its segment on the matter (coverage begins at 11:30 in this video, but be warned, it is graphic) undercover reporters involved with The Cook Report’s investigation presented horrific video evidence, such as the killing of the Dark Lioness, who had been separated from her adolescent cubs only hours before the hunters who purchased her arrived. She was then butchered just feet from her watching cubs, shot twice by a paying hunter who sat comfortably inside a vehicle. Such was the documented atrocities of The Cook Report. (the canned lion hunting segment begins at 11:30 but again, it is GRAPHIC)

But the video evidence pertaining to canned lion hunting almost didn’t make it off the lion farms where it was filmed. The investigative reporters were locked behind the gates of one such farm, and trapped there by the angry owners who suspected that they’d been duped into allowing the wrong people to see their dirty secrets. Only quick thinking, and good luck allowed The Cook Report investigators to escape with their stomach churning evidence. Evidence which was then aired on international television, to dramatic effect.

Within days of The Cook Report’s release on television, 55,000 signatures had been gathered to protest the sport of canned hunting, and you must remember that in 1997 at the time The Cook Report aired, the internet was not the ubiquitous force it is today. Petitions were largely products of paper, and their creation something that required people to go out and actually participate in real life, rather than simply typing on their personal computers. It is clear that The Cook Report put the atrocities of canned lion hunting (as well as that of other animals) front and center for the world wide public to grasp and loathe.

But while The Cook Report was prompting hundreds of thousands of viewers to cringe and writhe upon viewing its documentation of canned lion hunting, Kevin Richardson was hiring on to work for a lion farm which actually participated in the industry that The Cook Report was working to expose. Over a decade later, in 2009, Richardson was still working for Lion Park, and even today professes to have been completely ignorant to the fact that Lion Park’s constant conveyor belt of captive-bred lions were handled by the public and then fed directly into the canned hunting industry. No one is born knowing everything. However, it boggles the mind to consider that a grown man who built his entire career working with lions within the confines of a lion farm, and within the world of the captive lion breeding industry, claims that he did so without actually understanding how lion farms, or captive breeding worked.

Those claims of ignorance become even more absurd when you take into the account that Richardson was at the center of many of Lion Park’s exploitive commercial endeavors. By his own account, Richardson took part in the filming of multiple for-profit ads, commercials, and staged ‘documentaries’ using the lions of Lion Park. In the case of White Lion, which began planning and production in 2005, Richardson was not only the producer, but also the head lion wrangler. It was Richardson who was charged with selecting and securing the over sixty (60) lions, ranging in age from small cubs to adults, which were used to make the movie. When it was decided to change the lions from regular tawny animals, to white lions, which would allow capitalization on the rise in interest of rare white lions, it was Richardson who had to come up with white lions to replace the tawny lions he’d already cast.

Since Lion Park only had one adult white lion, Letsatsi, and two younger white males, Thor, and Gandalf, Richardson was forced to “source” a pair of teenage white male lions from elsewhere. It’s never been specified where those lions came from, nor is it ever revealed what happened to them. We do know, however, that part of White Lion was filmed on the Entabeni Game Reserve. This is important because filming on White Lion was finished in late 2008, part of that filming of which took place at Entabeni Game Reserve, located in Limpopo Province, which is renown as the premier location for lion hunting.

In 2009, in Limpopo Province white lions fetched, on average, a price of $18,691 USD at auction, nearly five times the average price of $4,021 USD for a standard tawny lion. Just as the marketability of white lions to the larger public made them ideal for use in Richardson’s movie, White Lion, it also made them in high demand for canned hunters, driving up their auction price. To suggest that Richardson–who was smart enough to know that white lions would (and still do) sell to the public better than plain tawny lions, and smart enough to work with multiple lion farms which focused on the captive breeding of white lions, within a Province where white lions carried five times the market value of tawny lions as trophy animals–was not smart enough to understand that these same farms and Lion Park were participating in the canned hunting industry, is preposterous.

Likewise, the persistent claim that Richardson “saved” what lions he could from Lion Park when he left there, remains laughable. Aside from the fact that over the years since his supposed split with Rodney Fuhr, Lion Park’s owner in 2011, Richardson has alternately stated that he bought the lions, then stated that he had not been able to buy them until 2016, there is the question of which lions Richardson chose to take with him. Over 60 lions were used to film White Lion, but of those 60, the current location of only a small handful can be confirmed. Notably, Thor, and Gandalf, both white males, were saved/bought/adopted however you choose to frame it, by Richardson. Along with them, were several other lions whom Richardson had hand-raised from birth and/or had intimate, and useful relationships with.

In sharp contrast to Thor and Gandalf, the fate of Bruce and Bravo, the two teenage white lions used in White Lion, remains unknown. Letsatsi, though originally personally groomed by Richardson for months before filming so that he could be the proud star of the movie, was quickly discarded from the “Richardson pride” after he refused to perform on cue. Richardson had known Letsatsi for five full years before the filming of White Lion began, and knew that the lion was not ideal for what he was trying to force him to do.

Nevertheless, with the opportunity to promote the film at the Cannes Film Festival in France, Richardson needed a promotional clip, which included “the majestic Letsatsi, our star, striding through a wide-open expanse” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 202).

Photo from Richardson's autobiography.

According to Richardson’s own words:

“Letsatsi wasn’t a filming lion” something that Richardson had recognized early on, and which had been previously discussed. “Letsatsi had never enjoyed being loaded and driven around on trucks” but “he was our only adult white lion at the time and we just had to hope it would work out.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 204)

So under Richardson’s direction, Letsatsi was loaded onto a truck, driven to a private filming location–where local media, photographers, and press had also been called so as to promote the movie–and then unloaded so that he could be forced to perform. Letsatsi, however, did what Richardson already feared he would do. He refused to perform. Instead, he walked off. The “majestic” white lion proceeded to “stride through a wide open expanse” for about five hours, refusing to acknowledge Richardson, or obey his commands. Eventually the lion was shot with a dart gun, sedated, and physically hauled home.

In Richardson’s words:

“I loved him to bits, but our relationship took a big strain that day, when all of a sudden he wanted to roam free. In fact, my five year relationship with him went down the toilet at that point.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 204)

Richardson literally blamed a lion whom he already knew hated being driven around on trucks and forced to perform, for destroying their five year relationship. Later, Richardson admitted to having pushed Letsatsi, “harder and harder in the weeks leading up to his spectacular walkout” but blamed his position as producer for that pressure, claiming that if he’d only been responsible for wrangling the lions, and not getting the best shot, he wouldn’t have tried to force Letsatsi to perform.

The fact remains, however, that Richardson was, in fact, the head lion wrangler on White Lion, and Richardson did, in fact, choose to try and force Letsatsi to perform when he knew the lion was not comfortable, and had been overworked in the weeks prior. And once Richardson’s own actions had destroyed the five year relationship he had with the lion Letsatsi, he discarded that lion like the useless offal he was. After their break, Richardson could not work with Letsatsi, could not film with him, and thus could not market him. When Richardson parted ways with Rodney Fuhr, and left Lion Park behind, he also left Letsatsi. Although Richardson has always professed that his lions are his “family” and that he would never leave them behind, that commitment clearly only pertains to the “family” he can manipulate for filming and photos. Since Letsatsi could not be used in such a fashion, Richardson left him at Lion Park, where he has lived for the last ten years, siring litter after litter of cubs to be used for cub petting, and later, canned hunting.

Screenshot of Letsatsi taken this year at Lion Park.

This video from October of 2018 shows Letsatsi (housed with the two white lionesses supposedly responsible for a mauling, though it’s not clear what mauling, since the keeper simply refers to “the old park”)

Meanwhile, Thor (who ended up being the star of White Lion) and Gandalf, who were both much more amendable to Richardson’s control and influence, were “rescued” and taken to Richardson’s current sanctuary.

Taken from Richardson's autobiography. Thor was one of Richardson's most popular lions, and was featured in numerous photos and videos until his untimely death by lightning strike.

At the time that White Lion was released, Richardson claimed to hope that the movie would “give people second thoughts about participating in” canned hunts, saying that, “Canned hunting, in my opinion, is likened to fishing with dynamite in a pond and then calling yourself a fisherman.”

While making such statements in interviews pertaining to his movie, Richardson took a very different position in his own autobiography, saying “I don’t have a problem with people such as Dirk, the professional lion farmer, and hunter, breeding lions for hunting.” And “I don’t begrudge an ethical lion farmer making money out of lions, any more than I would think it wrong for a fair cattle farmer to sell his animals for slaughter.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Pages 133-134).

Richardson’s only complaint was in facilities that offered cub-petting and then sold older animals into canned hunting (which is, perversely, something Lion Park has done for decades) because “That’s an example of where a lion hunting farm starts to come into my territory, and I don’t like it.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 133)

In 2016, Richardson quietly edited these statements, and many more, from his autobiography, carefully reshaping his position to be firmly anti-lion farming, anti-cub petting, and anti-canned hunting. This revision of his autobiography coincides with the filming of Richardson’s current movie, Mia And The White Lion, which is being heavily advertised as yet another attempt to “raise awareness” about canned hunting.

But the 2018 release of Mia And The White Lion marks twenty years that Kevin Richardson has been working in the captive lion industry, using lions to film commercials, and make ad campaigns, and film movies, and talk an awful lot about how bad canned hunting is. And yet, Richardson is still willing to participate in the very industry he continues to insist he, and his Foundation, “fight against”.

In the last two decades, huge strides have been made in raising awareness about the captive lion breeding, cub-petting, and canned hunting industries. From investigative reporting like that carried out by The Cook Report, to the next breakthrough documentary Blood Lions, to the more questionable, but very effective recently dramatized plight of Mufasa the white lion, media outlets have, for the past two decades, embraced the understanding the canned hunting is deplorable, and breeding lions in captivity is not going to solve the problems of wild lions. There are now watch lists that those who wish to volunteer in South Africa can reference in order to assure they apply to reputable foundations which do not participate in the canned hunting industry.

Yet Kevin Richardson has not evolved along with this growing understanding of the exploitation of captive lions. Although he has spoken (for years) about the need to raise awareness about canned hunting, and the desire to ban canned hunting, Richardson has not made any move to push legislation on a governmental level, which would help stymie the massive reservoir from whence canned hunting draws its seemingly endless supply of lions, both tawny and white. A ban on cub petting and lion-walking has been discussed at length, but Richardson did not add his voice to the matter. Interactions were even briefly banned at Lion Park, but then quickly resumed. Captive breeding to supply the cubs needed for cub petting is another area of possible regulation on which Richardson has never spoken. Of course, Richardson’s silence regarding a ban on captive breeding, and cub-petting of lions, might well be one borne of self-preservation. After all, if it were to become illegal for Richardson to interact with his lions, if such were to be viewed as bad form, then where would Richardson end up? He is famous for little more than his own lion interactions, and his constant rhetoric about “raising awareness” about canned hunting. And if there were a ban on the captive breeding of lions, where would Richardson secure his next batch of lions, to make his next movie?

When viewed objectively, Richardson as “the face of lion conservation and the anti-canned hunting movement” is a mirage which cannot be sustained. And one which is an unconscionable slight to those who have genuinely carried lion conservation and the anti-canned hunting movement forward.

While groups like The Cook Report were going undercover to expose the horrors of canned lion hunting, and people like Ian Michler, of Blood Lions were penning articles which addressed conservation, and the issues facing lions in South Africa during the late 1990s and early 2000s, Kevin Richardson was embedding himself in a commercial lion farm, staging “documentaries” using captive bred and hand raised lions, and putting out Go-Pro videos of himself interacting with captive, hand raised and trained lions.

In the mid 2000s to 2010, while National Parks like Kruger, and other conservation organizations were covering the move to ban canned hunting in Africa, and publishing articles which warned against interacting with captive lions and encouraged the public to take responsibility and action, Richardson was conspiring to undertake, and then proceeding to engage in filming a feature length movie which capitalized on the rarity and mystic of white lions, using some 60 captive bred lions, with Lion Park who participated in the canned hunting that everyone else was trying to get banned. Richardson also wrote and publish his autobiography, which covered his life spent interacting with captive bred lions, at Lion Park, which actively supported the cub petting and canned hunting industries.

In the wake of his own autobiography’s success, and amidst a growing fan base, and a growing stable of sponsors, Richardson attempted to open his own lion park, Kingdom Of the White Lion, with Rodney Fuhr (although Richardson claimed to have cut ties with Fuhr in 2011) The venture was short-lived, and by 2013, Richardson was in court fighting with his new partner, Alan Friedland (some accounts state that Richardson left Fuhr, and opened Kingdom Of the White Lion with Friedland, but since part of White Lion was filmed at the KOWL location, and that movie was funded by Fuhr, this seems unlikely) As recently as 2015, at least one article claimed that Richardson was “petrified” that he was going to be thrown in jail after he claimed that he had no money to pay the debts he accrued in his failed venture and court fight with Friedland.

Despite such legal woes, by 2015, while such acclaimed documentaries as Blood Lions were hitting the airways, exposing the canned hunting industry with new resolve to end it (and directly linking both Lion Park where Richardson had worked for over a decade, and Ukutula lion farm to the canned hunting industry) Richardson was already engaged in yet another feature length movie endeavor. Having been approached by director Gilles de Maistre with the scheme of making singular movie that would contain real white lions, interacting with real children, Richardson happily signed on to the project. By the time Blood Lions was released, Richardson had already helped de Maistre hold casting calls for children at Ukutula Lodge lion farm (breeders of “rare” white lions) where the child actors were allowed to play with cubs and interact with them. Based on the children’s behavior, Richardson helped select the human stars of the movie. Richardson and de Maistre then revisited Ukutula lion farm in order to secure a number of male white lion cubs which would be used in the making of the movie, which at the time, was being called Charlie The White Lion (though readers will note that on some pages of the now deleted website, the movie name was changed to Mia And The White Lion before the website was deleted).

After the release of Blood Lions, and the public outrage over the killing of Cecil the lion, and with himself involved in the production of a movie that was framed to be anti-lion farming, and anti-canned hunting, Richardson revisited his autobiography, and removed large portions of it. Removed passages include addressment of lion farms which Richardson states he does not have a problem with them (cited above) as well as passages that criticized those who question his own interactions, and lion captivity in general.

“Some people say I shouldn’t be domesticating my lions, but I say that is rubbish. I enrich their lives”

“What angers me about the debate over animals in captivity is that it’s been hijacked by a small number of people at the extreme end of the spectrum. The die-hard greenies want to end any form of captivity,”

“Lions exist in captivity for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is education. Even if I stopped working in television I would want to bring school groups to see my animals,”

“Lions are kept in captivity at facilities such as the Lion Park for tourism purposes.”

I see no problem with any of the above reasons for keeping lions in captivity as long as the lions are well cared for and happy.”

(Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Pages 107-109).

In addition to the entire removal of passages like those from which the above quotes were taken, Richardson also removed all capitalization of the Lion Park in reference to his place of work, allowing readers to question whether or not he is referring to the Lion Park owned by Rodney Fuhr featured in the movie Blood Lions as a participant of canned hunting. After the redactions and editing of his autobiography (which has never been publicly declared, and which is mentioned only in one single sentence within the Introduction of the book) Richardson and his PR folks began promoting his biography again, with Richardson once more making the circuit of public speaking engagements, his presentations now carefully anti-cub petting, anti-lion farming, anti-captivity.

This reconstruction of his position came at a fortunate time, as it was shortly after the release of his edited autobiography that groups like CWW began questioning the ethics of the movie Charlie the White Lion, questioning the ethics of Richardson to participate in making the movie, questioning the ethics of purchasing lions cubs to be raised by hand, by children for the making of the movie.

To date, neither Richardson nor de Maistre have ever responded to any of the articles CWW published discussing Charlie the White Lion. However, after we published several articles about it, the entire website, which had detailed the production of the movie, was deleted. The website can now only be accessed via the Way Back Machine, where one can enter the original address www.charliethewhitelion.com and be taken to the cached pages. While photos are gone, all the text remains. On social media, Charlie the White Lion ceased to exist until de Maistre began using the hashtag #Miaandthewhitelion. No new website for the movie was ever made, nor has any information regarding the production of the movie, now renamed Mia And The White Lion, been made public since CWW first began questioning the ethics of the movie.

Richardson continued his promotions against canned hunting, and cub petting on his own social media pages. He also continued producing his YouTube videos of himself interacting with his personal lions. Many of these videos were filmed not on Richardson’s sanctuary, but out on the expanses of the Dinokeng Reserve–which means that wild lions who live on the reserve were forced out of the area so that Richardson’s captive lions could be filmed there instead. Such activity ended abruptly, in early 2018, however, when one of Richardson’s captive lions left the open area of the Dinokeng, and entered an area of Richardson’s sanctuary which was supposedly safe, and once there, fatally mauled a young woman visiting the sanctuary with a friend who was interviewing the camp manager.

The only public statement Richardson ever made regarding it placed the woman “outside the car”, while assuring that he had properly notified everyone that lions would be out of their enclosures on the (Dinokeng) Reserve, and specified the he and his colleague had “assessed the landscape for other big 5 animals”. Outside of the direct quote from Richardson, the statement made on his social media pages went on to claim that before leaving the reserve the two visitors had stopped to take photographs.

The legally precise, and carefully worded statement made by Richardson's social media pages.

This careful press release concisely placed full responsibility for the fatality on the dead girl herself, for being out of her vehicle on a game reserve, and resulted in a massive online response wherein literally thousands of commenters asserted that the dead young woman actually deserved to be killed and that Richardson was completely absolved of responsibility, despite that it was his own lion who had committed the fatal mauling, and despite that just weeks prior, during an “Ask Meg” video segment, Richardson had stated that if one his lions were to encounter a stranger they would probably attack them.

With the fatal mauling as minimized in the public eye as possible (investigations by authorities are still ongoing) Richardson went on to announce the creation of the Kevin Richardson Foundation (though the foundation has actually been registered for a number of years) and then proceeded to unveil various “projects” throughout the year, each carefully structured to present a firm stance toward conserving, for the first time ever, wild lions. With his LandForLions campaign (though this first fundraiser is actually to buy his own sanctuary, where his captive lions live) Richardson has done what he does best, con the public in to believing that he’s interested in saving whatever it is they want him to be interested in saving.

The fine print of the #landforlions Thundafund stating that the money will actually be used to buy the land where his sanctuary is located. The Thundafund notably advertises the camp where one of Richardson's lion fatally mauled a young woman as a reward for donations of $14,400 USD and up, which contradict's Richardson's public statement insinuating that the girl's death occurred outside his sanctuary.

Richardson’s ability to evade responsibility, or accountability remains his most astounding feature.

Now Richardson–who began his career at a lion farm that supports captive breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting, and who has for two decades interacted with captive bred lions for profit–is enjoying the company of Royals, during the Monaco premier of Mia And The White Lion, a commercial movie made, using captive bred white lions, bought from a known lion farm that supports captive breeding of lions, cub petting, and canned hunting, and for which Richardson trained children to interact with captive lions.

And Richardson still has the gall to say the only reason he made this movie is to “bring awareness to canned hunting, and cub petting”.

Mia and The White Lion has all the earmarks of becoming an instant classic, at least amongst the white lion-craving public. But considering that the entire thing has been made in collusion with the very industries it’s supposed to deride, we hold no hope that it will convey anything more than the romanticized story of a beautiful girl, and her gorgeous, noble beast friend. A real live beauty and the beast. No resulting message can erase the hypocrisy of how the movie was made.

“It’s a film for all age groups,” said Richardson, “with every ingredient to be a runaway hit. And the cubs will pull at the heart strings of the most seasoned moviegoer.”

Oh, oops, pardon, that’s what Richardson was quoted as saying about White Lion, before it’s release back in 2009.

But hey, why change a good thing? Captive white lions sold like hotcakes back then, they’ve sold in the years since then, and they’re only going to sell better now. Especially with the edition of an attractive young girl, and the message of saving lions everywhere attached to it.

Yes indeed, captive lions are more valuable than ever before. Thank you for showcasing that fact, Mr. Richardson.

***************** ADDENDUM***************

Which looks extremely similar to the set up of Richardson’s sanctuary:

left a comment suggesting that people should question where Richardson obtained the white lion cubs that were used in the making of Mia And The White Lion. She pointed out that they’d been bought from a breeding facility which is renown for selling to canned hunting. When asked by another commenter if she had any evidence to back up her statement, she replied, stating that she had already posted a link to evidence, but that it had been deleted. She went on to say that originally, it was KR’s own PR person who had named the farm (Ukutula). In response to this comment by the question-raiser, the Kevin Richardson Facebook Page actually directly addressed her, declaring that “It’s no secret the lions were purchased from a cub petting facility” and then went on to attempt to justify the purchase by insisting that they’d been saved, and “will live our their lives at our sanctuary.”

The comments of the question-raiser have since been deleted from the comment feed.

The reason this is important, is because just a few days ago, Paula Kahumbu, of Wildlife Direct posted about attending the world premier of Mia And The White Lion. Although Ms. Kahumbu pointed out that the movie “portrays a romantic image of Africa that simply does into exist” inasmuch as its romanticism of Africa (true) she also suggested that others “watch this film and tell me what you are going to do”. about the problem of canned hunting. Quickly, comments appeared, expressing surprise that Kahumbu would support a film which used lions that had been purchased from within the very industry the movie supposedly derides. Kahumba replied thoughtfully, and we’ve put a screenshot of that reply below, underlining the most important part for easy viewing.

A sanctuary in Timbavati? Though Kahumu doesn’t specify who, exactly, made this claim, she did clearly indicate that she spoke to both Kevin Richardson and Gilles de Maistre, and that she was told that the lions were in Timbavati. Yet in the same time as the comments on Kahumu’s FB page, Richardson’s page posted the above photo of the human and lion stars of Mia And The White Lion at a location that closely resembles Richardson’s sanctuary. And then under that photo the Richardson Page commented, confirming both that the lions had been bought from Ukutula lion farm, and that they would live out their entire lives on Richardson’s sanctuary. Likewise, this screenshot from one of the star’s Instagram page clearly indicates that the cub she’s shown holding is now an adult and living with Richardson.

And within the same time that this Instagram photo was posted by one of the actresses involved, the Richardson FB page also commented on a post about the movie stating in response to a question about where the lions in the movie would live, and again state firmly that the lions will live out there lives at Richardson’s sanctuary.

This, of course, directly contradicts the answer given at the premier of the movie, where it was stated that the lions were living on a reserve in Timbavati, which is famed for hosting a population of white lions. So which is the true story?

Marketing The Mythical White Lion

Marketing the Mythical White Lion

We couldn’t help but notice that Mufasa the white lion is all over the internet.

Again.

Apparently, Mufasa the white lion is in desperate need of rescue from being auctioned off to canned hunting.

Again.

Because, apparently, even though “a sanctuary” has offered to take Mufasa the white lion, along with his “mate” Suraya (or Soraya) and give them a forever home, “the government” has refused this offer and would rather sell him to canned hunters.

Again.

We aren’t being facetious, or heartless. We’re simply pointing out that for over two years now, Mufasa the white lion has been in dire straights, but suspiciously, Mufasa has never been saved, nor has he ever been auctioned to the ubiquitously insidious canned hunters, who are, according to every fluff-piece article currently circulating, waiting within the shadows of evil to swoop in and buy a “rare” white lion. Because nothing sells like the timeless, yet modern-made, myth of the mystical White Lion.

Our caustic position is not directed at the lion, Mufasa, but rather at the media hysteria so easily induced, so easily spread, and so poorly informed. The tipping point for us, which brought on the addressment of the Mufasa situation, was when even dear old #PapaBear of #BlackJaguarWhiteTiger, himself, Eduardo Serio decided to grab some of the current “white lion mania”.

Over on the #BJWT Instagram page, Eddie shared one of the dozens of headliner articles currently circulating about Mufasa the white lion, and took the opportunity to ramble into a tirade about how corrupt Africa is (laughable, coming from a guy in Mexico who’s personally just as corrupt) and rail against trophy hunters before winding up by misquoting Einstein and then suggesting that the best way to save planet earth is to stop reproducing.

(For the record, #PapaBear the correct quote from Einstein is “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” So, even though you butchered the quote, you’re sort of right, because energy can be directed for either good or evil.)

Honestly, though, the “real” story of Mufasa the white lion doesn’t make anymore sense than Serio’s disjointed, misquotes and suggested doomsday-fixes

Here are the facts we can 100% verify regarding Mufasa the white lion:

1. There is a white lion named Mufasa who is living somewhere in Africa.

2. Mufasa was confiscated from a private owner.

3. Another cub named Suraya (also spelled Soraya) was confiscated around the same time, and the two are now a bonded pair.

And… well, and that’s all we know for sure.

Back in February of 2016, a white lion cub named Mufasa, accompanied by the backstory of having been confiscated by North West Nature Conservation and introduced to a cub named Suraya, or Soraya, and being involved in an “ongoing court case” first appeared on the Captured In Africa Foundation’s website. CIA still lists Mufasa and Soraya under their “Past Projects” with the description of “duration ongoing” in the write up which accompanies Mufasa, who is pictured as a 4 month old cub shortly after confiscation.

Mufasa's profile under the "Past Projects" section of the Captured In Africa Foundation website.

Fast forward three years to the present, and while Mufasa is still listed on the Captured In Africa Foundation’s “past projects” page, his story has been recirculated over and over again for the last year, with each manifestation of it repeating the same vague and undefined facts, that “the government” has refused to allow the white lion and his companion to be moved to “a sanctuary”, and instead wants to “auction” the white lion off to canned hunters. But while the trail of Mufasa begins with the listing on the Captured In Africa Foundation website (CIAF has never, that we know of, shared any media links decrying Mufasa’s dire situation, or attempting to garner support for him, or the cause of rescuing him, even though they have him listed as a rescue they are involved with) it quickly fades away into a world-wide internet game of “telephone” with hundreds of articles being shared, all repeating much deteriorated “facts” which are neither cited to source, nor independently verified. Most of them actually link directly to the GivenGain fundraiser being held by Wild For Life, where Mufasa is being housed. Because that’s not like the fox guarding the henhouse, or anything.

Although “a sanctuary” is referenced repeatedly, only one article we found actually named a sanctuary, the validity of which we cannot confirm. Though the same sanctuary has been named in speculation amongst private fb groups, that sanctuary has never publicly posted about Mufasa on any of their social media pages, or their website, nor have they indicated they are attempting to rescue the white lion.

Multiple government agencies have been referenced as being responsible for refusing to allow Mufasa to be taken to “a sanctuary” but none of those agencies have ever made a public statement about the white lion or his companion, aside from denying accusations, nor can we find any specific person or official named in association with the refusal of “the government” and its supposed actions.

No specific reason aside from “recouping money” has ever been listed as to why auctioning Mufasa off would be preferable to allowing him to be sent to a sanctuary. If money is the issue one wonders why the “government agencies” wouldn’t just offer to sell Mufasa to the public at large? After all, the latest update on the “Save Mufasa” fundraising page states that “The Department” has declined “our offer” to write off costs in exchange for the lion (virtually every article about Mufasa addresses only him, but the lioness he lives with is interchangeably ignored, or presumptively lumped in with him) the update goes on to say that “court costs” will be pushed over R100000. That fundraiser, however, has already gathered some R142000 (about $10k USD) So if that much money can be raised to defend Mufasa in court, surely more could be raised to simply buy his safety. Never mind that the same article which did speculate about specific sanctuaries also noted that “the department” responsible for refusing to let Mufasa go to that sanctuary was offered some R300,000 (about $21,000 USD) which they refused. That same article then posited that “the department” wanted to sell Mufasa into the canned hunting industry for $50,000 USD. The article did not, however, offer any evidence to back up this claim.

White lions are not rare. Not in captivity.

They’re just not.

Sorry to destroy the mythos, but white lions are bred constantly because–brace yourself for this shocker–the public is fixated with white lions, and the white lion mythos.

Yes, in the wild, white lions are rare. But in captivity, they are THE THING to have. And since the first lions possessing the recessive trait that causes the coloration were identified, they’ve been consistently, constantly bred in captivity, while their mythology has be built up to epic proportions, and entire foundations have been created with the supposed goal of preserving them as a species. Even though the truth is that the captive white lions of today have been created and maintained to feed an idealistic mythology contrived to sell a romanticized fiction to the public. This is also why Mufasa was given a vasectomy. Because he was bred in captivity, from a captive population. We do no need more captive white lions created to perpetuate a largely fictionalized mythos, nor do we need average tawny lions being bred in captivity. Therefore Mufasa was given a vasectomy, as he should have been. However, the fact that he cannot sire more captive offspring is now being falsely vilified–when it was the appropriate thing to do. Those pushing this effort to “save” Mufasa are now implying that because he’s received a vasectomy, he’s “worthless” to everyone except canned hunters. However, the only value Mufasa would have as a stud producing cubs, would be measured in how many captive-bred cubs he could sire in his lifetime. Cubs which would be bred only for the purpose of being , exploited within the captive lion industry.

Any common captive bred male white lion, can, theoretically, be sold for $30,000+ USD to the canned hunting world.

So why would “government departments” in SA spend two years or more battling in court, spending money on the effort, to get their hands on Mufasa specifically, just so they can turn around and “auction him off to canned hunters” to “make back the money spent on his care” when there are hundreds of other captive white lions in existence at any given time? The numbers just don’t add up.

Well, not when you look at the possible monetary profit to be gained by putting Mufasa up for auction. Now, if you’re talking numbers as they relate to website hits, shares, and the attention of the public, then you’re on to something. Because if there’s one thing that sells, it’s a mythical white lion in crisis. Just Google Mufasa the white lion. Hundreds, and hundreds of hits, articles that give no actual information, or give incorrect facts stating how “rare” white lions like Mufasa are, linking to questionable statistics provided by foundations built on the fictions of the white lion mythology, rather than science. The internet is currently awash with all things Mufasa The Mythical White Lion.

Now, with the public whipped into a frenzy over Mufasa’s imminent demise at the hands of canned hunters, with the mythical, “rare” white lion front and center it the public eye, and with celebrities like Ricky Gervais and Russel Crowe vowing to take on the entire African canned hunting industry in order to “save Mufasa the white lion” the Mufasa the White Lion FB page (which didn’t seem to even exist before July 12, 2018) has suddenly changed their story.

Although the top-pinned post on their feed discusses the imminent removal of Mufasa, under a court order (dated from early September) pleading for public support:

Post pinned to the top of the Mufasa FB page as of the publishing of this article

Lower, more recent posts, from just the past two days, announce that the campaign for legal costs has now been closed, saying:

“I have closed the campaign for legal costs for the court case for Mufasa and Soraya. Following the generous offer by our lawyer Carel Zietsman and other members of the legal team to donate the money towards the lion's immediate needs, it is only fair not to take any more donations for that campaign.”

Much more recent post, only visible if you scroll down the page, stating that the original legal-fee fundraiser is closed, but that the money raised will not, in fact, go to legal costs, but rather be used, in part, for the current care of Mufasa.

Wait, after months of circulating this story, and raising money for court costs so as to allow the rehab center where Mufasa and Suraya are living to fight for their lives, the lawyers have decided to donate all that money for the immediate needs of Mufasa and Soraya?

The post goes on to state that:

“We have therefore decided to use some of that money to create a safety zone around the area where they are kept. This will increase our ability to react quicker in case of intrusions and especially before anyone can get to our lions. This will be in addition to the double fencing, cameras and other security measures already in place.”

Buuut what about the court order demanding that Mufasa be turned over to Natcon?

What about the legal fight to have Mufasa sent to “a sanctuary”?

Now money donated for the legal battle to save Mufasa and get him moved to “a sanctuary” is being used to “create a safety zone” around the area where he’s currently living? A place where he’s not going to stay?

And how does the announcement that the lawyer and her legal team have decided to donate the money raised for them, to the care of Mufasa even make sense? That first campaign for legal funds said point blank:

“Although our lawyer is working pro bono, court cost in this case will come to approximately R50 000”

This number was then raised to R100 000 in the most recent update, saying:

“The case will now be heard in High court in Mmabatho, which pushes up our court costs to R100 000. We tried to stay in regional court to prevent the escalation, but the department has now forced our hand, hence the increase in fundraising effort.”

If the court case is ongoing, then court costs still exist. Lawyers don’t get to just waive them, and choose to donate the money designed to cover them to some other area.

And in another post (both posts are from 11/17/2018, put up within about 20 minutes of each other) the Mufasa FB page says:

“our legal team are hard at work in trying to secure Mufasa and Soraya a safe, lifecare agreement at a reputable sanctuary”

Another post, even farther down, stating that a new fundraiser is being started, even though the fight is "not over", also naming Drew Abrahamson for "handling this" apparently referencing Mufasa's saga.

This post continues to say:

“I am hereby posting our new campaign for the relocation of the lions when approved including veterinary care, relocation of lions and humans as needed when the time arrives.”

Okay, now just hold on.

In two separate posts from the same day the Mufasa FB page announced that it was closing the campaign to raise money for court costs, and instead, was going to use that money, which was raised for legal fees (legal fees they had just increased on the fundraising page) to “create a safety zone” around the Mufasa’s current location at Wild For Life. The Mufasa FB page then turned around and announced that it was opening a NEW campaign to raise money in order to pay to relocate Mufasa and his companion, vet care, and humans (?) “when the time arrives”.

The link accompanying this post takes the viewer to a totally new fundraiser that has an even more confusing write up stating:

“We are in the middle of the legal fight to get Mufasa and Soraya to a sanctuary, however we have to look forward and start thinking about their future. Our legal team has identified a preferred sanctuary and a letter of confirmation to confirm their future care is in our hands. The building of a totally new enclosure has been sponsored by an anonymous sponsor. We are still working on getting sponsorships for certain aspects. This campaign focusses to raise funds to relocate the two lions from their current location to their future home including veterinary care-darting, vets accompanying lions, relocation of lions as well as travel and overnight costs for humans involved in the relocation.”

So, the fundraiser to support legal fees has been closed, and now that money isn’t going to legal fees, it’s going to be used for the lions current care, without any explanation as to why the (ongoing) court costs magically do not need to be paid, even though the group actually increased the sum needed to cover court costs in that fundraiser’s last update. There’s a court order to relinquish Mufasa, and he’s apparently still on the verge of being auctioned off to canned hunters, but the Mufasa FB page is now running a new fundraiser to pay for the transport of two lions they don’t yet legally have a right to transport anywhere but which they eventually intend to transport to a sanctuary where a “totally new enclosure has been sponsored by an anonymous sponsor.” and where work is still being done toward “getting sponsorships for certain aspects.”

Screenshot of the "new" fundraising campaign created for Mufasa

Are you confused yet? Because we sure are.

This second post also gives a special “thank you” to Drew Abrahamson “for handling this”. Abrahamson is the founder/owner of the Captured In Africa Foundation. You know, the one who claimed to be in charge of “saving” Mufasa back in 2016.

And in case you doubt our assertions, here’s Drew Abrahamson, of the Captured In Africa Foundation enjoying a little playtime with Mufasa shortly after he arrived at Wild For Life (but apparently available for cuddles, if you know the right folks).

Wait, what?

Is, or is Mufasa not in any real danger?

Is, or is Mufasa not about to be auctioned to canned hunters?

Is, or is Mufasa not safe in his current location?

Is, or is Mufasa not the center of a legal conflict?

Is, or is Mufasa not in need of monetary support at all?

Just which sanctuary has been anonymously funded to house Mufasa?

If “other sponsorships” are being secured, why is there a new fundraiser to cover costs associated with relocation that isn’t guaranteed to happen?

If the court battle is ongoing, and it’s “not over” as the Mufasa FB page says, why is the money that was raised to support the legal battle not being used to fight the legal battle that’s still ongoing? And where did those court costs disappear to, since they apparently don’t need to be paid now?

If only part of the money which was originally raised for court costs which have now disappeared, is being spent on improvements to where Mufasa is currently living, but where he won’t be staying forever, where is the rest of the money going to go?

If the same person (Drew Abrahamson) who stated that her Foundation was directly involved with saving Mufasa as a 4 month old cub back in February of 2016, who was apparently able to visit him, and interact with him whenever she wanted, and who also stated back in 2016 that “Both cubs will be relocated to a sanctuary in due course.” is the person who is “handling everything” now, in 2018, and has been directly involved start to finish with Mufasa, why are articles claiming that Mufasa is about to be auctioned off to evil canned hunters at any moment being circulated and recirculated around the internet? And why isn’t Abrahamson, or her Foundation, Captured In Africa making any effort to publicly clarify the facts surrounding Mufasa, since she is apparently the one “handling everything” associated with him?

The answer to everything above, is:

We don’t know.

But we do have a few ideas.

The mythos of white lions has been something marketed and capitalized on for years now. Exceedingly few white lions have ever existed in the wild, yet an ever-growing captive population of white lions persists, and there are more than one group and/or foundation who seek to use them as figureheads. Richardson used white lions in his movie White Lion (then continued to use those white lions for his own purposes). Many books touting the myths of the sacred white lion can be found through a simple Google search, and many of them urge readers to help “preserve” this fictionalized species of lion. Now Richardson has endeavored to make a second feature length film, Mia And The White Lion, showcasing another mythical white lion–and the white lions used in that production are already living at his sanctuary where he’s already using their images to sell products and raise money.

Similarly, Drew Abrahamson of the Captured In Africa Foundation, has quite a lot to gain from the media attention and world-wide focus being enjoyed by a white lion she has, by her own words, known since he was a young cub. After all, Abrahamson describes herself as “being involved with various initiatives and organizations” including “fundraising for Sanwild Wildlife Sanctuary”. Huh, imagine that. Sanwild Wildlife Sanctuary is the very sanctuary who has been mentioned only once via a public article, as being the probable future home of Mufasa the white lion. The same white lion lion Drew has been involved with since he was a cub in 2016. Well, that’s awful convenient, isn’t it? And rumors are going around that Abrahamson would like to expand her largely self-promoted reputation outside of South Africa. Single-handedly facilitating the “rescue” of the now-world famous Mufasa The White Lion would be quite the feather in her cap wouldn’t it? Organizations in countries other than SA would probably line up to hire Abrahamson to talk about herself then, wouldn’t they? No conflict of interest there...

Whoever winds up with Mufasa the mythical white lion (and make no mistake, if Mufasa ever was in any real danger, he most certainly is well clear of that now, what with literally millions of internet users sharing his story tens of thousands of times and growing) is going to have the equivalent of a public relations’ wet dream. A gorgeous, mythical male white lion, snatched from the proverbial jaws of the canned hunting industry by an adoring public who chose to stand up against the darkness in a show of solidarity against those who would decimate the dwindling numbers of magical white lions in the name of greed and profit.

Oh, the drama of it all!

Too bad none of the people involved, from the internet masses, to those like Drew who have been involved the entire time, and have just remained mum about their involvement, to the passionate, but largely ignorant celebrities like Gervais, and Crowe (so eager to tweet and retweet, but not taking the time to ask important questions first) don’t feel the same way about plain old boring tawny lions. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If boring old tawny lions were treasured even half so much as largely captive-created mythical white lions are, we wouldn’t be sitting here speculating on what Foundation, or movement is going to wind up using Mufasa’s noble white lion visage as the face for their project, or cause, or coalition, or whatever they decide to call it. We wouldn’t be waiting to see who ends up using Mufasa the white lion as a figurehead for their efforts or causes, using his name and story as leverage to further their own ends by drawing in the public’s adoration and fanatical devotion.

We don’t know who will eventually benefit from being able to say they hold guardianship over the world famous, mythical Mufasa The White Lion.

We don’t know who will step forward to hoist Mufasa The White Lion up as a figurehead, leveraging his internet stardom to bolster their own agendas.

We don’t know exactly how the melodrama of the mystical Mufasa The White Lion will eventually play out.

But what we do know, is that white lions and the carefully cultivated mythos surrounding them sells. The only question is who’s going to end up selling Mufasa’s image for their own use?

And with November now packed with White Lion Drama pertaining to the valiant “rescue” of Mufasa the White Lion from the clutches of Canned Hunters, it’s setting up the December release of the feature length film Mia And The White Lion which just happens to be about a White Lion at risk of falling into the clutches of Canned Hunters, to bring in a tidy sum of profits. Because, you know, the entire internet world is going to be pumped and primed with save the mythical White Lion fever just in time to go drop a dime watching the heart-wrenching theatrical drama of a girl trying to save her mythical White Lion friend from being killed by canned hunters, just like the real-life Mufasa was saved from canned hunters.

Whether or not this is a coincidence of mythically convenient proportions (see what we did there?) we don’t know.

But what we do know, is that mythical white lions sure do sell. And someone in South Africa, some group, or Foundation, or cause, is about to cash in huge, where Mufasa The White Lion is concerned.

*** ADDENDUM***

Because of the controversy this article has inspired, CWW has chosen to add this update in order to make our position on several points regarding Mufasa explicitly clear. This article was not written in any attempt (as has been suggested in some cases) to prevent Mufasa from being rescued from auction. Whether or not Mufasa is sent to auction, or allowed to be moved to a sanctuary is a LEGAL MATTER which will be decided by the courts in South Africa. This is not something CWW has any influence over. If we did, we would be influencing those courts to pass legislation which bans canned hunting and the breeding of lions in captivity.

The purpose of this article was to raise questions as to how the case of Mufasa is being handled by those who wish to secure his safety, because right now there remain many unanswered questions which needed to be asked. As of the addition of this addendum, Carel Zietsman, who has named himself as the lawyer working on Mufasa’s case, and as the person in charge of putting him in the public spotlight, has not formally engaged with CWW. He did, however, post a lengthy explanation of the “timeline” regarding Mufasa, in a public Mufasa Facebook group. This post was made after his attempted to get us to sign off on a joint statement with him via an individual he believed to be one of our members, that effort having been made outside professional channels and having been declined by us. In his explanation in the Mufasa Facebook group, Zietsman still failed to answer the questions we posed in this article, but he did highlight one of the main concerns CWW has which provoked the writing of the article to begin with.

After recapping the death of Cecil the lion, in his post, Zietsman went on to say:

“I decided that there was no way that we were going to read about a white lion named Mufasa being hunted and then we have this post mortem Facebook outcry. I was going to make him famous. After I was done with him, he would be such a household name that no trophy hunter in his right mind would come closer than a country width from him.”

There are several glaring issues with taking this approach the rescue of an animal. Firstly, it should be noted that there would not have been any sort of “Facebook outcry” in response to Mufasa’s death before now because until Carel chose to make Mufasa a household name, no one knew he existed, whereas Cecil was already a famous fixture in Hwange National Park at the time of his killing. Mufasa, known or not, does not deserve to be killed as a trophy (neither do the hundreds of tawny lions killed each year) However, the fact remains that Mufasa’s death would not have created an uproar before Carel chose to “make him famous” and turn him into “a household name”. Secondly, and this is the more poignant issue, the argument that making Mufasa a famous household name would indelibly protect him from trophy hunters is patently flawed.

Cecil (lion) Xanda (lion, Cecil’s son) Skye (lion) Wolf 527 (wolf) O-Six (wolf 832F) White Alpha (wolf) Big Brown (wolf 778M) Scarface (No. 211, grizzly) Pedals (black bear) Albin (moose) Ferdinand (moose) Bullwinkle (elk) Spirit Moose of the Mi’kmaq (moose) Emperor of the Exmoor (red stag)

All of these animals were famous. All of these animals were celebrities, and some of them were known worldwide. And that celebrity status did nothing to prevent them from being killed, legally, or illegally. Carel himself went on to acknowledge that by creating this media frenzy, he was also endangering Mufasa.

“But I created a problem as well.” Carel admitted in his post, explaining why the proposed sanctuary where Mufasa will (hopefully) be sent must remain secret. After pointing out the problem of paparazzis trying to take photos of the lion if they’re lucky, he went on to add that “If we are unlucky some stupid with a shotgun may want to rid the earth of the scourge of man eaters.”

These conflicting statements underscore one of the issues CWW has with the way that Mufasa is being presented and his situation handled. Carel first states that he wanted to make Mufasa so famous that no hunter would come near him, but then just a few sentences later, Carel states that because Mufasa is famous, his location must remain secret as someone may try to shoot him due to his notoriety.

And that brings us to another ethical issue CWW has with all of this. If you create a market for celebrity animals by sensationalizing them and their rescue, you are still turning them into a commodity. Those supporting the attention Mufasa is getting maintain that by making him famous, they can bring awareness about canned hunting to the world. They’re giving Mufasa value as a celebrity figure, and thus commodifying him. It pays to be famous.

But Blood Lions has been, and remains, the largest, most established, and greatest advocate for the anti-canned hunting movement, and they became the central voice of that anti-canned hunting movement without exploiting the animals they’re endeavoring to save.

The exploitation of an animal in the name of raising awareness about how people should stop exploiting animals is an issue CWW has covered at length. It’s the theory on which every exploiter we discuss has founded their individual existences. Kevin Richardson handles his lions to raise awareness about canned hunting. Eduardo Serio handles his animals to raise awareness about not keeping them as pets. The Real Tarzann, Doc Antle, and so on and so forth, all of these people have turned their animals into commodities used to supposedly stop animals from being turned into commodities. But the truth is that they’ve simply turned those animals into a commodity that is tastier for human consumption. It’s easy to feel good about doing something you know is wrong, if you can say you’re doing it for the right reasons. That does not, however, make whatever you’re doing less wrong.

There are numerous foundations which do not seek out headliner stories, or fame and fortune, or direct animal interaction, but who do tirelessly rescue, rehab and offer safe and lasting homes for those animals in their care. The Wild Animal Sanctuary, Drakenstein, Four Paws, Lions Rock. These and more have established themselves as entities devoted to saving animals, public education and raising awareness, without capitalizing on, or commodifying, those animals. If one is willing to exploit an animal in the name of saving it, or “raising awareness” about it, where does one then draw the line defining how much or what kind of exploitation is, or is not, acceptable?

As we said in the original article, Mufasa’s saga, and the intentionally cultivated hyper-sensationalism of it, stands to net those involved with his rescue a huge amount of press and prestige (along with security nightmares, regarding Mufasa’s safety) but the question is, did Mufasa need to become world famous in order to be rescued? Groups like TWAS and others mentioned manage to wage a savage war against animal cruelty and exploitation both in and out of court without turning the animals they’re fighting for into worldwide celebrities. There remains a sharply defined division within the conservation world, between rescue organizations and sanctuaries who strive to help animals and educate the public without seeking fame and public adoration, and those rescue organizations and sanctuaries who thrive off of news coverage, and public praise, and who use that coverage and attention just to function. The former respect the animals for what they are, preserving the agency of those animals as they work to affect changes that will protect them in the future, while the latter commodifies the animals they rescue, using them as as tools and figureheads in the pursuance of their endeavors.

That difference is key. This is why CWW was first moved to write the above article. We had fair and reasonable questions as to why Mufasa’s situation was being turned into a media blitz with few concise facts and several concerning inconsitencies. These questions remain unanswered for now. Eventually, Mufasa’s saga will play out, and when that occurs, we will then be provided a better view of the mechanisms involved with his case. Will he and Soraya be afforded the peaceful lifelong home they deserve? Or will they become simply the headliner for whatever sanctuary (be it an existing one, or a newly founded one, since there is mention of new enclosures being built) ends up taking on the role of protecting them? Only time will tell.

Ambiguous Ambitions

Ambiguous Ambitions

CWW was recently directed to a post on the BrightVibes UK facebook page, which is devoted to “countering the negative” with inspiring, feel good stories. They shared short video ad for Kevin Richardson’s current #LandForLions campaign.

The caption of their post reads:

“Kevin Richardson a.k.a. the Lion Whisperer has launched #LandForLions, a campaign that aims to secure a future for some of Africa’s most endangered species. Will you join his fight?”

Beneath the post (which at the time of writing this is less than 24hrs old, and has already been shared almost a thousand times) BrightVibes UK links to the Thundafund campaign Richardson is using to raise money. Like so many others, BrightVibes UK does not seem to understand that the campaign Richardson is currently running is not going to secure any future for Africa’s beleaguered wild lions. But then misunderstanding seems to be the entire point of Richardson’s current campaign. The ambiguity of his advertising for it is as glaringly obvious to anyone with a grasp of marketing and conservation as it is seemingly invisible to the largely ignorant public.

Let’s take a moment to “unpack”–as information-minded young folks love to say these days–the video made by Richardson, and shared by BrightVibes UK.

We open with the proclamation that Richardson has an ambiguous ambitious plan to save Africa’s most vulnerable species. But right off the bat, it doesn’t specify that his plan involves saving wild populations of those species. Details like this matter. Ask any lawyer.

*Insert some adorable clips of Richardson playing with/petting/wrestling with his pet captive lions.*

We then move to the dramatic announcement that lions have lost 90% of their former range and by 2050 there won’t be anymore wild lions. The idea that 90% of lion habitat has been lost might shock the general public, but it’s not worthy of a raised brow for conservationists. Heck, lions have 10% whole percent left of their original habitat! They’re high rollers in the world of wildlife. Tigers (globally, across subspecies) have lost 98% of their former range. American Bison have lost 99% percent of their former range, American Gray Wolves are at 90% beside lions, but the Mexican Red Wolf has said goodbye to 99.7% of its former range. And on it goes. These trends are tragic, but average, yet Richardson wields the numbers as if they’re a sudden trauma. Then he tosses out 2050 as the year when wild lions will disappear. In the past, Richardson stated that 2030 would be the year wild lions disappeared. He apparently just chooses a year without ever citing the documentation from which such forecasts were derived. It’s also important to note that the few truly wild, unmanaged lions, remaining in Africa live within the areas of massive parks such as Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Kruger National Park, Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, etc. not on unclaimed lands that might be suddenly taken from them.

We then get told that The Kevin Richardson Foundation is raising money to buy #LandForLions “Ensuring that they’ll always have a place to live. Safe from poachers and expansion.” But what lions are we talking about here? The lions being shown to viewers in the video or Richardson’s privately owned, trained for TV and movies lions, not wild lions in wild areas. Again, Richardson carefully does not specify which lions he’s ensuring will always have a place to live.

Then Richardson informs us that he’s been fighting for “these” lions for many many years. Okay, Kev, but which lions? Fighting for your lions? The ones you’ve been using to make commercials, fashion ads, and movies? Or wild ones, which you can’t exploit?

Next up is the fact that for two decades Richardson has been working with hyenas, lions and leopards. Yes, he has. He’s been using them for commercial ventures since the very beginning. This information is followed by the statement that Richardson has been “sharing his knowledge to raise awareness of their fight against extinction.” To quote a famous movie, that’s not entirely accurate, Mr. President. Richardson has made tv shows about lions versus hyenas, about his interactions with his captive lions, about what it’s like to make movies with lions, about moving his own animals from his own failed tourist venture park to the land where they now live. But Richardson’s “knowledge” is finitely limited to the captive lives, of his own captive lions. What he presents as “facts” about wild lion behavior are derived from his observation of human-habituated, captive bred and captive raised lions. It should also be noted that even now Richardson supporters regularly comment on CWW’s articles regarding him and his actions claiming that Richardson has “never claimed” that what he does is conservation work, and that Richardson’s commercial exploits are merely how he raises money to care for his own animals. In his own autobiography (even the new, updated one) Richardson states the same thing, saying that he does not consider himself a conservationist. So why is Richardson now claiming that he’s been sharing his knowledge for years in order to raise awareness about wild issues?

Next up, Richardson feigns humility by saying how fortunate he is to have been “put on a platform” where he can “be a voice for lions”. Of course Richardson is on a platform. He built that platform himself, and climbed up on it. He’s been sitting on it for twenty years, continuing to build it on the backs of captive lions. And we’re right back to the question of which lions he’s being a voice for? Wild lions? Or the ones this video is showing him playing with, and cuddling?

And here’s the ad part of the video. Viewers are urged to donate to #LandForLions if they want to help Kevin “protect the lions”. Again, like a broken record, which lions are we helping? Seriously, it’s important. Are viewers donating money which will be used to protect wild lions? Or are they giving money to a wealthy guy to spend on his pet captive lions?

This is followed by the promise that “together we can secure a future for Africa’s most endangered species”. Only we don’t know that the money we’re giving is doing to endangered wild lions. Richardson has never specified this point, instead leaving it open for interpretation. He’s talking about wild lions, but showing himself playing with his captive lions. Every lion in the video was captive-bred, captive-born, hand-raised and trained by Kevin.

We’re left with the inspirational suggestion to “be the change” also, of course, to share the video.

The ambiguity of the entire video would be laughable if it wasn’t being spread far and wide under the guise of saving Africa’s wild lions. One of the first things we counsel would-be donators or supporters to do is to vet out whatever project or foundation they’re interested in. Does the project have clear goals? Outlined expectations? Appropriate timelines? Transparent methods, and projected paths for attaining the stated goals? Is there an open dialogue about where the money will go, what it will be spent on and how that spending will benefit the goals? Are there protocols involved which will hold the project or foundation accountable for the distribution and management of the donations?

None of these factors are concisely addressed in Richardson’s #LandForLions campaign video. Not one. Instead, we get a mishmash of wild lion facts, and promises to “secure the future” of unspecified lions overlaying videos of Richardson playing with his hand-raised captive lions.

When one follows the link to the Thundafund campaign, only then (beneath yet another statement about the loss of wild lion habitat) will prospective donors see that their money will be used for “securing land for the sanctuary lions that have helped build a worldwide network of advocates for lions.”

In other words, donors are paying for land to house the lions that Richardson helped breed in captivity, back at Lion Safari Park, and which he’s used for two decades to make for-profit movies, tv shows, fashion and accessory ads (like the watch advert in our headline photo) GoPro videos, The lions which he’s hired out to use in other people’s movies. The lions which have been making Richardson money for two decades, and which fans of the Lion Whisperer insist Richardson pimps out merely to make enough money to care for them. The lions which volunteers pay thousands of dollars a week each year to take care of. Those lions.

Hence the ambiguity of Richardson’s “ambitions”. By not specifying which lions Richardson is going to spend money on, he’s able to use wild lion facts, and needs to raise money which is actually going to captive lions he exploits at leisure. It’s a tried and true switcharoo. And since Richardson is expanding his stable of trained pet captive lions with the addition of lions bought and used for the making of Mia And The White Lion, there’s going to be sanctuary lions for him to play with can have public to ooh and aaah over for years to come. It’s a very good marketing strategy, but we can’t say it has anything to do with the conservation of Africa’s wild lions.

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

CWW has posted multiple times in regard to Kevin Richardson’s involvement in the upcoming movie Mia And The White Lion. Our information has been met with a gamut of responses, from alarm and dismay at finding that Richardson is not the person people once believed him to be, to outright rejection of the verified facts we’ve provided. Accepting the understanding that a figurehead as immensely popular as someone like the “Lion Whisperer” is just that, a figurehead, not an actual hero, is not easy. No one enjoys finding out that they’ve been duped, no one wants to discover that their goodwill, and their trust, has been abused.

One more fact about Mia And The White Lion (MTWL) which might shock readers is that this is the second feature length film made off the backs of exploited lions made using lions managed by Kevin Richardson. MTWL is currently being touted in its press blurbs as “ambitious” and the story described as unique, and captivating because real lions, rather than CGI (which ethical film companies now use) were used in the making of the movie.

But the truth is that MTWL is nothing more than an old trope wrapped up in new publicity, and presented to a new audience.

Ten years ago, the movie White Lion was released. The film came on the heels of the publication of Kevin Richardson’s biography “Part of the Pride” which allowed the two to evoke support for each other, stirring up interest and excitement. It was a grand marketing scheme. Richardson’s biography (despite being disjointedly written, and largely self-serving) rode various best seller lists just like Richardson riding one of his lion “brothers” for the camera, while White Lion gathered three SAFTA awards.

Few viewers had/have any grasp of just how many lions were utilized in the making of White Lion, the majority of which were then used as breeders for the cub-petting industry, sold, or succumbed to unknown ends.

74 lions (about 25 white and the rest tawny) were used in the production of White Lion. The majority of these lions came from Rodney Fuhr’s Lion Park (where Richardson worked for over ten years) which regularly bred lions like cattle for the tourist industry (something Richardson actively participated in) as well as for sale to other breeding facilities. Although in the movie, and its related press, white lions are described as rare and mythical, the Lion Park had a hefty stock of them ready for use in production, and had been breeding them for some time.

When the planned star of White Lion, a lion named Letsatsi (also the name of the main character) had a mental breakdown, literally walking off set and evading capture until he was sedated and recaptured, Richardson was heartbroken undeterred (okay, he did remark on how his “relationship” with the mentally broken lion had soured). He and Fuhr eventually ended up renting a lion named Sphinx from another lion petting facility for the main character. Fuhr’s own Lion Park had bred Sphinx several years before, and Richardson had already habituated him to human interactions before he was sold to the other lion park.

After the filming of White Lion wrapped, Sphinx was hauled back to his own lion park where he lived happily ever after went on to sire more generations of captive lions for use in public interactions and cub-petting. Meanwhile Fuhr’s lions went back to living happily ever after doing the same. A handful of the 74 lions will be familiar to Richardson fans. Thor, Tau, Napoleon, Meg, Amy, Gandalf, etc. But the rest of the lions (those for which Richardson had no use) have been lost to time.

They only existed as what they were, a disposable commodity.

Only those lions with whom Richardson could work intimately, thus supporting his own mythos, were retained.

Now Richardson has procured another crop of white lions for another feature film about mystical white lions. With the film due to release December of this year, Richardson has already welcomed his new lions to his sanctuary.

Just how similar are White Lion, and Mia And The White Lion? Let’s examine them side by side.

White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by an adolescent boy

• Lion is rare, boy is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Lion and boy must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

• Movie was premiered and marketed at the Cannes Film Festival.

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

Filming White Lion

Mia And The White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by adolescent girl

• Lion is rare, girl is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Girl and lion must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

• Movie was premiered and marketed at the Cannes Film Festival.

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

Beautiful young girls, and adorable baby animals, always an easy sell.

White Lion was anticipated to sell well. Directors and producers said:”We’re very confident and I anticipate a very positive response from Cannes.” Articles described director Horowitz as being “very optimistic that this type of family entertainment will find a place in the international market.” He was quoted as saying “We believe White Lion has all the right ingredients and holds significant business for a distributor.”

Nothing says "holidays" like celebrating a white Christmas with a white lion.

Mia And The White Lion was also anticipated to sell well and has been described as a “family adventure film, shot over three years in South Africa, about a 13-year-old girl who develops a rare and special bond with a wild lion.” According to Studiocanal’s head of international sales “People love titles which are marvelously executed and have something really magic and unique,” she went on to say “We are realizing it has a huge potential for Christmas for holidays for families.”

From White Lion’s About page:

The picture is the long-time dream of one of the owners of the Johannesburg Lion Park, Rodney Fuhr. Fuhr independently funded the movie, and filming was approached in a fairly unconventional manner.

Richardson recalled, “WHITE LION has been a long time coming and was Rodney’s vision, dating back to the early eighties. For me, the beauty of this film is its reality component and inherent simplicity...” And “although WHITE LION is a fictional feature film, and we have taken license on some issues, it is not beyond the scope of what could take place in the wild.”

“In recent times, films of this nature, which are basically fictional animal films, have enjoyed great success,” observed Director/Cinematographer Michael Swan. “March of the Penguins is a good example of this, and our movie is very much of the same cloth, although not a documentary. WHITE LION also has a parallel human element, which is complimentary to the lions.

“It’s a film for all age groups,” said Richardson, “with every ingredient to be a runaway hit. And the cubs will pull at the heart strings of the most seasoned moviegoer.”

“Simple films, such as this, are rarely made anymore, yet these are the films we adored as children,”

From Mia And The White Lion’s Pages:

Director de Maistre said“It became obvious to me that I had to make a film about the subject: to imagine the life of a child who creates a powerful bond with a lion and then discovers the unbearable truth! A beautiful idea: a real lion, a real child, their highly intimate bond emphasized and celebrated in order to carry a message supporting wildlife preservation.”

He continued “I spoke to Kevin about it, and even if he was very excited about the concept, he immediately pointed out to me all of the obstacles in making such a film around this idea. Creating a real bond with a wild animal would take a great deal of time and required close contact with the animal from the moment it was born.”

It was thus necessary to imagine a totally unknown filming concept.

“We spoke for days on end and established together a methodology to make my filmmaker’s dream come true. A film shoot that would last 3 years, the time necessary for a lion cub to become an adult, so that the child actor could develop and incorporate Kevin’s know-how, and build his or her own natural bond with the lion.”

This methodology also allows for unique shots and impromptu scenes, usually impossible to obtain on a classic film shoot. Furthermore, this process will allow the child and the lion to develop an exceptional bond which will strengthen the fiction and allow for an inimitable sincerity.

To Recap:

Both films portray the same ideas, the same stories, were made in the same shooting time (3-4 years) Both films are advertised as being unique and unconventional, and both claim to have been made via unconventional filming methods. Both films state clearly that they are fiction, both were made using captive bred and trained lions, but both insist that the intention is to portray “real” things. Both movies were/are being marketed as family movies, with the fact that real lions, not CGI, or other special effects, used as a selling point. This is in sharp contrast to assertions that both movies also claim to teach people that lions should never be exploited by humans. Both movies were made using lions which were bred by lion farms/parks which bred cubs factory-style for the purpose of cub-petting.

Supporters of Richardson have repeatedly insisted to us that the “message” about protecting lions contained in Mia And The White Lion will be important enough to overlook the fact that lions were exploited in order to make it.

We wonder if they also believe that the “message” about protecting lions contained in White Lion was important enough to overlook the fact that lions were exploited in order to make it?

And the next time Richardson decides to buy more lions in order to make more feature length fictional family films, will the “message” about protecting lions contained within those films also be important enough to overlook the fact that lions were exploited in order to make it?

At what point will the LIONS–not fictionally portrayed messages about them–become the most important thing?

Conservation, or CONservation?

Conservation, or CONservation?

Watchdog had intended, in the near future, to write a followup regarding the ominously quiet, but ongoing investigation into the fatal mauling that occurred at famed “Lion Whisperer” Kevin Richardson’s sanctuary. However, after we were tagged in several posts today by commenters drawing our attention to an outdated blog post which is now being shared around, we decided that the subject matter of this newly-shared, five year old blog post, needs to be addressed immediately.

In the last few weeks, Richardson fans have found themselves in a quandary, as far as their beloved “Lion Whisperer” goes. For better than a decade, it seems that they simply didn’t believe it would ever be possible for a Richardson lion to do something like fatally maul a human. (Her name, by the way, was Megan) Now that they’re faced with that very thing, we’ve seen every argument under the sun, from the utterly reprehensible suggestion that it was the innocent victim, Megan’s, own fault (an idea carefully planted by Richardson himself in his only public statement on the incident) to the suggestion that “it’s not the time to discuss whether it’s right or wrong” for Richardson to handle his animals (even though Kevin’s handling of his animals is, and we can’t stress this enough, literally the *only* reason a lion was in the area to fatally maul Megan in the first place) to the newest, and possibly strangest defense of Richardson yet.

And just what is this most recent defense?

That “Kevin does not pretend that caring for his small pride has anything to do with conservation.”

No, you didn’t misread that. The blog post (which, again, is five years old) being shared by Richardson fans posits that Richardson himself does not pretend that caring for his lions has anything to do with conservation.

Frankly, this one quoted sentence is the only sentence from the entire post that can be construed as pertaining to Richardson’s current situation, or the articles that question Richardson’s practices which Watchdog has recently published. The rest of the blog post is merely a (unpretentiously biased toward Richardson) side-by-side comparison of Richardson and cub-petting farms in South Africa, which has literally nothing to do with the argument of whether or not it’s acceptable for Richardson to handle his lions.

But back to the assertion that Richardson himself does not pretend that caring for his lions has anything to do with conservation….

Apologies, we got distracted laughing. Where did we leave off? Oh, yes, the assertion that Kevin Richardson, the “Lion Whisperer” of worldwide fame, Richardson, who is:

The star of numerous documentaries about conservation

http://www.lionwhisperer.co.za/feature-film.php

The author of a book

https://www.amazon.com/Part-Pride-Life-Among-Africa/dp/031255673X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521867898&sr=8-1&keywords=part+of+the+pride

The guest speaker at numerous events, with the conservation of lions as his main topic

https://www.bigspeak.com/speakers/kevin-richardson/

http://www.alioncalledchristian.com.au/ace-bourke-with-kevin-richardson-the-lion-whisperer-in-sydney-june-2015/

http://www.painteddogconservation.iinet.net.au/news.html

https://www.craghoppers.com/community/ambassadors/kevin-richardson

https://www.zeitgeistminds.com/talk/4930110146740224/the-art-of-living-with-lions-kevin-richardson

The focus of multiple articles put out by entities like The Smithsonian Institute which suggest that Richardson can teach us about “ethical conservation”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-makes-lion-whisperer-roar-180955290/

https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/animals-pets/kevin-richardson-the-lion-whisperer

And whose own website has an entire page dedicated to “conservation”

http://www.lionwhisperer.co.za/conservation.php

does not, in fact, “pretend” that what he does with his own lions has “anything to do with conservation”.

At least not according to this latest attempt to defend Richardson. Honestly, with fans like this defending him, Richardson would be safer coming to hang out with those of us who are questioning his ethics and behavior. Because this defense is literally suggesting that *everything* Richardson has done and said for conservation utilizing his own lions, and the persona he’s built on their backs, has been an intentional lie to the public.

What makes this new suggestion even more mind boggling, is the fact that for years, pro-Richardson folks–some of them conservationists themselves–have been using Richardson’s “raising awareness for conservation” as the primary excuse as to why it’s okay for him to play with his lions. In fact, just last year (after several pro-Richardson folks got their panties in a wad during a couple of no-hold-barred Facebook posts) one pro-Richardson gentleman wrote an exceptionally long article that basically called out Watchdog, and other anti-Richardson folks (without actually using our name, because, you know, official denial, and all that) and explained “What big cats need from US activists” (the author apparently assumed Watchdog was US based. We’re not. We have members all over the world)

In this article, the author says that while *most* hands-on techniques are damaging to the animals involved, Richardson’s aren’t, and that hands-on conservation “works” in South Africa because,

“Kevin is using the technique to demonstrate to the people of South Africa that lions are not the ferocious beasts that they have grown to fear through human-wildlife conflict.”

We wonder how that angle is working for the author now that one of Richardson’s non-ferocious beasts has fatally mauled one of the people of South Africa who he’s supposedly teaching not to fear lions.

But then, according to that article, the real problem is that we don’t understand what a “wicked complex” problem conservation is, so we don’t understand why Richardson’s hands-on techniques work in South Africa. Or maybe we’re not poor enough to understand... It was a confusing article. You’re welcome to read it here. Be ye forewarned, though, it’s a painful amount of rambling mixed with blatant and offensive condescension directed at the reader.

The point is, that article, along with the others we’ve linked to in this note reference the fact that supposedly everything Kevin Richardson does with his lions, from the films made using them, to the various speaking engagements, the government lobbying done by Richardson, the movies made by Richardson, and so on and so forth, has been done/said/made/engaged in, for the sole purpose of raising awareness about conservation, and the issue of canned hunting, including the fact that canned hunting does not help conservation.

In recent years:

We’ve asked how handling lions can teach the public to not touch lions:

*Richardson supporters explain that he’s raising awareness about the plight of lions, and their conservation, and lion farms.

We’ve pointed out that Richardson bought a number of his lions from a lion farm:

*Richardson supporters explain that he “rescued his lions” and is using them to show the public that canned hunting is bad and doesn’t help conservation.

We’ve questioned the fact that others will want to act like Richardson, and will visit lion farms and walking with lion tours:

*Richardson supporters explain that he’s not responsible for people who mistakenly think it’s a good idea to do the things he does in all his videos and shows, and that he’s raising awareness about ethical conservation.

We’ve mused that Richardson is making quite a bit of money through his commercial endeavors, which capitalize off his interactions with his lions, and that he makes thousands of dollars off the “volunteers” who eagerly pay to come work at his sanctuary (and, if they’re lucky, walk with, and hand feed the lions):

*Richardson fans suggest that we’re jealous of Richardson’s success, and explain that volunteers are learning all about “real” conservation in South Africa, and that the money goes to support Richardson’s lions, and conservation.

We’ve suggested that it’s dangerous for Richardson to handle his lions, because it’s the lions that will suffer if anyone gets hurt:

*Richardson supporters inform us that we don’t understand the level of Richardson’s bond with his lions, and that he’s “one of the pride” and teaching the public about lion conservation.

One of Richardson’s lions does, in fact, kill an innocent bystander, who was visiting Richardson’s own sanctuary, and was in a designated area where she was supposedly safe:

*Richardson supporters accuse us of “exploiting the situation” to “trash-talk” Richardson, and go on to claim that, Richardson has never “pretended” that what he does has “anything to do with conservation”.

So we’re right back to the question,

Does Kevin Richardson truly act in the name of conservation, or merely make money under the guise of it?

We know where we stand on this matter, but what about you?

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

Virtually everyone has seen Matthew McConaughey's bizarre and sometimes completely pointless Lincoln commercials. They’ve been fodder for SNL, and a plethora of memes, and online jokes. And yet, sales of Lincoln vehicles leapt 25% instantly upon the release of McConaughey’s first commercial for them, and their sales rates have continued to climb. This, in a nutshell, is the entire purpose behind celebrity endorsements: to boost sales, and public awareness of a product. It’s kind of a big thing. Big enough that the Federal Trade Commission has outlines regarding it, including nonprofits who used celebrities to advertise themselves. (Of course, it’s trickier for the US FTC to exert any sway over a nonprofit in another country like, say *ahem* Mexico).

If you were purchasing a vehicle, however, you wouldn’t buy one simply because you saw Matthew McConaughey advertise it. After all, McConaughey is an actor, not a professional mechanic, or engineer. You’d look up professionally published reports on Lincoln cars, crash tests, mileage tests, you’d check consumer reports, and probably look up actual feedback from owners of Lincoln vehicles.

The public adores celebrities, and when those celebrities tout a product, or Instagram a clothing designer, or other “little person” it creates what’s called “Buzz Marketing”. This “buzz” generates a huge amount of attention for whatever, or whoever, is being discussed, or posted about. Instagram is currently the leader in 'buzz marketing” with established celebrities getting as much as $300,000.00 per post where a product is named. But, that said, Kim Kardashian listing what she takes to alleviate morning sickness does not make her a medical expert. Cristiano Ronaldo’s posts about TAG Heuer doesn’t make him a watch craftsmen. And Kylie Jenner’s posts touting Puma’s Fierce Trainer does not, in fact, make Jenner a fitness expert.

But here’s where the disconnect comes in.

While the public would never declare any of the celebrities mentioned here as “experts” in the fields of industry from whence the products they’re selling come, that same public looks at Paris Hilton smothering a week-old tiger cub with kisses, and instantly declares the place behind that interaction–Black Jaguar White Tiger–the bestest most amazing and perfect sanctuary in the world, and they declare Eduardo Serio the smartest big cat expert on the planet. Because, you know, Paris Hilton said so! Eduardo Serio claims to have very few “celebrities” visit BJWT, but the fact is, dozens and dozens of celebrities from all across the public arena have gone to BJWT, played with the never-ending stream of “rescued” big cat cubs, and subsequently posted those exploits all over their social media accounts creating, you guessed it, “buzz marketing” for BJWT.

Absurdly, and perversely, Serio himself, has repeatedly used the popularity of BJWT as a foil for the fact that the foundation has no actual basis of expertise or functional knowledge of big cat biology, or husbandry. In Eddie’s own words (paraphrased) “With 5 million friends, how can we not be experts?” Really? That’s like saying “With 10,000 miles of driving experience, how can I not be a Formula 1 driver?” Well, honey, because you’ve never been trained to drive a race car.

But having a big mouth, and lots of celebrity friends (let’s not forget, many of these celebrities were Serio’s neighbors and party-buddies back in old LA) does not make you an expert on something you’ve never received even remedial training in. Serio continues to flaunt his own ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge on a daily basis. In just the last week, he’s posted a photo of himself “wearing” a highly endangered species of bird, in a house, on his head, like an avant garde hat. He’s posted another specimen of the same species–which he claims to single-handedly be bringing back from the brink of extinction–in his personal closet, along with a lion cub. Because, you know, endangered birds, and lion cubs, no way that could go wrong and end in injury to the highly endangered bird. Then just today, he posted a video of himself, in his bathrobe, no less, improperly bottle feeding a lion cub. You’d think that three years of aspiration induced pneumonia, some cases of which have resulted in death of the cubs, would have taught him the hard way to just lay the cubs on their stomach–like every big cat husbandry guideline states should be done–but nope. Dear old Papa Bear is going to just keep doing it his way. Pneumonia and all.

Which brings us back to celebrity endorsements.

If you wouldn’t buy a car just because you saw a celebrity advertising it, why would you support a group that promotes keeping wild animals as pets just because you saw a celebrity visit and treat the cats like pets?

Seriously, think about it. Then do a few Google searches looking for BJWT endorsements from anyone who qualifies as a bonafide big cat expert in the conservation industry. You won’t find any, because no established big cat expert will ever endorse what Eddie’s doing. Hell, even Kevin Richardson, the famed Lion Whisperer, won’t support BJWT, despite that Serio has publicly cited Kevin as his inspiration. So we’re right back to McConaughey selling us Lincoln cars. The question is, are you going to research your vehicle? Or buy it because you saw McConaughey drive it?