Media Misnomers

Photo by Bank Phrom on Unsplash

How Reporting (Or Lack Thereof) Shapes Public Opinion

In the last 24hrs there’s been quite a dramatic (and growing) public reaction to several photos which were posted on Prince Harry’s official Instagram page. This Note is neither defending or criticizing Prince Harry. Rather, this Note is intended to showcase how the media can, and does, create hyperboles that sway a public who loves to join the proverbial dog pile–be it in criticism of something or support of it–without objectively examining the subject matter beforehand.

Case in point, the “edited” photos posted by Prince Harry who, according to a rather scathing article from the Daily Mail which has now gone viral, “notably avoided explaining the circumstances in which the images were taken”. From the tone of the Daily Mail’s article, titled “Drugged and tethered... what Prince Harry didn’t tell you about those awe-inspiring wildlife photos in Malawi” it’s clear that the Daily Mail feels Prince Harry lied to his fans and supporters by not explaining that he was able to take the impressive photos while the animals shown were under sedation.

As per the Daily Mail article, Prince Harry’s photos have been edited, and “don’t quite tell the full story.”

On Facebook, and other social media platforms the outrage over a privileged Royal taking advantage of a situation and misleading the public and their fans by showing them only the animals, and not the fact that those animals were actually tranquilized and in the case of the elephant, ropes were being employed to help control the eventual collapse of the sedated animal, which was in the process of being moved to another protected location.

How dare Prince Harry intentionally misrepresent the truth to his fans!

Another article from Yahoo News contends that a “simple crop masking” the “cruel reality” behind what led up to the photos, shows that the truth was intentionally hidden from followers of the Royal’s Instagram account. This article actually portrays the situation as though the animals were tranquilized and, in the case of the elephant, bound for no reason other than to allow Prince Harry to get close to them and take the photos which “left many royal watchers enthralled at the prince’s brave proximity to the imposing animal.”

THE REALITY:

The photos taken by Prince Harry, and posted to the Sussex Royal Instagram account which show an elephant and rhino, were snapped during the tranquilization and relocation of those animals. This was a necessary procedure, overseen by trained veterinarians, and experts. An animal going down under sedation can be terrifying, and horrifying to someone who’s never seen it. We all love to laugh at those “coming out of sedation” videos showing people trying, and failing, to get into cars, or sit in chairs after minor surgical procedures. But imagine if those people were animals weighing several tons, who didn’t speak your language and didn’t understand what was happening to them. There is a “twilight” period between full wakefulness and full sedation, in which motor functions are breaking down, or just returning, but cognizance hasn’t entirely faded, or entirely returned. During this period animals might stagger, and begin to fall, then try to catch themselves. Veterinarians monitor the sedated animals closely, and whenever possible, they do whatever they can in order to assure that the animals lay down as gently as possible, without causing undue trauma to themselves, or if they’re waking, that they stay on the ground until they’re fully awake and capable of moving again.

In the formerly famous, now-becoming-infamous uncropped photo of the “tethered” elephant, viewers can clearly discern that the elephant’s weight is shifted back onto its haunches, and the rope which has been given such evil connotations (but which in reality would create little, if any barrier to an un-sedated adult elephant) is helping prevent the elephant from moving forward.

Photo Credit, Prince Harry

The scrub wearing individual shown is applying pressure to the elephant in order to encourage it to continue leaning to the rear. In a situation like this, a sedated elephant falling onto its face could cause immense damage to its tusks, breaking them, or splintering them at the root, or even impaling itself on them. If the elephant goes down hind-end first, it is a much safer situation, and it is much more likely to avoid causing itself harm.

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

Likewise, in the rhino photo, it’s clear that the animal’s legs are beginning to buckle, that its weight is being supported by the tree trunk. It might even have been steered toward this tree in order to achieve this result. With the tree under its head, the rhino’s haunches will go down first, assuring that it doesn’t smash face-first into the ground. And once its in a “sitting” position, it will flop over gently onto its side.

The public tends to react just as its currently reacting. With instantaneous outrage even though it doesn’t entirely understand what it’s being outraged over.

You rarely see uncut videos of wild animals coming out of sedation being posted for public viewing. Sometimes animals vocalize in disturbing ways, thrash, behave in highly unusual manners, etc. as they come out of tranquilization. This is completely normal, but it’s horrifying if you don’t understand what’s going on. For example, horses commonly have trouble “remembering how to breath” after being intubated and positioned on their back for surgery, and if this happens, vets will pounce on their prone sides with both knees in what seems a violent manner. In reality, the stimulation of forcing air from the horse’s lungs will cause it’s muscles to then contract and it will inhale, and regain a normal respiration rate. Other species have other pitfalls when it comes to sedation and transport. Images or videos showing such don’t sit well with the public so they aren’t something wild life experts toss out without considerable forethought. It’s also why many programs showing such procedures warn viewers that some of the images they see might be disturbing.

The animals in Prince Harry’s photos were not sedated so that Prince Harry could take photos of them. They were not detained solely for him to use as publicity shots. They were being tranquilized and relocated whether or not Prince Harry was present. He just had the opportunity to photograph them during the process.

What’s more–which is not mentioned in the articles criticizing Prince Harry’s photos (although the Yahoo article shows an image of it)–the images being derided were accompanied by a caption which addressed each one in turn, and which offered followers a brief explanation about what they were seeing. Although the blurb pertaining to the rhino shown does not specify that there’s any relocation process going on, the one pertaining to the elephant does specify that the elephant was part of a massive 500 elephant relocation event carried out by the African Parks Network, which by context alone informs viewers that there is human/elephant interaction occurring as part of a relocation process which would involve sedation, as these are wild animals.

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

But why let reality get in the way of your critical article lambasting a non-expert Prince for not telling the entire story about his photos to his Instagram followers?

Both articles plump up the sensational idea that Prince Harry intentionally cropped his photos to “hide the reality” of them from his fans and to create the idea that he’d intentionally gotten close to wild animals (which the Daily Mail article perversely suggests would be “thrilling”)

Both articles, whose authors presumably have a working grasp of how Instagram works, failed to acknowledge the fact that Instagram does require a square format, meaning that a rectangular photo will have to be cropped in some way, and instead, stressed the fact that Prince Harry’s representatives “refused to discuss the allegations” and instead “claimed” that the cropping had to do with Instagrams formatting. Their presentation intentionally portrays spokespersons as trying to shunt the blame onto a social media platform, without admitting that Instagram does require a rectangular image to be cropped. Whether or not the image could have been posted with the inclusion of the rope we don’t know, but we do know that part of the image did have to be cropped in order for it to be uploaded to Instagram. This isn’t a “claim” by Harry’s representatives, it’s just a fact.

Both articles fail to provide readers with a full and thorough explanation of what was going on–despite that the main premise for their publication is to call out Prince Harry for failing to explain the truth behind them. And both articles linked to here in our Note specifically showcase only two or three out of eight posted photos, even though the other photos don’t contain detailed background information either. We as viewers don’t know whether the photo of the Okavango was taken from shore, in a boat, while wading in the water etc. but it’s not being splashed across various news sites with headliners like “Drugged and tethered” or “Cruel reality”. We as viewers don’t know whether fire scorched trees shown were burned in a fire started by humans, but the image isn’t being called out for lacking a background or “reality” provided to the public. Was the photo of the Guyana forest taken from a plane? A cliff? A hang glider? Did Harry climb up into the canopy? We don’t know, and yet the lack of that information doesn’t seem to bother any of the news outlets which are calling Harry a liar for not explaining similar information about other photos included in the post.

And here’s the real shocker (read that sarcasm)

Both these articles also conveniently fail to own up to the hypocrisy of their host publishers when it comes to their self-righteous outrage at “staged” photographs the purveyors of which dared to not forthrightly explain the full background to viewers.

The Daily Mail has happily piled accolades atop photographer David Yarrow for his “breathtaking and powerful” photographs of “iconic creatures in their natural habitats” lavishing praise on Yarrow because he “spent time studying the beast’s behaviour to get the perfect shot.”

This is, at least in the case of some of the photos shown in the admiring Daily Mail articles, a complete lie. Yarrow had not spent time studying the behavior of the lions featured in the Dinokeng area. Those lions belong to Kevin Richardson. They were bred in captivity, hand raised by Richardson, and trained to respond to his instructions, be that walking down a certain trail toward Yarrow’s positioned camera, or leaping a creek in order to provide Yarrow with the perfect shot “that reveals the wonder of the animal kingdom as the king of beasts jumps over a stream.”

Photo credit David Yarrow. One of Richardson's trained lions performing for the camera.

In fact, the lioness gracing the cover of Yarrow’s book Wild Encounters, which is touted in another Daily Mail article isn’t a wild animal at all, but one of Kevin Richardson’s hand raised captive lions, whom the famed “Lion Whisperer” hires out to film movies, ads, and tv shows. It’s an animal trained to perform for positive reward from Richardson.

Cover of Yarrow's book, photo credit David Yarrow

Let’s not even get started on the fact that at least one image by Yarrow in the above shown book is of a captive, trained wolf strolling along a public bar top while actual patron’s fill the room.

Funny. In their articles lavishing praise on David Yarrow for his images of “wildlife”–which often portray captive, trained animals in staged scenarios, openly marketing those staged images as “wildlife in their natural habitat”–the Daily Mail didn’t think it was important to explain the “reality” behind those photographs to its readers. Yet it’s criticizing Prince Harry for not doing the same now.

Yahoo News, the host site for the second above-linked article, doesn’t seem to think it’s important to “tell the whole story” to viewers either. In this video spotlight about Yarrow, Yahoo News touts his photos as “striking images of wildlife on Chicago streets” without explaining to viewers that the “wildlife” is captive bred, hand raised animals trained to perform. Some of those same photos are included in Yarrow’s “Wild Encounters” book, highly acclaimed for portraying “wild animals in wild habitats” even though the animals shown aren’t wild at all.

In another photo article Yahoo News gushes over Clara Delevingne “posing topless next to a wild lion” when the lion in question is, in fact, a captive bred, hand raised, and trained lion belonging to Kevin Richardson, who hires out his lions for use in ad campaigns. The fact that the lion being used is captive bred, hand raised, and trained isn’t even mentioned when Cara refers to it as a “wild” animal. Considering that Yahoo News has now gravely taken it upon themselves to inform the public of “The cruel reality behind Prince Harry's wildlife photography” you’d think they’d explain to their readers that the “wild lion” described in their own article wasn’t actually wild. Just saying.

In a longer text article from 2015, Yahoo News praised Richardson for his special bond with his own lions while not bothering to explain to readers that those lions were bred for interaction and cub petting with the paying tourists who visited Lion Park, or that Richardson happily participated in these processes. Since Yahoo News claims that Prince Harry was obligated to inform his followers of the details behind his photos, isn’t Yahoo News obligated to inform readers of the details behind Richardson when their article is focused on him?

But then, the article Yahoo News put out pertaining to Richardson was capitalizing off Richardson’s interactions with his lions, and how special it was. To inform readers that he was participating in the cup petting industry would thwart his presence in the article as a special expert, someone who was somehow better than the tourists who wanted to experience the same interactions. Likewise, the Daily Mail’s articles regaling readers with the beauty of Yarrow’s (staged) photos wouldn’t have near the impact if they were open about the fact that the photos contained hand raised, trained animals, rather than wild animals in wild places.

Honesty, it seems, only matters to news sites like the Daily Mail and Yahoo News, when criticizing a Royal for a perceived lack of it will help create a viral story. But when being honest about something doesn’t serve their purpose, then honestly isn’t important at all. It’s unfortunate, then, that so much of the public will eagerly take these often-times intentionally misleading articles, designed to create a stir, rather than provide full and impartial information, at face value, and will allow such articles to shape their opinion of the subject matter involved. Prince Harry isn’t perfect, but he’s not an expert on wildlife, he’s just a privileged guy posting photos to an Instagram account.

If the new agencies, and the public public think that someone who isn’t directly involved with large scale conservation, and someone who isn’t an expert on big cats, elephants or rhinos should be obligated to provide detailed, and complete information about every wildlife photo he posts in the name of encouraging conservation and the protection of wildlife, then those same news agencies and public should be demanding the same detailed and complete information of such well known figures as Kevin Richardson and David Yarrow and the images they use and promote in the name of encouraging conservation and the protection of wildlife.

Powerful Women Do Powerful Things

Photo by Brooke Lark on Unsplash

GreatHERgood Claims to Support Powerful Women, So Why Are They Running PR for Black Jaguar White Tiger?

In our last Note we discussed, at length, the ability that propaganda and public manipulation has to mislead the masses into believing things that are entirely fabricated, and how Black Jaguar White Tiger’s new website and image is doing just that. Today we’re going to look at the company behind BJWT’s new, tidier and more palpably “politically correct” website and social media posts.

The cover photo of Greathergood’s Facebook page declares that “Powerful Women Do Powerful Things”

Setting aside the fact that founder Jackie Berlowski is posing with a captive wild Serval cat (which obviously goes against everything CWW stands for in a conservational sense) the statement itself is inspiring only on the face. Very powerful women might do very powerful, and terrible, things. Being “powerful” doesn’t make you a good person. For example, if you’re in a very powerful position, but you use that position to support and promote someone who is a tyrant that abuses others at will, then you’re nothing but a stooge to that tyrant.

When Greathergood and BJWT announced that they would be working together, it was, unsurprisingly, accompanied by photos and videos of Berlowski at BJWT playing with cubs and monkeys inside the house dubbed “Stage 1” by Serio. Same exhausted, overdone, inspiring story that every other celebrity touts after visiting BJWT. Go play with the captive wild animals, then tell everyone how amazing the foundation that lets you play with the captive wild animals is.

Greathergoods post discussing their work on "one of our clients"

The use of "MAJOR win" is beyond coincidental since Serio uses the exact same words.

BJWT announcement of BIG (read MAJOR win) renovations to their website shortly after Greathergood's post about working on "one of our clients".

Those who understand the reality of BJWT immediately trekked over to Greathergood’s Facebook page to share their concerns and try to explain that handling captive wild animal is not conservation, and that BJWT is not a sanctuary, but rather a petting zoo for the wealthy and well connected. Predictably, the majority of commenters criticizing BJWT and Berlowski’s choice to support Serio and BJWT were blocked and their comments deleted. Berlowski, it seemed, had already drunk the BJWT koolaid. Or, perhaps, it’s simply a matter of her already being connected to BJWT.

After all, the vast majority of celebrities who support BJWT either grew up with Serio in Beverly Hills, or met him through social events of the same ilk. You won’t find non-celebrities in the field of conservation or ethical conservationists associating with BJWT, or Eduardo Serio. Former animal traffickers, and commerce conservationists selling ideas rather than ethical conservation, like David Yarrow, and model Cara Delevingne, sure. But earnest conservationists devoted to the welfare of the animals, not the prestige of interacting with them? Nope.

Good PR can’t buy you ethical support, just lots and lots of manipulated fans.

For example, one of the new “PC” posts presumably put up by Greathergoods looks like this:

Post from the BJWT Instagram dated April 14 2019 *we have no way of knowing that a Greathergood employee posted this, but it was posted after Greathergood took over PR for BJWT.

It’s very poignant, the image of receiving a battered animal with no understanding of the situation, and you’re left to make choices you don’t have enough information to make, a valiant effort by a hero in unknown territory making their way toward victory.

It’s a complete lie, of course.

But in reality, THIS was what Serio formally announced to fans the day he received Achilles.

Either Serio knew all these things then, and the new post is lying, or he didn't know any of these facts when he received Achilles and he was lying to fans by stating this. Either way, lies are being told to fans.

Serio even explained that the tiger had fallen off a balcony at his home, and that’s how his legs had been broken. But hey, a good PR campaign creates its own facts, right?

More surprising than Berlowski’s ignorant support of BJWT as a pseudo-sanctuary (she’s a PR and media professional, not a conservationist) or even the misleading spin her company is putting on established facts, and the rewriting of other information (hey, PR creates “reality” to sell a product) is her choice to enter into business with Eduardo Serio, someone who has repeatedly, consistently, and very, very publicly, specifically attacked women, lesbians, gays, as well as using racial slurs, and offering outrageous suggestions regarding anyone with mental or physical deficiencies.

Berlowski’s Greathergood tags Ellen DeGeneres, gushing about her. Too bad that according to Greathergood’s new client, Eduardo Serio lesbians, are inherently unhappy because they’re unnatural, and don’t have “real sex” which leads them to being mean and stupid. Serio has stated as much multiple times, often ranting in live videos in particular about any woman who criticizes BJWT, suggesting that all of them are just frustrated lesbians who need a man to release their sexual frustrations (or whores who sleep around, one extreme or the other) Maybe Greathergood’s Berlowski can pass this advise on to Ellen?

Greathergood also recently tagged Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington. No stranger to change-ups and conflict, Huffington nevertheless is currently a devout supporter of the LBGTQIA movement (her former husband is bisexual) and has publicly called for more such folks to take positions of power and influence. Meanwhile, Serio has on many occasions in live feeds, blamed LGBTQIA peoples (he did not use politically accurate references to them) for the failings of America and #planetstupid insisting that women are now raising boys too gay and that lesbians are unstable, and need sex instead of being in charge of anything. Maybe Berlowski would like to ask Huffington for her opinion on supporting someone who says things like that about the LGBTQIA community?

Then there’s Serio’s ongoing attacks on women in general. Erika Ortigoza has dared to speak out against BJWT on multiple occasions, and in response, Serio has repeatedly posted her photo to his 6+ million Instagram followers, helpfully informing them that she’s a whore who sleeps with men in exchange for things, and has plastic surgery to look fake. CWW wonders what Greathergood thinks of those post? Oh, wait, as noted in our prior Note, those posts have now had all their captions removed to make them neatly PR safe….

Well, then there’s Serio’s ongoing (just pathetic, at this point) attack on the young woman who entrusted him with the temporary care of her Savannah cats. After she had second thoughts about leaving them with Serio (note that they’re hybridized cats, yet Serio instructed their owner to withhold that information upon import, and call them “house cats” on the customs documentation) and asked to be allowed to take them back earlier than expected (she was planning to move cross country, as we understand it, and instead of boarding the animals somewhere, she wanted Serio’s “expertise” to care for them) even though she hadn’t moved yet. Serio took offense and went from calling her a “lovely girl who trusted us with her kids” to “that crazy Savannah woman”.

After deriding her thoroughly on all his social media platforms, Serio then publicly posted, in writing, that he didn’t even want the cats, and would return the cats to her if she reimbursed him for $1600 USD. Again, let us reiterate that Serio posted these terms in writing, on a public platform where they were seen by millions of BJWT fans, and anyone else viewing BJWT’s social media pages. The young woman promptly PayPaled Serio the $1600, pleading for her cats to be returned to her. Serio, in all his megalomaniacal magnanimity, posted screenshots of his PayPal account, showing the transfer of money to him, from the owner of the Savannah cats, and captioned that photo (paraphrasing here) “Thanks for the donation to my 501(c)3, I’m keeping the money and the cats. You lose.”

It was, perversely, BJWT’s own fans, who stepped in at that point, commenting en masse to the effect that Serio had posted terms, the young woman had met those terms, and yet he was now going back on his word. Many fans suggested just giving the cats back, since he’d said he would if she paid him the $1600, which she had. Others pointed out that $1600 might meet the burden for larceny, since it amounted to a payment in exchange for the cats, and now he was withholding both.

Instead of taking the advice of his fans, Serio simply contrived an excuse, claiming that the young woman “still owes me $66” and that because she shorted him (even though he’s the one who cited precisely $1600, in multiple places WhatsApp messages, texts, on social media) that “the deal was off” and then he posted images of his PayPal account refunding the money. Of course “the deal” wasn’t for $1666 USD, it was for $1600 USD. But then Serio would have had to “admit defeat” and give the young woman’s cats back. Instead, he lied, and continued attacking her.

For years.

The duration of Serio’s pursuance of the young woman who entrusted him with her Savannahs is, perhaps, the singular best example of his obsessive need to dominate and control everything in his perceived sphere of existence. What began as a mistake on the part of a fan (former, now) of BJWT, and what was a bad fit for Serio as far as animals go (the cats did not like him, were not malleable and adoring in the videos he showed, but rather shunned him and avoided him or hissed) has now been drawn out into a multi-year sordid attack, with an extremely wealthy, and well connected older man pursuing, harassing and doggedly deriding a young, financially insecure woman. Serio even publicly stated (posted via screenshots of his messages with the young woman) that he didn’t want the cats. And yet he refused to give them back, even after their devastated owner paid him the money he demanded. It reads like a child custody horror story with ransoms paid, but children still withheld. Some three years or more into the situation, the young woman continues to struggle in paying basic bills (if she’s holding a job at all, what with Serio dragging her into court repeatedly, which we know he does because he posts #winning with veiled connotations about suing people whenever something happens) whilst Serio is jetting all over the world, to Miami, Milan, enjoying various fundraisers for BJWT, and side trips, as well as now having hired a female-owned PR company to help hide his public abuse toward other women, including the young woman who trusted him with her Savannahs. Oh, the bittersweet irony there.

We wonder what Greathergood thinks about all of those posts? Oh, wait, nearly all of the “crazy Savannah woman” posts have now carefully been scrubbed from BJWT’s social media posts….

Of course, when it comes to making money, Serio loves to play mix-and-match with financials. BJWT’s 990 from 2017 posted on their new website claims no employees while BJWT’s costs for 2018 posted in the same section of the new website lists numerous employees. Serio regularly advertises for donations through his nonprofit, even discussing in interviews (give time count for video) how BJWT relies on donations to help cover the cost of workers and security employees. Serio tells fans that he’s spends large amounts on employees, directing those fans to donate in order to support that spending, but then when he files taxes he tells the US government those employees don’t exist.

Photo, BJWT

Legally, the US nonprofit entity Serio is constantly promoting does not possess even one single solitary employee.

The workers and security Serio has are employed by the Mexican entity, Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco, not the US nonprofit Black Jaguar White Tiger Foundation. But Serio never specifies this to fans. Instead, he posts the 990 forms for his US branch BJWTFoundation–which again, holds ZERO employees as per its nonprofit tax filings–and then follows it with a pie chart claiming that BJWT’s budget in 2018 paid for a minimum of $423,169.26 USD for “workers” and “security” forces.

Photo, BJWT

But those employees are paid not by the US nonprofit BJWTFoundation Serio is always referring to, they’re paid by Gran Santuario Mexicano Jauguar Negro Tigre Blanco.

To further confuse things, the BJWT website lists all costs in USD, but since BJWT is in Mexico, most of the monies spent will be in Mexican Pesos, not USD. In Mexican Pesos, the cost Serio claims for employees is a staggering 8,009,176.47 Mexican Pesos. We have no way of knowing what Serio pays his workers per hour, but with an exchange rate of $1 = 18.93 Mexican Pesos, he likely doesn’t pay them more and $5 USD per hour, equating to 88-100 Mexican Pesos per hour, which is currently the roughly exchanged minimum wage in Mexico City. After all, this is the same man who refers to those workers as “wetbacks”.

The kicker in all this is, Serio’s not lying to the IRS, he’s lying to his fans who are don’t seem to realize that there are TWO Black Jaguar White Tiger entities, the Mexican-registered one which employes workers, and the US one which claims zero employees, assuring that it’s the least taxed. Serio then takes the money from his US entity, and gives it to the Mexican entity via grants as listed on the US 990 form.

It’s no wonder that with all the donations from fans being pumped into a US company in US dollars (you can also donate in other monetary systems, but if you donate to the MX entity, Serio is not required to divulge those monies publicly. So in theory someone could hand him a huge sum of money in Mexican Pesos, and we’d never know it happened) that Serio’s got enough leftover to waste in his vindictive revenge campaign against the young owner of the Savannah cats, all while Greathergood helps him keep his image tidy.

Then there’s the posts wherein Serio labeled all the conservationists who wrote letters to the Colombian government, petitioning them to send circus lions to a real sanctuary instead of BJWT “Cowards”. After all, the majority of those conservationists were women, including Erika Ortigoza the whoring plastic surgeon junkie, and two were the “frustrated lesbians” Serio enjoys referring to as “Project Idiots”…

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

What would Greathergood think about those posts? About the faked, photoshopped photos that were part of them? Oh, wait, all of those images and captions have now been removed from BJWT’s social media platforms…

Or what about the young woman whose name, address, employment location, etc. Serio publicly posted (which we will not be posting here) stating that Colombia had issued a warrant for her arrest because she “interfered” with his attempts to get possession of the former circus lions? That young woman had to close her social media accounts afterward due to the attacks from BJWT fans, and faced weeks of harassment from them whenever she attempted to start new accounts because, hey, Serio had given them all her personal information and told them to attack her. And his statement that Colombia had issued arrest warrants for her? 100% lie.

Videos wherein Serio refers to his own workers as “wetbacks”, wherein Serio derides Pepe for wearing “gay boots” and posing with a dog for photos, which “looks gay” when posing with a tiger is what a real man would do, videos wherein Serio declares that parents should be forced to undergo testing before having children in order to avoid having kids born with mental or physical disabilities, all now removed from BJWT platforms.

Funny how all of the imagery, and contexts that would be damaging to someone’s PR, and which represent the precise opposite of what Greathergood claims to promote and support have now been removed from BJWT and Eduardo Serio’s social media platforms. But then, that’s what companies like Greathergood does. They’re hired to move in, and clean things up. We have no way of knowing precisely which images and videos Greathergood specifically removed, but we can know that it’s not possible for them to be involved in the social media accounts of BJWT without seeing these posts firsthand, because many of them were available until just the last couple of months. It’s not a coincidence that BJWT partnered with a PR company for the first time since it was founded and suddenly the more egregiously bigoted and hate-mongering posts began disappearing from their pages.

Bravo, Greathergood. Maybe you should reach out to Harvey Weinstein and offer to represent him while you’re at it. He could probably use the help revamping his image, and considering your efforts with Serio, you could probably do wonders for Weinstein.

Black Jaguar White Tiger - “Fact” or "Fiction?"

Black Jaguar White Tiger’s “Facts” More Influenced by Edward Bernays’ “Order out of Chaos” Theory Than By The Truth

The title really does make sense. And, as this post will be a long one, we can afford to offer readers some background as to what inspired it.

Billed by himself as “America’s No1 Publicist” Edward Bernays is widely regarded as a pioneer in the fields of public relations and propaganda, and his influence continues on in today’s ever-growing digital world where good propaganda, and a chic public relations manager can create an entirely false public identity for a person or group. Often, such efforts of “rebranding” an already known entity take place directly in front of the public eye, but dazzled by slick graphics, and “feel-good” stories, that the public will either not recognize the fact that they’re being lied to, or they’ll choose to embrace an idealistic promise over the reality they already hold in their hand. Even if they understand the falsehoods for what they are, fear of ostracism will cause them to abjure from taking a stand about it.

Such are the psychological and sociological natures of humanity on which Bernays constructed his immensely successful public relations career. Bernays believed vehemently (and correctly) that the “masses” of humanity were easily swayed, and could be manipulated into believing anything if the idea was presented to them in the correct way. You can listen to Bernays himself explain how he successfully altered the fashion of an era in order to sell Lucky Strike cigarettes to women here.

Bernays just as correctly observed that:

“Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power…”

However, in a darker, disturbing manner, Bernays also believed that because humanity in general was so easily manipulated, and that those who carried out that manipulation held ruling power, it was the duty of those capable of manipulating the public to do so for the greater good.

Bernays stated in his books, and publications that:

“Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos.”

Bernays argued that the “masses” would inevitably succumb to manipulation anyway, and that “good” propagandists could therefore compete with “evil” propagandists without incurring any moral cost for it. He thoroughly believed that lying to the public for the right reasons in order to counter those lying to the public for what he perceived to be the wrong reasons negated the fact that you were lying to the public at all. His designs for public manipulation were so well thought out and successful that Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich, Joseph Goebbels used them as the blueprint for his campaigns.

This ideology, although hugely problematic on a moral level, is one that is currently being embraced by the vast majority of media constructs, and in every facet of society.

Conservation is no exception. All of the organizations and people addressed by CWW have embraced the activity of lying to the public, their fans, and supporters, in order to further what they perceive to be the “greater good” of their own endeavors.

Kevin Richardson supports the captive lion breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting industries monetarily through the purchase of lions from within it, rationalizing this activity by insisting that the lions he bought will have good lives, and that the movie he made using them will “spread awareness”. Richardson supports the use of captive wild animals in for-hire activities, such as TV productions, movies, ad campaigns, staged photography of “wildlife” and other commercial venues, rationalizing that these for-profit ventures “raise awareness” about conservation. He also actively tries to minimize his participation in these industries by suggesting those who criticize him are quibbling over his methods, and dividing the conservation arena.

Dean Schneider supports the captive lion breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting industries by funding through the purchase of lions from within it, rationalizing this activity by insisting that the lions he bought have been “rescued” from terrible lives. He is currently, avidly manipulating the public, and his ever-growing fan base, to believe that holding lions in large enclosures which also contain prey species, allows those captive lions to “live wild” and is no different from the existence of wild lions, despite that they’re actually in captivity.

And then there’s Black Jaguar White Tiger, who provides an entirely different, but synonymous sort of lies to the public.

Anyone who has followed CWW will recall the repeated claims by Black Jaguar White Tiger founder Eduardo Serio that it’s his responsibility to “save #planetstupid” from its own mechanizations via BJWT’s social media presence. Again, and again on the BJWT Instagram, Serio has ranted about how he, and his foundation, are responsible for wresting the control of #planetstupid away from the “dark side of humanity” who don’t understand anything. Serio’s superiority over the rest of humanity, and his assertion that he intends to bring the world into alignment with his own beliefs, which he regularly posits are the only beliefs that can save #planetstupid serve to provide the objective viewer with clear evidence as to his utter, and complete, narcissism.

The very wellspring of Black Jaguar White Tiger was a personal social media account documenting the daily life of a pet black jaguar, as she was raised in the well-appointed, second-residence, Acapulco mansion of Hollywood socialite, Eduardo Serio. In 2013, a black jaguar cub was introduced to followers of Serio’s personal Instagram page–many of whom were well-connected actors, actresses, models, fashion designers, and entrepreneurs, as his “daughter” Cielo. The black jaguar was followed in short order with a tiger cub, Tierris, and, after voicing the fact that his family would be complete with a female lion, the magical appearance of a female lion cub, Karma, all of them “adopted” by their “Papa Bear”.

It was from this private Instagram page, that BJWT was born. Eventually, Serio announced the development of the Black Jaguar White Tiger Foundation, hosting his friends to play with the various big cat cubs he magically came into possession of on a constant basis. Four years later, BJWT is arguably the “best known” animal-related Instagram account in existence, and still regularly hosts celebrities playing with cubs. The BJWT Instagram feed is filled with guests handling cubs, volunteers handling cubs, and Eduardo Serio and his personal friends handling cubs and larger cats.

Originally visiting BJWT for two days, once a year was listed as a sponsorship reward for anyone willing to shell out $1,000 USD a month in monthly donations. Only after groups like CWW began pointing out that this was simply a fancy pay-to-play scheme was that reward removed from the BJWT website. To this day, BJWT fans claim the screenshots like those shown below have been faked by “haters” to make Serio look bad, and they claim that Serio never “sold” visits to BJWT in exchange for money.

The animals at BJWT have come from various sources, cubs (in many cases early on) were purchased within Mexico’s rampant big cat breeding industries. In other cases, Serio has obtained former pets (sometimes by forcing owners who had licenses and did not want to give them up, to hand them over anyway, according to a few sources) or, according to yet other sources, Serio arranged with various zoos to receive cubs from them. This isn’t something Serio made any attempt to hide. He’s posted photos of Maztu’s father, still living in a zoo-like facility where tourists pay to take photos with him (Serio defends this breeding and petting facility claiming that they take great care of the cats they use) and Maztu’s cousin (whose father is the brother of Matzu’s father) was “rescued” by BJWT after being bred at the same facility where Maztu’s father lives (which begs the question of why he needed to be “rescued, since Serio says that facility is great, despite the breeding and letting the public handle animals). Serio’s friendships within the government to assure that any animals confiscated are funneled to BJWT, or, at least according to our government contacts, that he gets “first dibs” on them, at which point he might pick and choose who to rescue. He has also used these government connections, again, according to CWW’s Mexican contacts, who are widespread within the Mexican conservation industry, to force the closure of facilities, or stop the construction of new facilities which he feels would threaten BJWT’s position as the best known facility in Mexico.

Serio doesn’t try to hide any of these facts. Instead, he simply rebrands, and redefines them, and their accompanying implications in ways that ascribe a sense of righteous beneficence to the actions, with himself and BJWT as the heroes of the story.

Celebrated, and world renown big cat organizations, are to be eschewed, according to Serio. He publicly scorns any established standard of care and ethical creed, like the GFAS, which is admired by others, informing his followers that such establishments are what have destroyed the planet to start with. But behind the scenes, Serio changed BJWT’s name on its Mexican registration to Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco simply so that he could insist that BJWT is a “registered sanctuary”.

Celebrated, and world renown big cat organizations, are to be eschewed, according to Serio. He publicly scorns any established standard of care and ethical creed, like the GFAS, which is admired by others, informing his followers that such establishments are what have destroyed the planet to start with. But behind the scenes, Serio changed BJWT’s name on its Mexican registration to Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco simply so that he could insist that BJWT is a “registered sanctuary”.

One of the few things overtly indicating the cheap, abusive underpinnings of BJWT and its founder, Eduardo Serio, has always been Serio’s flare for hyper-dramatized posts, on both the BJWT social media accounts. His habit of grandstanding and his gleeful hate-filled rhetoric that spans the gamut of themes.

From publicly accusing women who thwart him in some way of being whores simply because they thwarted him in some way

Translation of Serio's caption:O remember our lion Hope? As it turns out, this cheap woman Erika Ortigoza ran a superficial mediocre and small zoo, so mediocre that it was forced to close and become a veterinary clinic only because all the people complained. When we started, Erica had relations with Jorge Maksabedian, in charge of permits and give money scholarships to zoos on behalf of the government. Well, that idiot, following the instructions from his lover, Erika, he withheld our permission already authorized and had to transfer Hope to that clinic, but Erika is so mediocre that I just lost Hope and returned her to the owners of the restaurant where it had been confiscated from a cement cage and bars instead of be in a pack with us. I cried and cried and the years passed and I waited to say the whereabouts of Hope. She was saying that we didn’t have permission, what she did not say, is that we already had it authorized but had been held by his Lover whom literally, he had relationships for in exchange of scholarships. The new administration arrived and they ran Jorge Maksabedian and sometime later, to Erika. They cleaned the house.

To suggesting that certain groups of people should either be executed, or forced to kill themselves, Serio’s history of sectarian and intolerant public rants on the BJWT social media pages have, indeed, been the stuff of legend.

Until now.

In recent months, material has been quietly disappearing from the BJWT social media sites. Beginning with the brutal, and abusive posts concerning the young woman who entrusted him with her Savannah cats (whom he has been attacking in court repeatedly for years now, like the egomaniacal cretin he is) and continuing to posts that publicly attacked the ethical conservationists involved in trying to avoid BJWT obtaining custody of six Colombian circus lions (which BJWT had already promised to take, and then abandoned after Serio was not able to gain the permits required to import them) Serio’s more outrageous attacks have now been deleted from BJWT’s pages.

In many cases (such as those involving the Colombian lions) the posts contained photoshopped images of confidential letters sent to the Columbian government, which had been passed on (illegally) to Serio, lying about what the people Serio was attacking had done.

The letter which Serio photoshopped and falsified, then attributed to I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc.

The actual letter that was sent to the Colombian government by I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc.

In other cases Serio’s captions were simply disgusting rants declaring his superiority (for his connections to a corrupt Colombian government, no less) in a fashion more suited to a drunk frat boy than a professional entity.

Never mind that the "2 years" cited by Serio involved BJWT abandoning the lions. Only after he started a second fundraiser (no one knows where the funds from his first fundraiser ended up) did it become clear that BJWT had already raised money for these lions and then abandoned them.

If posts of this nature remain, the captions have now been deleted, leaving only the photos behind, without explanation.

The posts remain on BJWT's Instagram account, but now have no captions.

From stating that Erika Ortigoza slept around to get what she wanted, to an unexplained photo of her.

Then BJWT’s newest website overhaul was recently announced, giving some context to the disappearance of Serio’s more childish, and lying photoshopped posts. In just the short time since Serio announced that BJWT would be working with Greathergood, a company that specializes in Public Relations, Greathergood has, apparently done its best to “clean up” BJWT’s immature, and distasteful edges in hopes of making the foundation look more legitimate.

The new BJWT website contains donate buttons on every page, sometimes in more than one place, and newsletter buttons everywhere else. Photo credit BJWT

The announcement of a revamped BJWT website was not a surprise to CWW or others who have spoken out about the pseudo-sanctuary. It was obvious that Serio was no longer the only person making social media posts. BJWT’s Instagram description had changed from announcing that they were making #planetstupid fall in love animals one post at a time to a description nobly claiming that BJWT is “Changing the world by rescuing Animals, educating humans, and reforming laws.”

Photo credit BJWT. The message of intent on the BJWT has also been rewritten in a more appealing and less condescending manner.

Captions on social media posts began containing proper grammar, and though still lacking in information, and a knowledge about conservation, blurbs were longer, with a noted focus on bettering the Foundation, bettering enclosures. Posts had begun appearing which actually discussed–for the first time in four years–the widespread abuse of captive wild animals, with accompanying dialogue encouraging fans to help BJWT stop it–by supporting BJWT, of course. Directly counter to Serio’s longstanding criticism of “political correctness” BJWT had become just that, precisely caring enough to look caring, but superficial enough not to offer any hard information, or facts.

The demarcation between the “Serio is in solely charge of BJWT’s public image” and “A Public Relations Rep is in charge of BJWT’s public image” had already been sharply drawn. A new website with new content was just the next logical step in the process.

Only, this is Black Jaguar White Tiger, built from the ground up on lies, misinformation and misrepresentation, and controlled entirely by Eduardo Serio. So of course, the new website does not actually provide fans with any “new” information, nor does it provide them with anymore clarity about BJWT’s actions, or goals. It simply conveys the misnomers and talk-arounds in a less-grating and more professional manner. For BJWT fans, and those of the public not educated to know any better, the new BJWT website is flashy, and well-written.

To the eye of a professional conservationist, however, the lack of big cat, conservation, ecological, medical, and scientific understanding is painfully obvious. For those of us with all of the above, the new BJWT looks like what it is: a shiny illusion created by lay-folk.

The various areas of the new website contain snazzy tabs leading to pages which, at best, contain either inanely superficial, but “clean and pleasant” versions of what on the old BJWT website contained, or likewise inanely superficial blurbs about subjects that have never been addressed in BJWT’s four year history. Each new page provides bright red donate buttons.

Clicking "Stop the cruelty" takes you to the donation page. Photo credit BJWT

Clicking "Support BJWT" takes you to the donation page. Photo credit BJWT

The upper corner always contains a bright orange Donate button. Photo credit BJWT

Some pages contain multiple vectors which take viewers directly to the donation page. Here you can see the standard Donate button in the upper right corner, but the "Support BJWT" also takes you directly to the donation page. Photo credit BJWT

But at worst, these pages of the new BJWT website contain blatantly displayed contradictions, incorrect information, unfounded claims, or entirely pointless facts that serve no purpose but to look important. The much ado about “legal reform” for example. Simply knowing people involved in making laws doesn’t mean you’re actually involved with influencing or working toward reform. Our Mexican contacts keep us abreast of issues, and while there are several laws in process that would potentially benefit captive big cats, they remain in process and Serio has not participated in any part of their creation or furtherance.

Clicking "Pledge BJWT" takes you directly to the donation page, as does the Donate button. Photo credit, BJWT

Clicking on the BJWT Legal Reform takes you to the page shown in the image above this one, where the only "option" is to click "Pledge BJWT" which takes you directly to the donation page, rather than discussing any laws currently being lobbied. Photo credit, BJWT

Then there’s Serio’s repeated lie about being a registered sanctuary. Notice that while the question “Are we a licensed sanctuary” is listed as “Absolutely” the continuance specifies that BJWT is licensed as a PIMVS. Under SEMARNAT’s definition, a PIMVS facility is described as: “PIMVS are considered to be intensive breeding sites, nurseries, botanical gardens or similar that manage wildlife in a confined manner for purposes of controlled reproduction of species or populations for commercial use (LGVS Regulation, Art. 2) You can read SEMARNAT’s breakdown here.

Photo credit BJWT. The new BJWT website continues to mislead viewers and fans into thinking they possess a sanctuary license, something that doesn't exist.

The actual registration BJWT holds as a PIMVS.

Serio has repeatedly posted his PIMVS registration to “prove” BJWt is a registered sanctuary, but the truth is that BJWT is registered as a PIMVS (not a sanctuary) under the name Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco.

And in combination with that continued lie, is the perpetuated misinformation that the Mexican Foundation, “Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco” which fans see all over social media is registered in the US as a nonprofit.

The facilities viewers see in Eduardo Serio’s social media posts is not registered in the US as a nonprofit.

Photo credit BJWT. Note the date specified here. BJWT threatened legal action against the author of an article published before January 11 2016 which stated that BJWT was not a 501c3. Serio attempted to smear the name of the author, calling them a liar, and stating he would sue, when in fact the information in the article was 100% correct. At the time of publication, BJWT was not a 501c3.

Serio proudly proclaims that BJWT holds a nonprofit status in the US, but notice the name on in the BJWT answer, and the name on the 990 listed below. The name listed on the US 501c3 documentation is not Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco, the name on the Mexican PIMVS registration. Serio’s “licensed sanctuary” Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco is not recognized as a nonprofit in the US. The US nonprofit is an entirely separate entity, registered under the name Black Jaguar White Tiger Foundation, located in Woodland Hills CA. Serio intentionally lies to his fans, telling them that the BJWT they watch on his social media posts, which has “rescued” so many animals is a registered US nonprofit.

Another issue where the new BJWT just provides the same lies Serio has been telling since BJWT is founded, is in regard to habitats and space. For example, this screenshot from the new BJWT website describes the customized habitats (for new viewers, the image shown here is not the area the blurb is actually describing. The area shown below is at Stage 1, where Serio does most of his interaction filming) Still, it looks beautiful and sounds great. Only it’s not true.

Stage 1, rather than Stage 2 which is being described. Photo credit BJWT

Below is a photos Serio himself posted on the BJWT Instagram page intending to prove that PETA was lying about BJWT in their article criticizing the pseudo-sanctuary. Although he likely felt better for making the post, Serio inadvertently proved his own billing on the new BJWT website was a lie. In the below photo, around 70 enclosures are visible. However, there are only two swimming pools. There have only ever been two pools located at Stage 2, and both contain tigers, the “Blue Pride” being one of them. We’ve circled the two pools (one slightly large than the other, the second partial hidden by shadow but still visible) This arial image–which Serio considered valid and correct, and used himself to “prove” how wonderful BJWT is–allows any viewer to look for the 70 custom pools he’s supposedly put in every habitat. Serio has even pointed out lions within it, offering perspective on size. Clearly there is not a “custom swimming pool” inside each habitat.

Again, recent Instagram posts made by Serio discussing overhauls of habitats clearly show the two pools which can be seen above, both containing tigers.

When the BJWT website attempts to impress readers with the amount of land in BJWT’s possession, again, they fall woefully short, and instead put their ignorance and lack of comprehension on full display.

Photo credit BJWT

On one area of the new BJWT website it states BJWT has 130 acres, but in another area, it lists 120 acres leaving 10 acres that’s either unaccounted for, or falsely claimed. While mistakes can happen, an entity that bills itself as the “best Sanctuary on Planet Earth” should be able to accurately state how many acres they own.

Photo credit BJWT

More troubling than the discrepancy of 10 acres, however, is the statistics provided by these points of information.

As per the new BJWT website, they have 700 animals living onsite.

Photo Credit BJWT

And as per Serio’s most recent boast about big cat numbers, 400 of those animals are big cats.

Out of the total acreage listed as belonging to BJWT–we’ll be generous and call it 130 acres–only 30 acres have been built on. Those 30 acres contain 70 habitats which house, let’s be generous, and say 350 animals, leaving 50 cats at Stage 1. For simplicity, let’s divide the acreage evenly by the number of habitats.

30 ÷ 70 = 0.42.

So, if all the habitats were the same size, each one would only contain 0.42 acres of space. But let’s be even more generous, and round that up to 0.5, a full half acre. 0.5 of an acre is 21,780 square feet of space.

Again, let’s be generous, and round up to 22,000 square feet of space. Trust us, BJWT needs the generosity because to give readers some perspective, a standard American Football field is 57,600 square feet.

So even with our generous, repeated rounding up of the numbers, and the removal of 50 big cats from Serio’s claim that he’s rescued 400, once you break down the numbers BJWT houses an average of 5 adult big cats on less than half a football field of space.

Now, it’s clear from Serio’s own arial view of BJWT’s habitats that some are larger than others, so that means some of them are larger than 0.5 acres. But that also means that a great many of them are smaller than 0.5 acres, too. And as can be seen in the image provided by Serio, some of those habitats are considerably smaller than the rest. Half or more, in fact, of the visible enclosures are very small.

By comparison, The Wild Animal Sanctuary located in Colorado (which Serio disdains) houses a similar number of big cats and other carnivores in habitats varying in size from 5 full acres to 25 acres. Serio boasts of having 120-130 acres of land, assuring fans that BJWT has only built on 30 so far to house their 350-400 big cats, while TWAS (which Serio derides as not caring about big cats) encompasses 789 acres at their Keensburg educational facility which houses around 400 carnivore and is open to the public.

The TWAS Refuge facility which is not open to the public, contains an additional 9,684 acres, of habitats ranging from 100 to 1,000 acres in size where rescued animals live in as natural conditions as possible.

The TWAS educational facility houses state of the art medical and surgical buildings, specialized housing, and opportunities for teaching and observation by the public (all without any human/animal interaction) and has set the highest standard for big cat care in the USA.

Readers might recall some of Serio’s rants against TWAS and its founder Pat Craig from December of 2017 when he publicly attacked the conservationists who petitioned the Colombian government on behalf of former circus lions which had been living in cages for almost 6 years, hoping to have the lions sent to TWAS (which offered to fully fund rescue and transport of the cats to their new home) The Colombian government chose to send the lions to BJWT in Mexico instead because, they stated after the fact, they already had some paperwork partially filled out for BJWT to receive the lions from more than a year prior when Serio tired to take possession of them, but failed to do so.

After the Colombian government chose to give the beleaguered lions to Serio (one of which magically arrived pregnant through unknown causes) they also passed on to Serio all the private information and documents of those who petitioned them in regard to moving the lions to TWAS. It’s still unclear why the Colombian government would pass on information to a private Mexican citizen, but, you know, corruption, and all that.

The life those who petitioned the Colombian government wanted the former Colombian circus lions to have at TWAS:

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

And the life the former Colombian circus lions got at BJWT:

Note the reference to fighting.

The lioness above clearly feels defensive and threatened, her cubs surrounded by strange lions which are not family members and which if they could gain access to her and her offspring would immediately kill the cubs. Serio openly admits that the lioness has been fighting the opposing pride of lions housed just feet away from her and her cubs with no visual barrier. Imagine living in constant fear that a challenging pride was going to kill your cubs.

And here are others of the Colombian lions, again, fighting the other lions around them “all day long” through the border fences of their habitat. Rather than understanding the extreme social and emotional stress caused by theses conditions, Serio happily informs his fans that these lions have simply that “Their Lion Spirit got back into their bodies after arriving to our Sacred Grounds.”

Again, fighting is referenced.

There are other, numerous issues with the new BJWT website, not the least of which is the continuation of using interactions to sell volunteer slots and donation slots. Serio’s original, highly dramatic “Sacred Ground” rhetoric is still present, though quietly shelved in a less visible area of the website. In its place are Volunteer guidelines, carefully worded so as to put emphasis on the safety of the animals and volunteers.

Photo credit BJWT

And yet, even these revamp “rules of engagement” are accompanied by blatantly contradicting media. Despite that the “rules” for volunteering state that “All volunteers are required to wear the BJWT Volunteer uniform while at the Foundation” that “Accessories will are not worn at any time.” and that “Colored nail polish is prohibited.” The accompanying photos clearly show volunteers wearing all manner of clothing, none of it a uniform of any sort, handling cubs while wearing jewelry, and wearing colored nail polish.

Photo Credit BJWT

Photo credit BJWT

Photo credit BJWT

Cell phones are supposedly prohibited on the “Sacred Grounds” of BJWT, yet volunteers happily pose with them against enclosure fences.

Photo credit BJWT

“YOU CAN NOT TOUCH THE ANIMALS THROUGH THE FENCE.” is stated in all caps definitively, and yet... Serio turns around and posts photos of volunteers petting Bradshaw (renown amongst BJWT fans for being “huge” no less)

Photo credit BJWT

The recent injury sustained by a woman who got close enough for a jaguar (less than half the size of Bradshaw) to snag her arm through a fence similar to the one seen above with just one claw showcases how quickly a captive big cat can act, and how devastating even glancing contact can be for the human involved.

Photo credit Adam Wilkerson

The list of issues with BJWT goes on. But as long as the public continues to submit to Serio’s propaganda and manipulation of them, nothing will change. After four years of lies and manipulation, it’s long overdue for the public to start waking up and asking questions, rather than blindly swallowing whatever false information, and self-serving lies Serio spoon feeds them in order to further his own ends.

CWW is often accused by those we discuss as having some sort of personal agenda, and/or we’re challenged by them, or their fans, as to what we’re doing that’s “better” than whatever the person in question is doing. These statements about us are designed to create the impression that CWW has set out to vilify the entities we discuss, thus creating some sort of conflict in an “us versus them” context.

This is categorically incorrect.

What CWW wants to encourage the public to do is to look beyond the propaganda, and PR lingo and objectively view the actuality of the person they’re supporting. Humanity’s general inability to set aside personal preference for objective assessment has played a huge role in creating the debacle that our world is currently facing. It’s more comfortable to look at someone playing with lions, or bottle feeding (even incorrectly) adorable cubs and believe that what you’re seeing is special, that it represents hope, and affection. It’s far less comfortable to look at such things and admit that the lions were raised with daily interaction to behave in a certain way, and that the video clip you’re viewing is one created specifically to show you exactly what’s visible, or to admit that the cubs being bottle fed are simply the most recent in a line of cubs being bottle fed that stretches back years, just the most recent cubs in a list of cubs being bottle fed.

We also understand that CWW itself is–and should be–subject to being viewed with the same detached objectivity with which we want readers to view the exploiters we discuss on a daily basis. This is why we strive to provide our readers with citations and media to verify everything we write, and all the information we disseminate. Why, many times, we provide multiple citations to entirely separate sources which all confirm the same facts we’ve utilized in an article.

We don’t want readers to simply embrace our word as fact. Doing so erroneously relegates the information we publish as nothing more than our own “propaganda” by presuming that what we’ve said is simply our own opinion, rather than an issuance of categorized, cited and documented facts intended to encourage readers to go and do their own research on a person or organization.

To create in readers the desire to know more, to develop their own breadth of education, grasp and understanding of captive wildlife, wild wildlife, and the conservation of both, is the underlying desire of CWW.

Don’t stop at our pages and articles, don’t receive them as a result or conclusion.

Use the information found through CWW as a starting point, as the catalyst for change in your own awareness. Use the tools for research, for analytical reasoning and impartial assessment that we have offered in regard to the various exploiters we discuss, to go out and commit to your own investigations of those parties.

*Headline photo credit to Black Jaguar White Tiger *Other photo credits as noted.

Is Commerce-Conservation Beneficial To Change?

Why The Commerce-Conservation Of Kevin Richardson And Those Like Him Is Not Beneficial To Achieving Actual Change

Recently in March 2019, the world found out that the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) rejected the Portfolio Committee’s Resolution (PCEA) to end Captive Lion Breeding (CLB). This defies the resolutions made during the Parliamentary Colloquium on CLB held back in August 2018 wherein the PCEA called for an end to CLB in order to end the practices of hunting and lion bone trades as supported by the continued captive breeding of lions. A ban on CLB would, of course, also end the practice of cub petting, and lion walking, as well as ending future lion interactions in tourism and elsewhere, as there would be no captive bred cubs to hand raise and work with. This is something, for unknown reasons, not discussed in regard to the PCEA, or their resolution to ban CLB, and is not mentioned in the public posts we’ve seen lamenting the DEA’s rejection of the resolution.

CWW was not surprised (although we were disheartened) to hear about the rejection of a ban on CLB by the DEA because, as we’ve discussed many times, the idea of conservation is a million dollar market, while conservation itself, is much less so. Lion parks like Ukutula Lion Park and Lodge make millions of dollars each year hosting thousands of tourists who pay for the chance to play with lion cubs and walk with older lions in the belief that they’re supporting lion conservation. Likewise, entities such as Lion ALERT host thousands of tourists who interact with their captive bred lions under the erroneous, but carefully cultivated belief, that they’re helping to save and conserve wild lions.

As long as it’s profitable to breed lions in captivity on a large scale, the DEA is going to protect that monetary income. The exposure, and arguable “awareness to lion conservation” provided by interactions with, and endeavors involving captive bred lions, provides that steady profit to breeding lions in captivity.

But it’s extremely easy to convince the public (in a general sense, at least) that places like Ukutula Lion Park, Lion ALERT, lion farms, and other safari parks which provide cub petting and lion walking are “bad guys” exploiting captive bred lions for profit. Ukutula Lion Park was even caught red-handed by Blood Lions selling their older captive bred lions into the canned hunting industry, and subsequently featured in the 2016 Blood Lions movie. There are numerous (and still growing) accounts of former volunteers of such parks and breeding facilities detailing the fact that the captive bred lions therein are exploited under the guise of “conservation” while providing a steady commerce for the parks and facilities. This makes it easy for the public to understand that these places harm lions and support terrible, abusive and exploitive industries.

It’s much more difficult to get the public to understand that beloved entities like Kevin Richardson, David Yarrow, and Dean Schneider, are just as much to blame for the failure of the DEA’s ban on captive lion breeding as the “money grubbing” officials who actually chose to reject it.

If readers are offended and upset by this statement, please read on to better understand why CWW is making it, and why we’re able to comprehensively defend it.

As stated above, in order for the DEA to uphold a ban on CLB, we have to make CLB unprofitable. If there’s no money coming in from CLB, there’s no incentive for the DEA to continue allowing it. The CLB is poorly, inadequately regulated, with little to no functional oversight. It adds nothing to the actual conservation of wild lions, and subsists on only the false claims of supporting the protection of wild lions through, in part “raising awareness” about lion conservation and “allowing the public to fall in love with lions”. Money, as noted in formal announcements of this rejection on various websites and pages, is the primary incentive for the DEA to allow the CLB machine to continue rolling along. Tourists misinformed to think they’re helping lions bring in millions of dollars a year. But there are more ways that CLB can bring in money than just the highly publicized cub petting and canned hunting arenas, and if the public wants to stop supporting the CLB industry, as well as the cub petting, lion walking and canned hunting industries, then they have to stop supporting all of the CLB industry.

Supporting any part of the CBL industry even while decrying the rest of it will not result in an end to CLB. It will only result in a shift as to what CLBs are used for.

One of the prompts behind this article, was the recent state of the Facebook page feed of famed Kevin Richardson ‘Lion Whisperer’.

On March 19, Richardson’s page posted a video with the caption “That moment when Charlie realized his roar was loud enough to talk back to the big boys!”

The video quickly garnered hundreds of comments, thousands of responses, over hundreds shares, and tens of thousands of views. Amongst the comments conveying adoration and beauty for the white lion shown roaring in the video, there were multiple commenters who appeared confused, unsure of which white lion Charlie was, or where he had come from, as this was the first post on Richardson’s Facebook to showcase and name Charlie.

A few commenters recognized Charlie immediately, however, explaining that he is one of the white lions purchased by Richardson from Ukutula Lion Farm as a cub in order to make the feature length film Mia And The White Lion (currently in theaters and due to be released in the US in early April)

On March 20, Richardson’s page posted about the DEA’s rejection of the ban on CLB, stating “Once again South Africa fails.” The post caption goes on to condemn the DEA for its failure to embrace a ban on CLB which fuels canned hunting, the lion bone trade and “a number of commercial purposes” in South Africa.

The post garnered thousands of responses, over hundreds of comments, and hundreds of shares. As expected all the comments expressed dismay, anger, and frustration, decrying the DEA for being focused on money and profit, but many also praised Richardson.

Many comments commended Richardson, and supported him as one of the only voices trying to shut down the CLB industry.

On March 21, Richardson’s page posted a link to the 2019 Environmental Film Festival In the Nation’s Capital with the caption “Exciting times as Mia and the White Lion (Mia et le Lion Blanc) is received with great accolades at the Environmental Film Festival In the Nation’s Capital this past Tuesday evening.” promoting Mia And The White Lion, which was made using cubs bought from Ukutula specifically for the purpose of making the movie.

This post received hundreds responses, and relatively few comments, and shares. But the comments made were all entirely supportive, and congratulatory.

Then, on March 22, Richardson’s page posted a video of lioness being treated for a minor wound and advertising the Lion Whisperer Youtube “members-only channel”. This is a channel accessible only by paying a monthly fee to Richardson. Richardson’s pages have repeatedly stated in posts regarding this “members-only” channel and monthly cost that all the proceeds gained from those paying for the privilege is spent on the film crew making those exclusive videos. This has been stated multiple times by Richardson’s pages, in response to commenters asking where the money they pay to become a “member” will go.

In the March 22 post, however, the caption contradicted those prior statements that the fee for the “members-only” channel are spent only on making more videos, by stating that it was through the fees gained from the “members-only channel” that Richardson was “able to take care of Ginny’s spay so quickly, using the most advanced laparoscopic technique.”

The contradiction of the post was overlooked by fans who, in the relatively few comments had only compliments and gratitude to offer.

Richardson’s facebook page feed is a textbook example of the intentional confusion and misdirection created by those engaging in commerce-conservation. Richardson’s page showcased how entities like Richardson are able to enjoy profiting off the industries they tell their fans they don’t support, while also enjoying the full support and adoration of their fans. This comes in very handily when other entities, like CWW call such entities out for their hypocrisy.

The first post discussed in this article shows Charlie, a white lion selected by Richardson specifically for coloration and personality, and then purchased by Richardson from Ukutula–which was featured in the film Blood Lions as a facility selling lions to the canned hunting industry–in order to make the commercial feature length film, Mia And The White Lion. Charlie was bred in captivity, forcibly removed from his mother, bought by Richardson when he was just weeks old, and hand raised alongside child actresses and actors, under Richardson’s training, and forced to perform to a script. At least four other lions were also purchased by Richardson from Ukutula.

Yet fans of the ‘Lion Whisperer’ readily embrace Charlie, even if they’re confused because Richardson–who doesn’t breed lions onsite–suddenly has new lions he’s never talked about.

The second post discussed in this article, shows Richardson expressing dismay over the DEA’s decision to reject a ban on captive lion breeding–even though the post directly prior shows a captive bred lion that Richardson bought for use in a movie, and through that purchase, Richardson supported the CLB industry by putting money into it.

And yet fans of the ‘Lion Whisperer’ readily embrace the disappointment shown by Richardson, condemning the government for being money hungry, while praising Richardson–who literally created some of that profit margin the DEA is protecting by not banning CLB–for his “efforts” to counter the DEA’s failings.

The third post discussed in this article segues from how DEA officials have failed lions, directly into promoting the fact that Richardson’s movie, Mia And The White Lion was “received with great accolades” at a film festival dedicated to environmental causes and conservation. All of the media hype surrounding Mia And The White Lion is carefully framed under “spreading awareness” and “teaching viewers” but neglects to “teach” viewers or make them “aware” of the fact that the lions they’re watching were gained by supporting the canned hunting, cub petting, and captive lion breeding industry. It’s like making a movie about the history of slavery using actual slaves, and then marketing it as an anti-slavery movie.

Of course, fans of the ‘Lion Whisperer’ received the movie plug with much cheering and congratulations for Richardson.

And in the fourth post discussed in this article, Richardson neatly brings it all back home with a little video teaser of one of his better known lionesses, advertising the opportunity for viewers to pay him for the privilege of being allowed to see even more of his contrived lion interactions with captive bred lions bought from the CBL industry.

And, even though Richardson muddles just what the money paid by “members-only” channel viewers is spent on (Is it spent on making more content, like Richardson has repeatedly said? Or is it spent on medical treatments, as Richardson is saying in this post? Or is it just spent on whatever it’s convenient for Richardson to say it’s spent on?) Fans of the ‘Lion Whisperer’ readily embrace the “information” offered to them by Richardson.

Do you see a pattern here?

No matter what Richardson says, or how contradictory his statements and actions are, his fans believe everything he says, and defend everything he does.

While in the process of writing this Note, CWW got a reminder of just how fanatically devoted ‘Lion Whisperer’ fans are, and how willing they are to intentionally ignore reality in order to protect their idealist image of Richardson, when one commented on a share of our Note addressing Richardson and David Yarrow, and how their commerce-conservation damages lions.

Under the share, this comment was made:

We replied with humorous sarcasm:

The fan replied with impassioned, but deadpan serious fervor, trying to minimize the fact that Richardson forces his lions to perform for a script, defending his actions, and claiming that Richardson–who shopped for cubs to fit the criteria of a predesigned film project–shouldn’t be criticized for handing money to those he claims he doesn’t support. Then they explained to CWW that the lions can’t ever be released into the wild (as if this wasn’t something CWW has inexhaustibly explained to readers in order to counter claims like those made by Dean Schneider that such is possible)

We responded, countering every claim made by Richardson’s fan with valid facts (see bottom of above screenshot, and continued in the ones below)

The ‘Lion Whisperer’ fan then attempted to end the interaction (seen in above screenshot) by reducing verified facts (some of which were verified by Richardson himself) to “angles” “takes” “points of view” and they again minimized Richardson’s purchase of CBL cubs for use in a movie by expounding on the belief that Richardson “took them away” from the vile industry, so that makes it alright to have bought them like the commodity they are within the CBL industry.

We responded more harshly, reiterating all of the facts in bullet point form, explaining in detail how Richardson’s actions–counter to his verbal claims–directly support not only the CLB industry, but also, through his patronage of Ukutula, cub petting and canned hunting.

Richardson’s fan then backtracked, insisting that they’d never said the facts we stated weren’t true (even though all of their prior comments did just that, implying that we weren’t stating facts, but rather points of views or opinions) The commenter goes on to ask if a country paying a ransom to terrorists in order to save people is that country supporting or encouraging terrorism (Yes, actually, that’s why most countries will not pay ransoms, even if they attempt to rescue hostages, there are actual textbooks written about this phenomenon and how it play into terrorism) and then states that they don’t think paying terrorists to release hostages after the terrorists demand to be paid to release hostages supports or encourages other terrorists to take people hostage and demand to be paid for their release. (Again, side note there are papers, and textbooks written about this very subject and how it creates a demand and supply.)

The commenter then says they feel the same about Richardson, and accuses our points of being an amalgamation, that they do not believe in. To clarify their awkwardly put statement here, what the commenter is saying is that our “connect the dots” between Richardson buying lions from Ukutula, Ukutula breeding and selling lions to the canned hunting industry, ergo Richardson is supporting a facility which breeds lions in captivity, uses them for profit, and sells them to canned hunting, is not something they believe.

An even more simplified version is that according to this fan, Richardson handing money to Ukutula doesn’t mean he handed money to Ukutula.

They go on to say they agree that the CLB industry should be shut down, but continue to insist that Richardson isn’t a participant in it (even though he bought lions from it) because he doesn’t breed onsite. The commenter wraps up by defending Mia And The White Lion–a movie made by directly supporting the CLB/cub petting/canned hunting industry–insisting that it will “raise awareness” about the “awful industry” (that it directly supported) and that the lions are still better off with Richardson.

We responded accordingly (and for the last time, as clearly there is no point in continuing to reiterate the same facts again and again only to have them refuted)

This is the staggering lethality of what skilled commerce-conservation can render.

Richardson has so indoctrinated his fans to the belief that anything he does, even if it’s exactly what he’s telling them is terrible, can be excused because it’s for the greater good and being done in order to “raise awareness”.

Only when the pubic stops supporting the captive lion breeding industry, and all its facets in their entirety, will those industries be rendered fully impotent. Only once those industries stop bringing in money–from any outlet–will government entities like the DEA stop protecting them.

But as long as commerce-conservation continues selling ideas instead of actions, and as long as the public keeps buying those hollow, but pretty ideas, instead of engaging in actual change by refusing to support exploitation in any format, the CLB industry and all its counterparts is going to thrive.

Cover image screenshot from Mia And The White Lion trailer.

David Yarrow And Captive Trained Animals

David Yarrow, Taking Photos of Wildlife Using Captive Trained Animals

The Kevin Richardson Foundation recently posted an interview with David Yarrow the now-world famous photographer on their website. If you can stomach the sheer pretentiousness of the article it’s worth a read from the standpoint that it provides an excellent example of the carefully misrepresented, misleading, and intentionally partial truths used by entities like Yarrow and their supporters to promote themselves.

The article opens with what is, for anyone who doesn’t know Yarrow’s background, an inspiring recap of how Yarrow managed to Segway his “day job” career into the photography career he’s now so well known for. If one understands Yarrow’s actual pedigree and biography, his own account comes across as an artistically fabricated “living my dream like average folks” byline designed to make Yarrow accessible to “normal folks”. That’s because Yarrow had the fortune (literally) to be born into the Yarrow baronetcy and grew up with all the luxuries, and advantages that being directly connected to the Royals can provide.

The struggling to change careers storyline rings solid with thousands of readers who are struggling to leave jobs they have to hold down for careers they want to participate in, but the reality is that when “the good old days of finance” ended in 2008, David Yarrow was already a multi-millionaire with an estate and could have left his financial position anytime he chose to.

There’s nothing wrong with being born well off, but intentionally presenting yourself as having struggled to embrace a chosen career like people of average income, when you’re a millionaire connected to the Royal family, is in poor taste, at best, outright dishonest more likely

Yarrow seems to have no compunction against providing answers which serve a purpose, rather than being an honest response. When asked in the KRF interview what his most terrifying experience in shooting has been, Yarrow replies:

“‘Terrifying’ is probably an extreme word because as a father to two children, I don’t really ever put myself in a position where I am in jeopardy, as that would be irresponsible and selfish.”

Yet in the published description of Yarrow’s portrait“One Foot On The Ground” Yarrow declares:

“Yes, I am proud that the image is technically perfect when I am quite obviously in harms way, but the image is made by him (the lion) not me.”

One has little choice but to wonder where Yarrow is crafting the lie here. Is it in his recent interview? Born of a desire to look like a responsible, ethical, supporter of conservation? Or was he lying when he drafted the description of “One Foot On The Ground”? Indeed, the image of Yarrow standing steadfast while a magnificent wild lion charges toward him makes the image even more dramatic. And the descriptions of his own photos isn’t the only place Yarrow has stated he intentionally put himself in harms way, contrary to what he states in his interview on the KRF page.

This article from August 2017, says “While Yarrow admits to having put himself in harms way to get close to some animals, including polar bears…” it goes on to discuss Yarrow’s occasional use of remote control cameras. So, again, was Yarrow’s admittance of putting himself in danger untrue? Or is Yarrow’s current interview wherein he insists that he’d never actually put himself in danger because it would be irresponsible the falsehood? All we can know for sure is that one or the other is a lie.

But is the lion captured in such stunning black and white, which Yarrow is so proud of, even though taking it supposedly put him in harms way, actually a wild lion? It’s impossible for the viewer to know. Yarrow has made no bones about his willingness to use captive wild animals trained to perform for the camera, and intentionally manipulate a photo to match his own preconceived design of what the photo should contain.

Whereas artists in the field of photography have long prided themselves on capturing reality within instants of frozen beauty, Yarrow dismisses such endeavors as passé. He’s also described photographs captured using long distance lenses which avoid invading the space of wild animals as being “hackneyed pulp”.

“Ninety-nine per cent of photographs are taken. People take photographs. Whereas I think I make photographs.” Yarrow boasts in this article from January 2019. “I have a preconception in my head already of what I’m going to get, rather than turning up and seeing what’s going to happen.”

Yarrow’s cavalier disregard for capturing photos of wildlife in a wild environments and his preference for instead staging photos that utilize trained, captive wild animals placed in naturalistic settings is something he’s defended without hesitation, such as in this article from May of 2018. Other wildlife photographers, like David Slater (who nearly went bankrupt defending himself in the infamous “monkey selfie” lawsuit) exhibit resignation when it comes to faking their work. According to Slater, “all professional photographers are guilty in some degree” of altering or manipulating photographs or situations. Slater goes on to say “If you try for the genuine shot, you are less likely to be published. That’s why most photographers will push their own ethical boundaries.”

Yarrow, however, doesn’t seem to have ethical boundaries when it comes to creating the pre-designed photographs that have brought him such worldwide acclaim–and so many lucrative price tags. He sees nothing wrong with using trained wolves, cheetahs, lions or other captive wild animal, and argues that how we perceive these manipulations depends on whether or not a picture is framed as wildlife photography or art. “I am an artist. I make pictures rather than take them,” he says. “Nothing crosses the line in the art world. You can superimpose Krakatoa erupting in the background and Darth Vader coming over the hill.”

But if Yarrow insists that anything goes in matters of art, and that photographers are only at fault if they frame manipulated photographs as “wildlife photography” the position appears to be little more than an afterthought, and certainly not one Yarrow himself bothers to attend. In 2016, Yarrow published the book “Wild Encounters, Iconic Photographs Of The World’s Vanishing Animals And Cultures” with proceeds going to Tusk.

Image from Thriftbooks.com

From Yarrow’s own website:

A collection of unparalleled nature photography— spanning seven continents—by one of the world’s foremost photographers. Capturing the splendor and very soul of what remains wild and free in our world through incredibly intimate—close enough to touch—portraits, Wild Encounters chronicles legendary photographer David Yarrow’s photographic exploits in the field. Driven by a passion for sharing and preserving the Earth’s last great wild cultures and species, Yarrow is as much a conservationist as a photographer and artist.

From publicity blurbs for the book:

“From big cats to elephants and indigenous communities, Wild Encounters is a must-have for nature lovers, conservationists, and anyone who is inspired by all that remains wild. Featuring 160 of his most breathtaking photographs, Wild Encounters offers a truly intimate view of some of the world's most compelling—and threatened—species and captures the splendor and very soul of what remains wild and free in our world through portraits that feel close enough to touch.”

From critical reviews of Yarrow’s “Wild Encounters”:

"David Yarrow is one of the virtuosos of black and white wildlife photography….Arranged by the latitude of locale, his dramatic monochromatic photographs of wild and endangered animals appear to leap from the page. –– 2017 National Outdoor Book Award Winner

"Certainly, Wild Encounters is more than up-close wildlife photography, even though that is what stands out. . . . No matter the subject, however, Yarrow has captured what is wild and free and pulled us in for an unforgettable view.” —North American Nature Photography Association

"David Yarrow’s Wild Encounters is a triumph of conservation photography. The result is a triumph of both artistic mastery and emotional affect—a portfolio of compelling, visually arresting pictures that afford us the opportunity to fully grasp both the magnificence of animals in the wild, and the threats they face in a modern world.” — Sierra Magazine

"The haunting image of a female lion staring out from the cover of Wild Encounters: Iconic Photographs of the World’s Vanishing Animals and Cultures (Rizzoli, $75) conveys the immediacy of this volume of 160 photographs of the most vulnerable species and cultures around the world. Renowned wildlife photographer David Yarrow offers stunning and intimate images of elephants, lions, tigers, and bears in their native habitats across six continents, pulled from his two decades of experience in the field. This book clearly is driven by the author’s passion for conservation and highlights the real risks to the continued survival of these animals and their place on the planet. Beautiful and inspirational, this is a great gift book and a reminder of the wonder that can still be found in the world." —Big Sky Journal

These are great reviews of a wildlife photography book, until you realize they’re all describing a book that has an image of a captive bred, hand-raised, and trained to perform lion on the cover of it.

Yep, that’s Kevin Richardson’s Meg strolling along on cue, not a wild lion.

Cover photo from "Wild Encounters" as posted on the Ask Meg Facebook page.

When you understand that the iconic cover image of Yarrow’s self-described book of “nature photography” containing “the very soul of what remains wild” was made using a captive, trained lion, it rather destroys the mythos. When you consider that this image is, as pointed out proudly in Yarrow’s comments on his website, flashes up every our in Time Square, presented as the embodiment of wild lions, the knowledge that it was actually staged with a captive lion that Richardson raised and trained for use in photography, the falsehood takes on an oil-slicked sensation of abused trust. Then you start wondering how many other photos in Yarrow’s book were fabricated using captive animals in pseudo-environments, and how much of the “wildlife” shown isn’t wild at all.

Some photos containing captive animals might be pretty obvious, like the trained wolf striding down the bar top in Montana...

The Wolf of Main Street by David Yarrow. Photograph: David Yarrow Taken from Theguardian.com

Or the model posing with a trained cheetah described in the same article containing the above image. But the true origin of other photographs are impossible for readers to know without honest commentary by Yarrow. The black rhino is attributed only to Mkomazi Game Reserve, and that brings to mind wide expanses of African territory. But we know that the rhinos living on Mkomazi are actually confined to a small, tightly controlled, fenced and protected area due to poaching, and because of this, they’re habituated to human presence. Furthermore, the rhino sanctuary area at Mkomazi isn’t even open to the public, meaning that Yarrow was taken “behind the scenes” to photograph these carefully guarded and confined animals.

Th polar bears in Yarrow’s book were photographed on Barter Island, Alaska, an area where the locals make their own living taking tourists out for polar bear encounters, and where the polar bears are so habituated to human presence that they view them as part of the environment.

Other questions are raised when Yarrow describes a photo on his website differently than in other publications. Many of the commentary attached to lion photos discuss Richardson and his lions at great length but stop short of actually saying the photo is of a captive lion and was staged. Other photos of lions have little write up, but some are listed as having been taken at Dinokeng where Richardson’s sanctuary is located. In “Wild Encounters” multiple lion photos actually contain Richardson’s captive, trained lions. Black leopard are also a featured animal, and one which we know lives on Richardson’s sanctuary, but whether or not the animal photographed is Richardson’s is not clear.

None of these facts make the photos less beautiful, but the do make them all subtly told lies to the people who pick up a book titled “Wild Encounters” which has been advertised as “nature photography” containing “the very soul of what remains wild” and mistakenly believe they’re looking at wild animals in wild spaces.

Taking photos of captive animals who are either trained to interact with humans, or habituated to human presence and mixing them in with photos of actual wild animals, in the wild, and calling it a book on wildlife photography is a marketing lie contrived to sell a romanticized vision. Yarrow, who insisted in a 2018 interview that a photographer was only at fault if they presented a posed photo as wildlife photography instead of art photography, chose to intentionally advertise staged photos made using trained animals as ‘wildlife photography’ with the express purpose of misleading those he was marketing the book to. Yarrow’s website also contains dozens of staged photos alongside photos of actual wild animals all of them under the category “Wildlife”.

As we already noted, proceeds of “Wild Encounters” went to the Tusk, not Yarrow, this isn’t about making money.

It’s about ethics and integrity.

How can you lie to the public in order to teach them about an issue? If you’re willing to lie, and intentionally mislead the public about what you are showing them, how can they believe your word on what you’re saying?

The public at large is already being pulled in multiple directions with the bombardment of “special bonds” and highly clickable photos and videos of supposed animal champions interacting with captive wild animals, Kevin Richardson among them. Yarrow’s lavish, and galvanizing photography seems to offer the public the precise opposite of this click-bait human/animal interactions, showing, instead, the rugged beauty of “the very soul of what remains wild”. Yet tragically, this is just another carefully constructed lie, since many of Yarrow’s photos don’t show wild animals at all, but captive bred and trained to perform animals.

But then, for Yarrow, photography is just another business, and conservation is just another commodity to be bought and sold on the trade floor of public consumption.

BORED PANDA'S DUMPING OF DEAN SCHNEIDER

Bored Panda Promotes Dean Schneider, Then Grows Bored Of The Controversary

CWW logged in this morning with a big cup of coffee, and bright-eyed determination to write a more in-depth post about Bored Panda’s inaccurate, misleading, and irresponsible “spotlight” showcasing Dean Schneider the former (?) investment banker who “sold everything to go rescue mutilated animals in Africa” (or something like that).

After being tagged in the Facebook share of Bored Panda’s “spotlight” on Schneider, CWW debunked most of the photos used in it, pointing out that they either portrayed Dean interacting with animals in places that weren’t Hakuna Mapika, or that the animals shown were dead due to Schneider’s failure to care for them properly. While there were (for the situation) quite a lot of comments questioning the post, and/or linking to CWW and our articles about Dean, the vast majority of the thousands of comments were positive, praising of the interactions shown, and after CWW commented as well, and then made our own post in response to Bored Panda’s promotion of Schneider, we got some extremely amusing hate-comments from one fan in particular, which (in between curse words) suggested that we needed to get a lawyer and that they’d sue us for libel and slander. Goodness, the drama. The author of the Bored Panda post also commented, claiming that Dean Schneider had gone to CWW’s page to defend himself (more on that, later).

Needless to say, we were prepared to buckle down and hash out a thorough addressment of Schneider, and Bored Panda’s misrepresentation of him. However, we quickly discovered that Bored Panda has quietly removed the entire post, from both its website, and its Facebook Page.

Without public comment, or explanation, Bored Panda removed an article that had nearly 3,000 comments on its Facebook Page, and had been shared thousands, and thousands of times (we don’t have a screenshot, but it approached, if not surpassed tens of thousands of shares) and is now quietly going about its business as if that “spotlight” had never been published.

Without admitting that the “spotlight” they’d intentionally promoted was incorrect, and contained untrue elements, and had not been vetted, Bored Panda removed the entire thing like it never happened.

Without acknowledging that their publication–which was disseminated to millions of online readers who liked, commented, shared, and promoted the post–was completely full of lies, and self-serving promotional material which served to advertise someone who exploits animals for profit and is actively building his instagram followers, Bored Panda then retracted that publication.

And today, in place of the publication which was chocked full of photos showcasing Dean Schneider coddling lions and other big cats and captive wild animals, Bored Panda has neatly offered a publication addressing the fact that a woman was mauled by a jaguar after getting too close to it at a zoo. Because, you know, two days ago, it was in to promote a guy handling big cats, but today it’s in to point out that big cats are dangerous.

Unfortunately for both Bored Panda, and groups like CWW, the Internet never forgets. While Bored Panda has cut its losses (without actually acknowledging that they published false information, and misrepresented the content therein) and moved on to the next “big thing” Dean Schneider has–just in the last two days, after Bored Panda posted about him–racked up another 31,000 Instagram followers and counting, pushing him from 576,000 to 597,000. In addition, Bored Panda’s fake, unvetted post has been re-posted in multiple languages. Now, of course, Bored Panda has bolted for the proverbial door of responsibility, and removed their content (without admitting any wrong-doing) But the re-posts of their original article–along with the text and photos it used–live on, continuing to promote Dean and his interactions.

CWW has already spoken with the founder of Malkia Park, who expressed dismay over the fact that photos taken at Malkia in its early days, before it adopted a strict hands-off policy, were being used to erroneously promote Schneider and his continued interactions with captive big cats. Malkia Park’s founder is right to be frustrated, and not just because of the fact that out-of-context photos of her facility are being used to promote someone who actually parted ways with her after being told he would not be allowed to continue interacting with her animals. Now that Malkia Park is strictly hands-off in all aspects, its founder includes education about why it is never acceptable to handle captive wild animals, even using herself as an example, explaining that when she first founded Malkia Park, she thought she could handle animals, and still teach the public that handling them wasn’t good. But it quickly became obvious to her that by handling her animals, she was only setting the example that handling them was acceptable. Now Malkia Park’s founder strives to teach the public that the only way to respect captive wild animals is to refrain from touching them.

But in despite her efforts, she says, “I don’t know if they listen when they see all these Dean, Eduardo, Kevin…”

And why would the public listen to hardworking conservationists who are telling them that handling captive wild animals damages conservation when entities like Bored Panda are putting out “spotlights” that praise exploiters for handling captive wild animals? Bored Panda’s “spotlight” actually made a point of Schneider’s social media presence, saying “We can even call him a social media star since he has 567k followers on Instagram to like or positively comment on his adventures in South Africa.” Of course, Bored Panda *didn’t* mention the fact that not all the comments on Dean’s posts are positive, nor did they mention the fact that having so many followers who all seem positive and supportive is more a matter of weeding out “haters” and blocking them than of being without fault. And now, thanks in no small part to Bored Panda’s own false publications about Dean, his Instagram followers are up another 31,000.

And here’s the thing that we’ve pointed out again, and again, and will continue to point out until the public starts to really absorb it:

BEING A STAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A CONSERVATIONIST, OR AN EXPERT ON CAPTIVE WILD ANIMALS.

Yes, Dean Schneider is climbing toward a million followers. That doesn’t make him a conservationist. His entire Hakuna Mipaka “dream” was founded on visiting a lion farm and interacting with them, something he said he’d dreamed of doing his entire life.

Screenshot from one of Dean's Facebook videos.

Not of saving wild lions. Not of protecting them. Not of shutting down an industry based off exploiting them by letting humans interact with them. But Dean’s dream–as per his own words–were to go to Africa and interact with big cats. And that’s what he’s doing. He claims to have “given up everything” and articles like the one Bored Panda published suggest that Dean “sold all his things” to start Hakuna Mipaka.

Yet on Dean’s Facebook post announcing his departure for Africa, he tells people to swing by the Icon Club for his “goodbye event” which is being held there.

The Icon Club is considered a premier club by connoisseurs and just a table on the dance floor will run you the requirement of of $80 bottle-only alcohol consumption per person. “Party Packages” for smaller groups of people range from $1,000-$2,000 to reserve. And Schneider posted an open-door walk-in advertisement to his Facebook followers to just “join us to say good bye” before he left for South Africa. So maybe Dean sold all his things after he paid for his goodbye party? No? Maybe he never sold them at all?

Or, maybe, just like Serio who supposedly sold his house in Beverly Hills to move to Mexico, or Kevin Richardson who lives in an exclusive mansion, but makes no money off his animals, or The Real Tarzann, who lets celebrities play with captive animals, and travels from country to country, but does not make money off his antics, it just sounds better to tell a story where the “hero” gave up the good life to go do whatever he’s doing. And after all, the author of the Bored Panda “spotlight” says “I love telling stories”

“Hidreley” as the author’s name is listed even went so far as to post a screenshot from last year where Dean Schneirder (under the name Muhamed Johan Stroganov) made one comment under a post on CWW, cropping out the “36wks ago” from under the comment and saying “Dean goes to the page “Captive Wildlife Watchdog” and defends himself of so many accusations.” Hidreley was, of course, intentionally misleading commenters into thinking that Dean “goes” in the present tense (as in, is happening right now) to defend himself against CWW.

This is completely untrue.

CWW has had minimal interactions with Schneider, all of them a year or more in the past, and to call them “interactions” at all would be a stretch. On Instagram, and Facebook this same message was sent to us:

Contrary to this comment (which as we said, is from last year) Hakuna Mipaka does allow anyone to visit if they pay as a "volunteer". This includes people on their honeymoon who were allowed to interact with Dexter the lion, among other things. In addition, this comment "defends" against things like breeding which we've never suggested Dean does.

No questions we asked were answered, no real information was exchanged. Rather, Dean made this statement, and then blocked us. So, no, Dean did not “goes” to our page to “defends himself of so many accusations.”

After Bored Panda’s fake promotional post about Dean was made, and CWW countered with our own post on the matter, detailing the inaccuracies and misrepresentations. And, of course, that one super-fan (not just a fan! According to their own comments) accused us repeatedly of failing to provide “proof” of what we were saying.

If you happen to notice it "edited" under her comment, it's because she rewrote most of her comments repeatedly. They would invariably involve just explicatives but then she'd edit to add "facts".

What fans seem incapable of grasping is that we aren’t even putting that much effort into debunking the lies of people like Dean Schneider.

Dean’s Dad, Rolf Schneider is Chairman of the Board of Dr. Blumer & Partner which describes itself as a “Pioneer of quantitative investing”. Dean Schneider is currently listed on the company website as a financial planner. Edita Schneider (who, along with Dean, and several of his friends, is listed on the Hakuna Mipaka AG board) is listed on the company website as office manager/accounting. Also listed on the website of Dr. Blumer & Partner, are several companies which belong to the B&P Group. One of those companies is Life Gate AG, which specializes in, among other things, financial marketing and business start-ups and foundations.

Dean still lists Life Gate AG as where he works:

and one of his earliest videos from South Africa showing him and friends interacting with lions as a “Life Gate Incentive trip”.

We also know Dean was not just an “employee” at Life Gate AG, but rather he was an Authorized Signatory, meaning he had the authority to represent the entire company. And we know this article (which Life Gate AG has refuted, of course) that Life Gate AG, as a new company, brought in younger employees, offering them huge incentives–about $10,000 a month starting, to $20,000, or more–and remember Dean wasn’t just an employee, but also a signatory. The linked article likens Life Gate AG to a “chain letter” because new agents received the aforementioned huge bonuses, but then had to quickly bring in new customers for money, and new employees to bring in more new customers. New employees, of course, also received huge monetary compensation, while the first generation of employees were then made team leaders. While Dean appears now under the “former” employee category at Life Gate AG, he still lists Life Gate AG as his employer, and Dr. Blumer & Partner sill lists Dean as one of their financial advisors. It should also be noted that Rolf Schneider, Dean’s father is listed as both former and current under Life Gate AG, as movement within the company seems to constitute a listing under former for positions no long held, even though he’s still on the Board of Directors (and also an Authorized Signature, we might add).

Now, if we look at Hakuna Mipaka, we find that the Hakuna Mipaka Foundation was registered as a Non-Profit Making Organization 10/14/2016 which is around the same time that Dean began posting videos with the name, and precisely one day after Dean’s Facebook announcement that he’d bought property in South Africa and was moving there.

HMF listed the purpose of the company as:

The Foundation initiates, supports and operates projects worldwide for the protection of animals, especially wildlife. These include :, a. Projects aiming at the protection, care and / or release of, in particular, non-species-based livestock, wild or illegal animal trade or animals. B. Projects aimed at sensitizing people to the importance of nature and animals and the responsible use of nature and animals., C. the development and implementation of training programs and events that raise awareness of the importance of responsible use of animals and nature, the importance of animals for healthy ecosystems and, in particular, demonstrate that "coexistence" and a respectful handling of animals is quite possible., d. the support and establishment of facilities for the welfare of animals derived from non-species livestock, illegal livestock or illegal trafficking, in principle (if possible) with a view to subsequent (re) release; e. the support of institutions or aspirations that have the same or similar goals.

HMF listed branch offices as “Charitable Institutions”

But less than a year after it was registered, the Hakuna Mipaka Foundation was put into liquidation, and in its place, on May 7 2017 Hakuna Mipaka AG was registered as a Joint Stock Company.

But HMAG lists its current purposes as:

The purpose of the company is the trading and distribution of products of all kinds and the provision of various services such as: - Marketing of advertising media (people, animals, etc.) -Human Resources Consulting -Project Management -Organization Development -Business Development -The The Company may also engage in any other activity that is directly or indirectly related to the purpose of the Company. The Company may establish branches and subsidiaries both domestically and abroad, and participate in other domestic and foreign companies, as well as any business that is directly or indirectly related to its purpose. The Company may acquire, encumber, dispose of and administer real estate domestically and abroad.

HMAG lists branch offices as “non-specifed wholesale trade”

Dean Schneider is listed as the main signatory/director for both versions of Hakuna Mipaka, but the difference between the companies is profound.

This is a text-book bait and switch company start-up. Dean set up Hakuna Mipaka Foundation as a non-profit dedicated to animals, gained huge amounts of followers within just a few months and then started the liquidation process of the non-profit and re-registered his company as Hakuna Mipaka AG, a Joint Stock Company. The evidence of this is right here on the internet for anyone to find. He’s not trying to hide this. And CWW isn’t making it up out of “jealousy” or any other reason as we’re so often accused of. All we’re doing is pointing out the truth. And it’s not about money, or making money. We don’t care that Dean is rich, we care that he’s lying about being rich, and about making money off his Joint Stock Company by interacting with animals. Dean is not in this to save animals by making people love them, he’s in it to make money off making people love him, and his interactions with animals.

As has been said numerous times in recent discussions CWW has had with people:

“Animals don’t need your money or your fan-hood. They need habitat to be protected, they need to be left alone, they need for people to stop using them as a platform to get famous and they need the public to stop supporting people who used animals as props and platforms to get famous.”

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

When Animal Exploiters Try To Silence Their Opposition

This post is going to be very long, dry (okay, maybe more like filled with dry wit) and full of legal information. We apologize in advance for that. But through this note, CWW hopes to give our readers a better insight into the constant fight we wage in reporting on exploiters like Doc Antle, Eduardo Serio, Dean Schneider, Kevin Richardson, etc. and the lengths to which exploiters like them will go to try and stop us from providing the public with facts that counter their claims and lies.

Last weekend CWW posted a Note on Facebook about Doc Antle’s Rare Species Fund, which had been promoted on the Faulkner Instagram page. Specifically Faulkner had claimed that the Rare Species Fund saved animals and returned them to their natural habitat. (It doesn’t) Within a few days of making the post, we received notice that a DMCA complaint had been filed against us, and our Note had been removed because Facebook complies with the notice and takedown procedures defined in section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

If you don’t understand the DMCA, copyright laws, or the fair use doctrine, this seems like a straightforward case of CWW using something we didn’t have a right to use, and us getting called on it.

But it’s not.

To begin, let’s explore the primary terms involved here.

Copyright.

Copyright law grants authors and artists the exclusive right to make and sell copies of their works, the right to create derivative works, and the right to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death.

Fair Use Doctrine

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. This includes screen captures and screenshots.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

The DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet (In a very simplified nutshell)

Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512(c) Also referred to as the “Safe Harbor” provision.

Section 512 of the DMCA established a system for copyright owners and online entities to address online infringement, including limitations on liability for compliant service providers to help foster the growth of internet-based services. Congress intended for copyright owners and internet service providers to cooperate to detect and address copyright infringements. To qualify for protection from infringement liability, a service provider must fulfill certain requirements, generally consisting of implementing measures to expeditiously address online copyright infringement.

So, in the simplest of terms, if you make something, you own the copyrights to that something, unless someone uses it via the Fair Use Doctrine for the purposes defined by that Doctrine. If you use copyrighted things outside of the Fair Use Doctrine (like republishing someone’s book, or posting their artwork and calling it your own) the actual copyright holder can lodge a DMCA complaint against you, because copyrights.

Under the DMCA section 512(c) sharing sites like Facebook are exempt from all liability associated with copyright infringement if they immediately remove content that has a complaint lodged against it.

It’s very important to understand that within the entire ecosystem we’ve just described the only part that Facebook plays is as a sharing site which participates within “Safe Harbor” provision of the DMCA, and that as a participant of the “Safe Harbor” provision, the only thing Facebook needs to do, is remove content and inform the person who posted it that it was removed. That’s it.

It’s also vital to understand that Facebook’s compliance with the “Safe Harbor” provision, and the removal of content in no way verifies that the removed content was actually infringing on anyone’s copyright. The “Safe Harbor” provision doesn’t require participants to remove only content that constitutes copyright infringement, it requires participants to remove any content which has had a complaint lodged against it regardless of whether that complaint is valid or false.

One of the most contended issues with the “Safe Harbor” provision, which has been debated, and researched by numerous groups, is the fact that complying with it in order to be exempt from liability it constitutes “prior restraint” something that is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Prior restraint is what happens when speech is punished before there has been any adjudication to prove that it deserves to be punished.

The reason the First Amendment prohibits prior restraint is that it does no good to punish speech, such as by removing it, if the First Amendment would otherwise protect it – once it has been removed the damage will have already been done. In the case of the “Safe Harbor” provision, Facebook (or other sharing sites) remove content which has a DMCA complaint lodged against it before anyone, including the complainant ever proves it actually needs to be removed. They’re not required by law to ever vet a DMCA complaint at all.

This means that an entity like CWW–who uses various forms of media to critique, report on, educate about, and provide commentary on groups which exploit, abuse, and damage captive wild animals under the Fair Use Doctrine–can be illegally censured by the very abusers and exploiters they’re making a stand against.

And because of how the DMCA complaint system works, accusers are permitted to simply lodge complaints without validating them. It’s up to innocent victims of those complaints, like CWW, or those who are the victim of false or incorrectly made complaints, to send a counter-notice which includes consent to the jurisdiction of a federal court just to try and establish that they are, in fact, innocent of any copyright infringement.

To make matters worse, much of the time, completely legal content (which CWW’s Note was) is automatically removed because sharing sites like Facebook utilize automated takedown systems, which do nothing but receive complaints, and automatically remove the linked content. This has created an ongoing issue with poorly reported complaints, or false complaints being honored, while legally posted content is removed.

So what happened with CWW’s Rare Species Fund Note?

On Monday night, we received this notice from Facebook:

Followed by this warning:

The key points in this complaint (shown in the middle photo) are that the “Rights Owner” is listed as Nicholas Balestracci and that the “Copyrighted Work” is listed as “A photo”.

As you can see in the above screenshot, we were directed to contact Nicholas Balestracci, the complaining party, directly in order to resolve the issue. Considering that a minimum of 45 photos had been used in our Note about the Rare Species Fund, and no one had contacted CWW through any vector about the erroneous use of their material, we suspected that the complaint had been lodged with the purpose of having the entire article removed, rather than just “a photo”.

Nevertheless, we directly emailed Nicholas Balestracci as we’d been directed by Facebook to do.

We received a quick reply, which gloriously showcases how animal exploiters like Doc Antle, and those who work for him, abuse the laws meant to protect others in order to stop entities like CWW from reporting on, and educating the public about, their lies and damaging behavior.

This is the reply we received from Nicholas Balestracci (copied and pasted verbatim below, rather than shown in a screenshot, because, well, Mr. Balestracci’s accusations over screenshots is why this post is being made)

To whom it may concern,

I am the official photographer for the Myrtle Beach Safari. All of the photos taken AT the Myrtle Beach Safari are produced by me or my team. I do not have your “post” in a screenshot so I can not point out specifically. However almost every screenshot your post contained of our (Myrtle Beach Safari, Doc Antle, etc.) social media posts and other photos you obtained through the internet are taken by me or produced by my team. I am either tagged in those photos/posts or have posted the photo myself in some format.

If you continue to post ANY of my photographs, videos, etc. then I will continue to report.

I do not want my photos used for the reason you are using them.

Please DO NOT respond or contact me again for any reason.

Thank you,

Mr. Balestracci

Anyone with even minimal legal knowledge will already be laughing at the content of this reply, but let’s go ahead and unpack this response in detail.

“I am the official photographer for the Myrtle Beach Safari. All of the photos taken AT the Myrtle Beach Safari are produced by me or my team.”

Whoooo-boy. Okay.

Firstly, Nicholas Balestracci, as per the “About” section of his own Facebook page, has been the “official photographer for the Myrtle Beach Safari” since early April 2018. Yep, the guy who filed a DMCA complaint for “a photo” from among 45 photos, and who claimed that “All” photos “taken AT the Myrtle Beach Safari” are copyrighted by him personally, has only been taking photos at MBS for 10 months, according to his own timeline.

Secondly, the only visual indication of where any of the photos we utilized might have been taken is the “Location” shown on the various posts, something that can be added and edited multiple times, and does not have any legal obligation to be the actual location depicted in the post. In addition, there were a minimum of 45 photos used in our post, many of which were not labeled as MBS, and some of which were taken at a different facility located on an entirely separate continent.

Third, no, not all the photos taken “AT” MBS are produced by Mr. Balestracci, or his team. As just mentioned, Mr. Balestracci has been employed at MBS for 10 months (per his own biography)–not even one calendar year–so again, no, not every photo taken “AT” MBS was produced by Mr. Balestracci or his team. Prior to April 2018 Mr. Balestracci was not even employed at MBS to be taking photos there.

Fourth, just for readers’ reference the Instagram pages listed below, are just the ones we know about, which are directly associated with MBS, and for which Mr. Balestracci is essentially claiming to own copyrights for all visible content within.

@Rarespeciesfund

@Docantle

@Kodyantle

@tawny.thetiger

@Myrtlebeachsafari

@Tiger411

@china.york

@TheRealTarzann

@gibbonmom

@mokshabybee_tigers

@zooinfo411

@tigershakti

Furthermore, the two sites listed below have shared videos taken at MBS, without referencing or crediting Balestracci, yet Balestracci seems to have no issue with these “copyright infringements”.

@whathapndng

@worldstar

He even promoted one of them on his own Facebook page, on January 26th, linking to it, and cheerfully announcing that the video he took (but for which he is not credited) made World Star! The video, which shows The Real Tarzann playing with a baboon, has garnered over half a million views.

Guess that indignant copyright rage he had going on is situational.

“I do not have your “post” in a screenshot so I can not point out specifically.”

Wait, what?

We’ve by now established that DMCA complaints heavily favor the complainant. But even so, lodging a DMCA complaint is not *quite* as simple as writing a sentence or two to the host website.

In order to lodge a DMCA complaint, you have to (or you’re *supposed to*) provide detailed information about where the work appears with your permission, include original copies, where it’s being infringed upon, contact details, etc.

Facebook uses an online form for DMCA complaints–though they encourage users to contact the person they feel is infringing on their copyright before filing a DMCA complaint, in order to exhaust all venues of settlement before engaging in a DMCA complaint. Mr. Balestracci opted to skip that step and go straight to filing against CWW. The requirements for filing a DMCA complaint with Facebook’s online form has been directly copied and pasted here:

• Your complete contact information (full name, mailing address and phone number).*

• A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed.

• A description of the content on our site that you claim infringes your copyright.

• Information reasonably sufficient to permit us to locate the material on our site. The easiest way to do this is by providing web addresses (URLs) leading directly to the allegedly infringing content.

• A declaration that:

• You have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted content described above, in the manner you have complained of, is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

• The information in your notice is accurate.

• Under penalty of perjury, you are the owner or authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive copyright that is allegedly infringed.

• Your electronic signature or physical signature.

• *Please note that we regularly provide your name, contact information and the contents of your report to the person who posted the content you are reporting. If you are an authorized representative submitting a report, we provide the name of the organization or client that owns the right in question. You may wish to provide a professional or business email address for this reason.

So Mr. Balestracci took the time to provide all of that information and lodge a DMCA complaint, but in his email reply to CWW he claimed that because he didn’t have a screenshot directly in front of him, he couldn’t tell us which photo in our post was copyrighted by him.

But it gets even better.

“However almost every screenshot your post contained of our (Myrtle Beach Safari, Doc Antle, etc.) social media posts and other photos you obtained through the internet are taken by me or produced by my team. I am either tagged in those photos/posts or have posted the photo myself in some format.”

Firstly, “almost every screenshot” was not cited on the DMCA complaint which Mr. Balestracci filed against CWW. “A photo” was listed.

Secondly, “almost” isn’t even a legally binding term, and “almost” is not the same as “a”.

Thirdly, as we’ve established, no, all photos taken “of” MBS are not, in fact, taken by you, or produced by your team. As per the biography listed on your own photography website, you are currently twenty-two years old. So, for example, this photo of Kody Antle as a three or four year old was not taken by you, nor your team, as you weren’t even born in the mid-80s when that photo was taken. And if Kody Antle put up a photograph taken when he was a child, on his own Instagram page, you don’t get to claim the copyright to it.

Fourth, nope, sorry honey, you aren’t tagged in most of the photos used, and as we just mentioned regarding time frame, you did not post them in “some format” from all the various pages either attributed to MBS or Instagram profiles which belong to the thousands of guests who have visited MBS. Nor are you tagged or credited in all of the 11,000+ Instagram search results under #rarespeciesfund.

POP QUIZ FOR READERS!

Mr. Balestracci stated in his letter that he was the “official photographer” for Myrtle Beach Safari and that our “post contained of our (Myrtle Beach Safari, Doc Antle, etc.) social media posts” so does that mean the DMCA complaint was made on behalf of Myrtle Beach Safaris, and that MBS’s copyrights were being infringed upon by our use?

How closely have you been reading?

Answer:

NOPE!

This DMCA complaint was NOT lodged on behalf of MBS, and therefore the copyrights in question are NOT copyrights held by MBS, or Doc Antle, even though Mr. Balestracci’s email reply clearly implies that all photos taken at MBS or posted on accounts run by MBS (including Doc Antle’s) are copyrighted by Mr. Balestracci himself.

Confused?

Details matter.

On the formal DMCA complaint Facebook sent us, the Rights Owner was listed as Nicholas Balestracci. Contact for Mr. Balestracci (which we aren’t going to publish) was the email address associated with Balestracci’s personal photography business website, Nick B Photos.

Facebook’s online form for DMCA complaints specifies “If you are an authorized representative submitting a report, we provide the name of the organization or client that owns the right in question.” But within the DMCA complaint lodged against CWW, the only entity listed is Nicholas Balestracci. And the only email provided was directly to Nicholas Balestracci’s photography company, Nick B Photos.

Myrtle Beach Safaris was not named.

Doc Antle was not named.

No email for Myrtle Beach Safari was provided.

No email for Doc Antle was provided.

Therefore the Mr. Balestracci lodged a DMCA complaint on behalf of himself, and his personal photography company, not Myrtle Beach Safari or Doc Antle, and any copyrights owned by MBS are completely irrelevant to this entire situation.

Basically, everything Mr. Balestracci is insinuating and claiming in his email response to CWW, all of his assertions that any photo taken from MBS social media profiles, and any photo taken “AT” MBS, are owned by him and his “team”, are completely invalid.

Only a photo taken by Mr. Balestracci himself, and to which Mr. Balestracci owns the exclusive copyrights, is even eligible to be the “A photo” he named in his DMCA complaint. And none of the photos utilized in CWW’s Note were taken from Mr. Balestracci’s photography website.

Having permission to create and disseminate media on the behalf of an employer does not equate to owning the exclusive copyrights to that media. Mr. Balestracci, by his own wording, produces content (photos, videos, etc.) as an employee of T.I.G.E.R.S. Myrtle Beach Safaris (full name of the institute) which was founded by, and is directed by, and owned by Mahamayavi Bhagavan “Doc” Antle. Therefore Doc Antle would actually retain sole proprietorship to the content created for all of his companies. Mr. Balestracci might well have rights to utilize certain photos he took or content he created, for his own purposes, but his rights would be second to those of his employer, Doc Antle and T.I.G.E.R.S. Myrtle Beach Safari.

If that were case it would actually eliminate every photo in our post from the purview of the DMCA complaint that Mr. Balestracci filed against CWW.

Now, here’s the part that will cause anyone who supports what CWW is doing, and what we stand for, to spit coffee and curse.

None of what we just explained matters as far as DMCA complaints against us go.

Facebook’d automated system for fielding DMCA complaints doesn’t vet the complaints. It doesn’t research them. It doesn’t question them.

It receives a complaint, and it removes the content listed therein. Period.

Facebook automatically removes content named in DMCA complaints even if the complaint is false, and the complainant is intentionally lodging the complaint in order to have an article they don’t agree with removed.

Yes, CWW could send a counter-notice, to the DMCA complaint lodged against us, but doing so means we would have to, for lack of a better description, invite Mr. Balestracci to sue us, if he chooses to continue claiming we infringed on his copyrights (which we did not) as well as provide him with court jurisdiction information so that he can readily file a suit against us if he chooses to. Aside from the repugnance of asking a victim to help their accuser further attack them, it’s simply not worth our effort pursue a counter-notice. Even if Mr. Balestracci folded (doubtful, considering the arrogance and self-importance involved with him attempting to claim copyright ownership of over 11,000 photos pertaining to MBS, by whom he’s been employed for only 10 months) and he gave consent for our Note to be reposted, it would take an average of 14 business days for Facebook to repost our content. It’s easier just to repost it ourselves, and then take the opportunity to give our readers a window into what happened.

And filing a counter-notice would probably be pointless anyway, from the standpoint that Mr. Balestracci made it quite clear in his email response to us that he would continue to file DMCA complaints for ANY photo, video or other media that we use which shows Myrtle Beach Safaris, which he continued to refer to with the term “my”.

“If you continue to post ANY of my photographs, videos, etc. then I will continue to report.”

Since Facebook’s automated DMCA complaint system does not verify the complaints lodged, it will simply continue to remove our content every time Mr. Balestracci files a DMCA complaint, even though he doesn’t actually own the copyrights he’s claiming we’re infringing upon. Yes, this is illegal of him, but because of the manner in which DMCA complaints are handled, the only way someone like Mr. Balestracci will be held legally accountable for his behavior is if someone like CWW expends the money and effort to pursue legal action against him. And the fact is, he just isn’t worth the bother. In the grand scheme of things, he’s just another spoiled, self-important young man who thinks he can rearrange the universe to suite himself.

Mr. Balestracci explained his own actions in filing the DMCA complaint against CWW in his email response to us, and his reasoning unsurprisingly has nothing to do with copyrights, or our legal right to use media of Myrtle Beach Safari through the Fair Use Doctrine.

“I do not want my photos used for the reason you are using them.”

This entire chain of events started with a young man posting incorrect facts, misleading information, and ignorant content on his Instagram post because he refused “to listen to leadership he didn’t respect” and it’s arrived at its current state because another young man doesn’t “want my photos used for the reason you are using them.”

This is what CWW is fighting against. A public who not only doesn’t want to know the truth, but also doesn’t want their own facts handed back to them in support of the truth they’re trying to deny. Mr. Balestracci doesn’t have to “want” us to use media from MBS’s social media accounts to show that Doc Antle’s Rare Species Fund involves cub petting and pay-to-play schemes, but he legally can’t stop us from utilizing media associated with MBS through Fair Use Doctrine, when we’re reporting the truth about MBS. Never mind the fact that he’s asserting that every photo on any site that portrays Doc Antle’s Myrtle Beach Safari is exclusively his property.

Unfortunately, since it was created in 1998, the DMCA has only become more, and more of a quagmire, especially with the introduction of, and poorly overseen, systems of automated complaint and take-down used by the majority of sharing websites like Facebook. Add to that the fact that even those who file counter-notices, and bring lawsuits agains those who have falsely accused them of infringement get little or no justice, even with new laws which are supposed to curb false DMCA complaints, and it’s a shitshow, at best. Some even argue that the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face because it interferes with free speech. The damage to the First Amendment, and the destruction of Fair Use Doctrine caused by the DMCA has been studied by Law entities, and covered by multiple scholarly sites. The abuse of the DMCA enjoyed by entities who lodge DMCA complaints simply to get content they don’t like removed, has been widely and repeatedly discussed.

The truth will out in the end, though. It always does.

CWW is not going to stop posting about Myrtle Beach Safari, or Doc Antle, or the lies, abuse, and misleading fake information they sell to the ignorant public, simply because a kid with a camera gets his nose out of joint and throws a temper tantrum. At the end of the day, Mr. Nicholas Balestracci is the one who comes out looking like an ignorant ass, attempting to claim copyright ownership of any content posted on more than a dozen social media accounts, of any age, at any time, along with more than 11,000 Instagram search results.

CWW is going to keep doing what we do, while exploiters like Mr. Balestracci are going to keep doing everything they can, legal or not, to try and stop us. Let them try. We’re not the ones breaking the law here.

Headline Image attributed to Pat_S on TammyBruce.com

Research Into The Rare Species Fund

Research Into The Rare Species Fund Might Make Them Go Extinct (Despite Their Attempt To Thwart CWW’s Freedom Of Speech)

One of the greatest challenges facing our endangered wildlife is simply the failure of the public to properly research the numerous exploitive ploys being hocked on every street corner within the conservation industry. The explosion of social media in the last decade–and along with it, the “feel good and do what you want, and don’t respect anyone who knows more than you do, but is a “Debbie-downer” mindset–has given rise tot he most widely embraced and damaging exploitive, pseudo-conservation organizations ever seen. At no other time in the history of humanity has there ever been organizations celebrated by hundreds of thousands or millions of people for doing nothing but use and abuse animals, such as we now face. Some of the abusive and exploitive social media pseudo-conservationists are new, like Black Jaguar White Tiger, established specifically to take advantage of the surge in the social media world. Others, like Do Antle, and his family, of T.I.G.E.R.S. have been in existence for decades but are now enjoying a massive growth in their popularity, building false reputations as conservationists which have been eagerly embraced by a public too lazy, or ignorant, to complete even the most basic research about the exploiters they’re so willing to tout as helpful to the animals which are actually being abused by them.

Here is a chronological list of the USDA violations, complaints, fines, and issues of abuse attached to Bhagavan Antle (Doc Antle)

Our case in point regarding failure to research? A post from last week made on Instagram by Faulkner. With 121,000 followers on Instagram, Faulkner is, relatively speaking, a lightweight in the social media game. But with friends like @therealtarzann (whose follower count climbed to 4.8 million after he visited a private rhino farm (the owners of whom are actually pro-rhino horn trade) and called it conservation) @docantle and @Kodyantle, Faulkner understands that the fastest way to gain followers is to fake some conservation. Enter Faulkner’s Instagram post, which contained a photo of a tiger cub being coddled, and a video of the same, with text stating that Faulkner had already donated $5,000 to Doc Antle’s Rare Species Fund. Faulkner went on in their post to state that they’ll match other donations to the RSF up to $10,000 USD.

Text accompanying the post by Faulkner.

It’s unclear how many comments might have been made questioning the actions of Faulkner, as the majority of negative comments have been carefully deleted, including multiple responses to the handful of critical comments which do remain. Apparently Faulkner doesn’t “respect” those who know more than they do, and who is trying to educate them, either.

The circled replies have all been removed.

In addition to weeding out any negative comments, Faulkner was quick to defend their post, insisting that the cub shown was “rescued” and was being held “before it went to its natural habitat” challenging one commenter by asking “How much have you donated to conservation of animals?” And claiming that the Rare Species Fund is “making a huge difference in conservation”.

Comments questioning Faulkner's post.

If only Faulkner had bothered to do basic research (or if they cared more about the truth than getting followers) they’d know that they haven’t donated any money to conservation at all, they’ve just help support a decades-old empire of animal abuse and exploitation, which for the Antles, is a family affair. Doc Antle and his son Kody have even joked about their exploitation spanning decades, taking matching photos of themselves 30 years apart sauntering along with captive bred tigers on chain leashes.

From the 1980s, to the 1990s, to the 2000s and moving into the 2020s, Doc Antle and T.I.G.E.R.S. have bred batch, after batch, after batch of big cat cubs which are used for cub petting, before being sold off to parts unknown, or used as breeding stock for more cubs.

In almost 40 years not one single animals produced by the Antles, or involved with the Rare Species Fund has ever set foot in the wild.

Furthermore, the Antles persist in marketing genetically manipulated animals like Ligers as “natural” variants of big cats which are actually healthier and longer lived than non-hybrids, even though the issues associated with captive inbreeding of white tigers and hybrids have been scientifically proven and documented again, and again.

Since Faulkner insisted that the Rare Species Fund was “saving species” and “restoring them to a natural habitat” we performed a basic hashtag search of #rarespeciesfund on Instagram. Here are links to a *small* selection of what we found under the “recent” tab. They are now listed in links, rather than photos. Some posts contain multiple photos.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BstEGutgsGq/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=rvfzoxnhiwym

https://www.instagram.com/p/BmwcFJ1BvUO/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=p4eepu7x1tqj

https://www.instagram.com/p/Btq_pF0Akgu/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=r8pk7cpdactt

Paying to play with cubs, paying to swim with cubs, breeding more cubs for more people to pay to play with. All in the name of the Rare Species Fund.

Yeah, what is CWW thinking? The Rare Species Fund clearly has the corner on conserving big cats, and getting them back into their natural habitat!

Pay to play is the name of the game at the Samutprakarn Wildlife Park aka the Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo.

Of course, only the RSF refers to it as the Samutprakarn Wildlife Park in their promotional media pertaining to “hand delivery” of “the first uniquely colored tigers anywhere in Asia.” The rest of Thailand calls it the Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo, and it might sound familiar to readers because in December of 2018, it made International headlines when photos of its animal hit the airwaves, showcasing a long history of abuse and neglect.

Photo by Somchai Poomlard) Please credit and share this article with others using this link:https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1594182/rest-ordered-for-skinny-elephants-at-samut-prakan-zoo. View our policies at http://goo.gl/9HgTd and http://goo.gl/ou6Ip. © Bangkok Post Public Company Limited. All rights reserved.

The zoo was subsequently ordered by Thailand’s Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation to rest the elephants and put them on a proper diet.

Tiger at Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo photo taken by visiter.

And we aren’t the only ones pointing out the Rare Species Fund’s participating in importing tigers to abusive pits of misery like Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo.

Yes, just a little research into the Rare Species Fund might well push it from rarity to extinction. And would that be just awful?

Please, please, kids, just do your own research. We’re not asking you to “listen to leadership you don’t respect” we’re just trying to get you to think for yourselves before you publicly devote yourselves to groups who don’t care about you, or the animals you’re trying to save. We’re sorry that real conservation is “boring” and doesn’t involve handling cubs, playing with big cats, and interacting with captive bred wild animals, but anyone who tries to tell you that holding cubs bred in captivity will save wild animals is lying to you.

Anyone who breeds wild animals in captivity, handles captive wild animals, and interacts with big cats, or other captive wild animals and claims that they’re doing so for the purpose of raising awareness about conservation and supporting conservation is lying.

Period.

No exceptions.

Dean Schneider And Lion ALERT

Dean Schneider Helps Showcase The Exploitation of Lion ALERT

Dean Schneider has proof that captive bred lions can be released back into the wild!

Just kidding, that’s a lie.

It was a lie when we typed it just now, and it was a lie when Dean Schneider said it on his video.

Dean hasn’t seen any proof that captive bred lions have been successfully released into the wild.

No one has.

What Dean’s actually done, is take a note from The Real Tarzann, and visited an exploitive breeding facility which presents itself as being part of conservation. Readers might remember Tarzann “saving” rhinos from poaching a couple of months ago. It caused his follower count to fly up to the millions. The rhinos involved weren’t wild, though. They were owned by private rhino ranchers. The same ranchers who are lobbying to reinstate the trade of rhino horn because they have warehouses of horn harvested from their cattle rhinos, and they need to be able to sell it somewhere. Yeah, nothing is ever as good as it seems with shysters like Tarzann and Schneider.

In Schneider’s case, he paid a visit (probably literally) to Lion ALERT/Antelope Park in Zimbabwe. For those inside lion conservation, Lion ALERT has been a millstone of exploitation for over a decade now, slickly presented, with just enough scientific lingo that anyone without a solid grasp of ecology, biology, and conservation, buys into their bullshit hook line and sinker. It could be suggested that Eduardo Serio might have studied Lion ALERT before founding Black Jaguar White Tiger. After all, Lion ALERT has 4 Stages for it’s captive raised lions to be reintroduced into the wild. Just like BJWT, however, Lion ALERT has never actually used all of its much-discussed “stages”. Just like Serio’s pets always stall out at “Stage 2”, none of Lion ALERT’s cats have ever made it beyond Stage 2. Not in over ten years.

If you go looking for the history of Lion ALERT, don’t be surprised if you can’t find a concise timeline. That’s because they’ve shuffled themselves around like a huge live version of the shell game. Be aware that Lion ALERT and Antelope Park attempt to keep distance between themselves but are indelibly linked and partnered. Lion Alert was founded in 2005 by Andrew Connolly. Connolly had already been working in the African tourism industry, arranging animal encounters for tourists since 1998, and in 1999 he developed the “African Lion Rehabilitation & Release into the Wild Program.” That last sounds pretty awesome, but when you look at the actuality, it just represents multiple “walk with lions” and “cub petting” ventures which all claim that the cubs being held by tourists will later be released into the wild. Because we’ve never heard that one before….

Since it was founded in 2005, Lion ALERT has bred a whole bunch of lions, hosted thousands of tourists to handle, play with and walk with those lions, and has released precisely zero lions into the wild. Yes, the lions seen in Dean’s video seem to be out in open areas, but Dean himself states that the lions are in a 200 hectare enclosure.

To give readers some perspective on this, 200 hectares is about 494 acres. Central Park, in New York City is 840 square acres. So look at this photo:

Now, cut the Park in half, and you have the area of land Dean is referring to where, according to Dean, captive bred lions have been successfully released into the “wild” and are living and hunting and breeding in the “wild.”

Yes, it’s all about spinning reality to sound like a good lie. Lion ALERT places breeding pairs into larger enclosures and allows them to breed. So does Ukutula, Lion Park, and every other predator encounter in South Africa. It doesn’t mean that the captive bred lions are living in the wild, and it doesn’t mean they’ve been successfully released into the wild. For every snazzy publicity stunt like this where Lion ALERT is touted as leading the way in lions conservation, there are dozens of issues spanning from shortly after they were founded, to the present.

There have been situations of selling surplus lions as covered in this 2008 post (prepare to read a little, there are multiple responses from the involved parties)

Please note that the statement issued in reply to an article criticizing ALERT, made by the PR Manager of Antelope Park (where ALERT is situated) states that:

“No lion from Antelope Park has ever been, and never will be, intentionally sold for canned hunting.”

This is basic PR maneuvering. There is no actual promise that lions who have been sold won’t end up in the canned hunting industry, there’s just the promise that the part won’t intentionally sell them into canned hunting. The PR manager goes on to make a point of how the export documents has a pre-condition declaring that the lions could not be used for canned hunting, and that they were “monitored by the relevant wildlife authorities” to assure the provisions of this sale were upheld.

What the PR doesn’t clarify is what happened to the lions after ALERT’s Antelope Park sold them. The only stipulations involved that first sale, and there was no clause forbidding the receiver from turning around and immediately selling the lions to various canned hunting outfits. This is what’s known as the middleman highway. So long as ALERT can declare that they, personally, have never sold lions into canned hunting, they can state that they don’t support the industry. But the truth is, dozens of their homebred lions could well be hanging on the walls of trophy hunters. Once lions are sold to a middleman, they stop being ALERT’s problem.

There are numerous other articles informed by lion conservation experts which repeatedly point out the fact that Lion ALERT literally breeds lions to use in tourist petting schemes, then places the lions in “Stages” which it claims will end in wild release. According to Lion ALERT, it utilizes 4 Stages:

Stage 1: Around 3 months and upwards until 18 months old: the cubs are taken on walks in the bush to help them become familiar with their natural surroundings. At 18 months to 2½ years human contact is removed and they are given the opportunity to hone their hunting skills by taking part in Night and Day Encounters in a safe and secure environment (fenced off, no humans).

Stage 2: The lions are released in a pride into a large enclosure where they can start to live as a wild pride, hunting and fending for themselves. They are closely monitored for research purposes; there is no human contact or intervention.

Stage 3: The pride is relocated to a larger area, where they will spend the rest of their lives. This area is big enough to have many different species in it, including competitive ones. In this stage, the pride breeds cubs which will experience no human intervention.

Stage 4: Cubs born in Stage 3 will be raised by the pride in a totally natural environment, and when old enough, can be relocated into those areas of Africa that need them.

The problems here are numerous. For one, these stages sound good, but “Stage 1” starts with cubs that are 3 months old, without explaining where those cubs come from. They’re bred onsite, but that detail is strategically left out because admitting to breeding lions in captivity is bad for business. Then there’s the fact that in ten years, Lion ALERT has never gotten any lions beyond “Stage 2” where Dean filmed them. As we’ve already established, “Stage 2 is half the size of Central Park in New York City. And Dean calls the cubs there “wild born” but according to Lion ALERT’s own website, only the cubs born in Stage 3 will be “raised by the pride in a totally natural environment” and will eventually be released into the wild. But if the cubs in Dean’s video are in “Stage 4” (which is where Lion ALERT says cubs destined for the wild will be raised) that would mean that “Stage 4” the “totally natural environment” is only half the size of Central Park. The other option, of course, is that the cubs Dean is calling “wild born” are just cubs that were born onsite, and which will later be used to breed more animals, and/or sold off to middlemen and end up who knows where. Neither option has anything to do with functional lion conservation.

And experts agree with that fact.

This screenshot showcases just a handful of the problems experts have with Lion ALERT. Yes, we underlined a few pointed sentences which specify that no captive raised lions have ever successfully been released into the wild. Because, you know, it’s nice when experts back up the facts we’ve presented that people just don’t want to acknowledge.

You can read the very long, but very informative thread from whence the above screenshot was taken here.

There is only one “scientific” paper associated with Lion ALERT and it was written by one of their own staff back in 2013. Furthermore, the article only discusses the proposal of a framework for the release of captive bred lions, it doesn’t document any actual release.

There’s even evidence that Lion ALERT has intentionally thwarted screenings of Blood Lions because BL shows that breeding lions for tourism is not functional conservation.

The rest of these articles all raise the same concerns and issues over and over again, all pointing out that Lion ALERT is just another breeding facility with better PR to create facade of lion conservation. Spend some time researching Lion ALERT for yourself. Pay close attention to dates and details, however, as multiple articles put out by Lion ALERT itself, or supported by them, which praise ALERT discuss the fact that “next year” lions are due to be released into the wild. The problem is, these articles range in date from around 2013-2018, and all of them state that Lion ALERT is planning on releasing captive bred lions into the wild “next year”. Which, of course, never happens.

Nice going, Dean. You helped showcase fellow exploiters very nicely there. Well done.

Ukutula

Conning The Public With Conservation Claims

It was recently brought to the attention of CWW that Ukutula Conservation Center & Biobank (the fancy new face of Ukutula Game Reserve and Lodge) will be hosting a “One Day Professional Conference” on November 16th, 2018, and after some considerable research, we have questions. Very, serious questions. Namely questions about how multiple professionals (some of them with exquisite records) have been conned into speaking at a conference hosted by one of South Africa’s most notorious for-profit lion farms.

Some of the connections are obvious. For example, many of the guest speakers presenting at Ukutula’s “conference” are associated in some way to local universities, such as the University of Pretoria, North-West University, etc. Ukutula has carefully cultivated its connections with local universities as a way of attempting to validate itself. It’s not difficult to look at Professors or students committing research for their thesis papers or schoolwork, and understand why it would be advantageous to work with Ukutula in order to have access to the animals they want to study. In fact, one of the “Advisory Committee” members of UCC Dr. Imke Lüders has stated point blank that she utilized Ukutula for research trips on multiple occasions because the lions at Ukutula are habituated to humans, and used to being handled and therefore very easy to work with.

It’s reasonable then, to speculate that the majority of the academic “professionals” who engage with UCC do so out of convenience and self-interest. This statement is not made in judgement of those research professionals, so much in acknowledgment that very often in the name of science, sacrifices of ethics are made in order to obtain research and information.

The announcement of the live birth of the two AI cubs in early September, 2018 was made with great pride and fanfare, as those involved touted it as the potential baseline for the conservation of other endangered large wild felids. These claims, however, directly conflict with the statement of criticism levied against UCC and the University of Pretoria, by no small number of conservation experts.

According to these groups which all signed a letter of concern addressed to the University of Pretoria, the captive breeding of lions, whether assisted or not, does not contribute to biodiversity conservation or address the main threats to wild lion conservation. The group letter goes on to detail how the captive lion breeding industry in South Africa is associated with the exploitation of lions through interaction activities, canned hunting, and the lion bone trade.

Nonplussed by the letter, despite the considerable expertise of those who signed it, both UCC and UP have continued to tout their achievements as “world-firsts” and UCC continues to bill itself as a leader in lion conservation.

Ukutula Conservation Center’s website is full of eye-catching graphics, but one only needs to watch a few videos for the gaps in facts, and misinformation provided to be blatantly clear.

For example, this video, featuring Ukutula Lodge owner Willi Jacobs, opens with Jacobs declaring that “Ukutula Lodge and Ukutula Conservation Center both contribute very meaningfully to conservation. The Lodge,” Jacobs says, “Hosts “ecotourism” and the ecotourism pays for conservation that the Conservation Center and Biobank are involved in.”

What Jacobs does not specify is that this “ecotourism” as he spins it, is nothing more than cub-petting and lion-walking ventures which are perpetuated by the constant breeding of captive lions in order to produce cubs to be used first for cub-petting, and later for lion-walking.

Cubs are a constant presence at Ukutula.

As the cubs grow they become part of the lion-walking tours.

Once those cubs age out of lion-walking, it is not known where they go, but Ukutula has been linked to intermediaries who are known to buy and sell lions for and to canned hunting outfits. UCC claims to participate in two animal-tracing databases, but these databases are not accessible to the general public, and are simply a way for owners to track their own animals, so they offer no traceability the way UCC suggest they do.

In another video which focuses on the value of research at Ukutula Jacobs, again narrating, opens with declaration that with the recent success of research carried out by the Ukutula Conservation Center, and the University of Pretoria (regarding the AI cubs) there, “seems to be a misunderstanding” within the media and among certain individuals “with regard to the value of this research.” Jacobs goes on to claim that while lions have been used almost exclusively in the research at UCC, they are not actually the main focus of that research. Rather, according to Jacobs, all the research done on lions bred by Ukutula is simply to help other endangered large felids. Jacobs admits that lions have no real trouble breeding either in the wild, or in captivity, but reiterates that the study of lion reproductive physiology can be used to help other endangered species in the future. It should be noted, however, that more than one study carried out at Ukutula involved researching the gene responsible for white lions, so that the ongoing breeding of white lions could continue.

Jacobs lists the Black-footed cat, the Scottish wildcat and the Asiatic golden cat as examples, stating that “these techniques” (referencing the techniques supposedly pioneered at Ukutula) have already been applied with great success in the aforementioned felids. These assertions create a conundrum, however, when one considers the timelines of conservation efforts for these other cat species, which largely took place some years ago, which means that the research done at Ukutula in the last year, resulting in the successful AI breeding and birth just two months ago couldn’t have been used. Never mind that in the first part of his narration, Jacobs stated that the studies done at Ukutula would help save wild cats in the future, and then he immediately states that the studies already have, past tense, helped wild cats.

Jacobs then says that the success with AI really “marks a stepping stone towards meaningful conservation initiatives which can be applied to critically endangered cat species.” Which again contradicts the prior statement that the research has, past tense, helped.

Circling his narration back toward the criticism that UCC has received, Jacobs continues, “It is very clear that there is a wrong perception among the public and some media that Ukutula is a commercial breeding facility. We’d just like to categorically state that this is not the case. Ukutula does have a breeding program which is a controlled veterinary-supervised project so as to be able to host various research projects.”

Please take a moment to carefully consider exactly what Jacobs has stated about Ukutula Conservation Center. “Ukutula does have a breeding program which is a controlled veterinary-supervised project so as to be able to host various research projects.”

Lions at Ukutula are bred by veterinarians in order to fulfill the needs of research projects. Not for conservation. For research. Like rats, mice, rabbits and other laboratory research animals. The founder of UCC has stated point blank that Ukutula’s breeding program is designed to produce lions for use in scientific research.

Let that sink in.

Now, note as per their own website that Ukutula is registered as a:

Wildlife Breeding Facility

Wildlife Trading Facility

Animal Exhibition Facility

UCC is also listed as a rhino orphanage, and animal rescue center but we have been unable to find any references to rhinos, or animal rescue linked with Ukutula independent of Ukutula’s own claims on their website.

Back to this video, Jacobs moves on to defend UCC despite the fact that he just stated the facility breeds lions to be used for scientific research, “For years Ukutula has been criticized for the research done here and one wonders what the motives are of these critics that keep pointing a finger at Ukutula.” We have been unable to find any article that criticizes research done at Ukutula. Rather, they all criticize the lack of useful and meaningful research, along with criticizing the fact that Ukutula continually breeds lions and allows human and lion interactions.

Jacobs goes on to question the motives of Ukutula’s critics, suggesting that they are simply jealous because Ukutula has “taken the rug out from under” them by “proving that research is important and that they are now not able to use the emotion and sensation of the very important subject of conservation so that they can collect funds and receive donations from people who are ill-informed, or mis-informed by them.”

Thus is the gist of the videos available on the Ukutula Conservation Center website. Since the first two videos we checked out were clearly defensive responses to the deserved criticism and questions posed by those who do not support the continual captive breeding of lions, we tried a few more videos, to no avail.

Links to so-called research projects contain only more videos, filled with simplistic, and un-educational fluff such as images of an unconcious cheetah with the text “Sedating male cheetah” images of medical personal holding a thermometer in the cheetah’s rectum accompanied by the text “Wildlife veterinarian monitors temperature” the cheetah is then pictured on an exam table with the text “General health check by veterinarian” similar images appear with the text “Professional biodata recording”. The same video containing the above listed images also includes completely incorrect descriptions, such as showing the process of intubation for anesthesia but describing the scene as ”Examination of the mouth and throat” Placing an Intubation tube and securing the airway for anesthesia in a big cat for a surgical procedure, and carrying out an oral exam are two vastly difference procedures. To mistake one for the other is both laughable, and tragically revealing in regard to the ignorance involved.

If one can disregard the self-serving (and in the case of Jacob’s admittance that Ukutula breeds lions for use in scientific research like lab rats, horrific videos) we have to admit that UCC’s website is shiny, and attractive, if not terribly functional. Although it’s superficially stacked with interesting teases of supposed research projects, and successes, there are few links to any in-depth information. Instead, we’re left with only videos containing little information and flashy powerpoint diagrams which contain even less information of any value.

When one checks out the “experts” who comprise the UCC Wildlife Research & Conservation Education Advisory Committee, the ethical oversight of UCC goes right out the window. Ignoring the fact that Willi Jacobs, who founded UCC is a member of his own Advisory Committee, three of the other four committee members are either employed by the University of Pretoria, and/or graduated from UP. This includes Dr. MJ Grundlingh, who also happens to be the founder of the Wildlife Education Foundation. That last is important because UCC offers a myriad of “predator education courses” which upon completion offers the attendees “official WEF & ACC accredited certificates” to verify their level of education. Grundlingh’s books are also peddled on the Ukutula website under educational products.

In case you still don’t follow, UCC basically offers “educational courses” for “wildlife & conservation enthusiasts, educators & students, wildlife volunteers and nature enthusiasts” promising them a certificate of accreditation once they’ve completed the course. But in reality, there is no accreditation, nor is there any formal certificate to be gained. UCC runs the courses it offers, and then UCC hands over the certificates of accreditation, but UCC has no actual authority to issue any certificate of accreditation of education to a civilian. On top of that, the Wildlife Education Foundation which co-signs these “accreditation certificates” is owned and run by a member of UCC’s own Advisory Board.

And the conflict of interests doesn’t stop there. Another member of UCC’s Advisory Committee, Claudia Dinkelman, described as a “Qualified, award-winning Veterinary Technologist” who is a full time associate with the UCC & Biobank, is listed on Zoominfo (as of November 2, 2018) as also being currently employed by Deltamune Ltd.

Deltamune Ltd just happens to be “a world class South African-based biotechnology company, with a focus on veterinary and public health”, which strives to “be a vaccine partner who is committed to finding solutions to our African diseases and conditions” as well as offering a “comprehensive laboratory solution to the animal health and food industry in South Africa.”

So now we have Ukutula Conservation Center breeding lions for scientific research, with an Advisory Committee full of persons attached to the very Universities that use UCC for their staff and students in research, persons who are also possibly employed by a biotechnology company involved in researching and laboratory testing of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. A biotechnology company which also just happens to list North-West University as one of its associates, and surprise, North-West University also uses UCC for its scientific research projects. With literally every facet of Ukutula and all the “experts” and Universities both directly and indirectly attached to UCC and each other, it’s impossible to maintain an objective oversight of ethics and standards. Everyone has something to lose if anyone tries to blow the proverbial whistle over a problem, so no one is likely to say anything. The reputation of prestigious Universities have been inexorably bound to the reputation of UCC, as have the reputations of all the individuals who have carried out their own research at UCC. This conflict of interests even carries on into some of the guest presenters at UCC’s upcoming “professional conference”. Professor Ché Weldon is an Associate Professor with North-West University, which as just listed, both uses UCC for research, and is an associate to Deltamune Ltd.

With all of these grotesque facts laid out like wastrel possibilities abandoned in favor of easy and convenient research, it’s unconscionable to see figures like Dr. Johan Marais and Dr. Zoe Glyphis of Saving The Survivors sign on to present at UCC’s farcical “Wildlife Research & Its Contribution to Conservation” conference in November. Ukutula has struggled valiantly to sweep it’s dirty cub-petting and lion-walking business out of sight under the proverbial rug, replacing that reputation with the facade of a reputable center. By engaging with UCC, genuine conservationist only help blur the public’s understanding of the damage that groups like UCC cause.

UCC continues to pour money into sculpting a new image for itself, repeatedly posting on their pages that UCC supports “the IUCN’s one-plan-approach (OPA) to species conservation and animal breeding principles, where animal breeding is considered an important part of conservation management as stipulated in terms of the convention of biodiversity held in 1994.”

This disclaimer appears in multiple places throughout the UCC website.

But UCC is not actually a member of the IUCN, and while they claim to “support” the OPA their statement regarding it takes an immensely complex concept and narrows it down to one ideal–that captive breeding is an important part of conservation management–while ignoring the overreaching scopes of the OPA. And for good reason. If one actually takes the time to understand the OPA, they will find that UCC does not meet the requirements laid out by the IUCN, nor does the IUCN support captive breeding cavalierly the way UCC presents.

OPA was originally written as a failsafe in order to include even captive populations (ex situ) of animals within the scope of longterm planning for conservation. Because any captive population is ex situ, but only ex situ populations which meet strict specifications to qualify as part of OPA, the IUCN guidelines are specifically intended for situations in which individuals (or live bio- samples) of any species (or other taxonomic unit) are present ex situ for any period of time for a clearly defined conservation purpose.

The IUCN guidelines go one to clarify that:

Only ex situ populations with clearly defined conservation goals and objectives that contribute to the viability of the species as a component of its overall conservation strategy. While many different types of ex situ populations exist, with many different and sometimes overlapping roles and contexts, ex situ management for conservation only applies to those ex situ populations that have conservation as their primary aim. The ex situ activities must benefit a population, the species, or the ecosystem it occupies and the primary benefit should be at a higher level of organisation than the individual. The conservation goals and objectives can be diverse and may include not only providing individuals for reintroduction or other conservation translocations, for genetic rescue or as insurance against extinction, but also for allowing tailored conservation education, conservation research and training that targets the reduction of threats or the accruement of conservation benefits for the species.

Again, and again, the IUCN guidelines specify that any and all breeding or captive management of a particular species be maintained solely for the purpose of conservation, with any and all research focused solely on the conservation of the species in question. Meanwhile, Ukutula commercially breeds, sells, and trades, lions for scientific research purposes which–in Ukutula’s own words–are not designed to benefit lions at all.

UCC’s obsessively repeated claim that the IUCN considers captive breeding an important part of conservation management is simply one more intentional mistruth in their bid to con the public with their conservation claims. It’s just a new spin on an old lie, that lie being that the continued breeding of captive lions will somehow aid in the conservation of wild lions. And as long as scientists and universities are willing to turn a blind eye to the abuse of cub petting and lion walking in favor of getting in some research, Ukutula will continue putting new spins on its old lies. As long as genuine conservationists are willing to overlook the constant breeding, and missing older lions in favor of “not rocking the boat” Ukutula will continue to farm lions like potatoes in the field. And as long as idolized figures like Kevin Richardson are willing to buy into the scheme by purchasing farmed lions from Ukutula (as he did for his upcoming movie, Mia And The White Lion) there will always be an open market of people willing to buy farmed lions.

Guest at Ukutula participating in cub-petting with a white lion cub.

Scene from Mia And The White Lion featuring white lion cubs purchased from Ukutula, supposedly this represents conservation.

Another Ukutula guest participating in cub-petting with a white lion cub.

Another still from Mia And The White Lion using white lion cubs purchased from Ukutula, supposedly offering a message of conservation.

Every engagement professionals participate in with Ukutula–no matter the goal–supports the systemic breeding and abuse of captive lions and other animals for research and profit. And every time the conservation community allows such participation to slip aside without rebuke, we are endorsing that support of systemic breeding and abuse of captive lions and other animals for research and profit.

Don’t be conned by new spins on old lies. Don’t stand aside and allow lion farms like Ukutula to quietly redress their shabby exploitive realities with fancy conservation window dressings. Speak up, speak out. If we don’t do so today, our chance will be gone by tomorrow.

When Conservation Is Just Another Way To Spell Exploitation

When Conservation Is Just Another Way To Spell Exploitation

Anyone involved with the conservation of lions in South Africa knows, and shudders, at the mention of Ukutula Lodge & Conservation Center (usually and more aptly referred as Ukutula Lion Farm) Anyone who is not deeply involved with lion conservation is still most likely familiar with Ukutula’s name, and not for any good reason.

One of the largest predator breeding facilities in South Africa, Ukutula’s name has become synonymous with the cub petting industry, as well as with the canned hunting industry. In recent years, Ukutula has begun insisting that it “tracks” all the lions it sells as offal from its massive cub petting farm “in order to assure that they aren’t used for canned hunting”. All of the information which supposedly proves that claim, however, is “confidential” which means that the public can only take the word of a company which breeds and exploits lions for profit, as proof that they don’t actually sell them for yet another tier of profit, to the canned hunting industry.

Daniah De Villiiers (Mia) with lion cub Charlie during the filming @copyright Coert WiechersGalatÇe Films-Outside Films

And frankly, even if Ukutula published the names of the buyers of their lions, it’s not difficult to legally avoid “selling to canned hunting facilities”. An entity like Ukutula can sell their lions to anyone who is “unassociated” with any canned hunting facility, and legally state that they “do not sell to canned hunting facilities” while the person they sold all their lions to, will then turn around and hold a dispersal sale, auctioning or selling all the lions to canned hunting farms. And it’s not illegal. Nor is it illegal, through the above described activity, for Ukutula to publicly claim that they don’t sell to the canned hunting industry.

But the fact would remain, in that scenario, that Ukutula’s lions did end up at canned hunting facilities. Just as the fact does remain, that publicly, it’s not known where all of Ukutula’s “aged-out” cubs go once they’re too mature for either cub-petting, or walking with tourists.

What is public knowledge, is the fact that Ukutula is responsible for the breeding and birth of hundreds of captive lions each year, and that subsequently each year hundreds of Ukutula’s “aged-out” sub-adult lions disappear from their park to parts unknown. That’s their business. It’s what they do. Even the creation of a “conservation center” in the hopes of legitimizing themselves as something other than a breeding and exploitation facility has done little to circumnavigate the simple fact that Ukutula exists solely to breed lions in captivity and then profit off of them in as many ways as possible, including selling them out of country to zoos.

Australia’s Billabong Zoo decided that it simply must have some inbred lion cubs from Ukutula. They eventually managed to import two–which despite being genetically inferior, were intended for use in breeding yet more captive lions–much to the dismay of conservation groups like For The Love Of Wildlife, who protested to the Australian government that captive breeding of lions within Australia offers no conservation value whatsoever. The pleas were to no avail, and Ukutula grew just a little more rich (and attempted to make themselves appear more legitimate) while Australia grew just a little more burdened by captive lions that don’t need to exist.

Blood Lions actually called Ukutula out in October of 2015, after the farm erroneously attempted to associate themselves with the well respected group (in yet another bid to appear more legitimate) In a Facebook post Blood Lions stated:

Blood Lions does NOT ENDORSE Ukutula Lodge and Lion Park.
The Blood Lions team and supporters condemn the attempt by Ukutula, a predator breeding and volunteer tourism operation, to link themselves with the film #BLOODLIONS.

We wish to make the following clear:
# The BLOOD LIONS team have had no contact whatsoever with anyone from Ukutula since the completion of the documentary and have certainly not given permission for them to 'screen' the film.
# The statement appearing on their various pages is completely misleading: the ‘screening’ they seem to be referring to is in fact a scheduled one with Discovery Channel for 11th October.
# The owners of Ukutula were given every opportunity by the makers of Blood Lions to go before the cameras - after various heated conversations with Ian Michler, they chose not to.
# Blood Lions does not in any way endorse Ukutula, its activities or any of its employees or owners. The full length version of Blood Lions exposes the Ukutula claims that they only breed for research purposes, despite it being obvious that they breed lions to sustain a lucrative volunteer tourism business.

As such, we challenge Ukutula to:
1). Explain why is it necessary to breed hundreds of lions that are not required by their “research partners”?
2). Explain why they remove cubs from their mothers at 3 – 10 days, when their mothers are perfectly able to raise them?
3) Prove that none of the lions that they have bred and sold, have been hunted or slaughtered for their bones?

No one ethical wants to be associated with Ukutula in the slightest way, even if there is no irrefutable evidence of their involvement in the canned hunting industry. Hard statistics for the cub petting, and to a lesser extent the canned hunting industry, remain elusive because the private nature of the industry means that either numbers aren’t required to be disclosed, or can easily be manipulated. However, it’s not difficult to get a general sense of numbers.

At the low end, 2,400-3,600 lions are bred in captivity each year in South Africa.

There are an estimated 8,000 lions in captivity at any given time in South Africa.

In 2015, the revenue for South African tourism (a large portion of which came from cub petting and lion walking endeavors) was R91.8 Billion (that’s just over 7 billion USD)

Despite articles like this one warning against cub-petting and walking with lions (and despite people like Kevin Richardson supposedly using their hands-on techniques to teach people not to get hands-on with big cats) the cub-petting industry in South Africa continues to flourish, as does the lion bone trade and trophy hunting largely via canned hunts.

In 2013 a documented 1,094 lion carcasses were exported specifically for trade in lion bones. This was up significantly from just 287 in 2010.

Between 2008 and 2015, the Department of Environmental Affairs issued permits for the export of 5,363+ lion carcasses, 98% of which went directly to known hubs of wildlife trafficking and lion bone trade. And that’s just what was legally documented.

It’s also just what’s been legally documented regarding lion skeletons and/or bones.

The United States alone imported 7,297 lion trophies between 2001 and 2016.

If you’re still not convinced of Ukutula’s sordid involvement with the captive breeding and exploitation of lions in South Africa, you can read more about them here, here, here, here, here, are you tired yet? And here.

Now that the fact that Ukutula is the manifestation of everything wrong with the captive lion trade in South Africa has been established, what would you think if we told you that famed Lion Whisperer, Kevin Richardson is involved with them? Are you shocked? Don’t be. After all, Richardson’s mythos is a business, and businesses work with whomever they have to in order to get paid. And right now someone who has been paying Richardson is one Gilles de Maistre.

Three years ago, Gilles de Maistre decided that what the world needed most in order to teach kids not to handle lions, was a movie that showcased a young girl handling a lion. Already a fan of Kevin Richardson’s de Maistre contacted him with the idea, and Richardson, of course, jumped right on board. But then, Richardson would, since he’s spent his entire career playing with his lions in order to teach people not to play with lions.

The entire premise of Mia And The White Lion (formally, Charlie The White Lion) is the bond of love and friendship between a young girl named Mia, and a white lion. De Maistre has stated that the movie is based on a short story written by his wife which was inspired by learning that the lions she and de Maistre had walked with in Africa were destined to be sold into canned hunting.

From Gilles' website.

From Gilles' website.

Unlike other, less authentic, (but very ethical) movies which use CGI for animal interaction, de Maistre was determined to use real lions interacting with real children. Enter Kevin Richardson, who agreed not only to be the primary wrangler of the lions, but to teach the children involved with the movie–over a three year period, no less–to work with and interact with the lions used in production. In essence, the movie will not be so much a “story” about the bond between a girl and a lion, as an actual documentary of their real bond.

Now, if you can set aside the sort of mind-numbing facts like 1) it’s not a unique bond if you can just take lions and children and train them 2) you’re literally doing the very thing your movie is supposed to teach kids they should NEVER do 3) you’re risking the lives of children and lions for three full years to make a commercial movie 4) you’re exploiting live lions for “authenticity” in making a movie about the exploitation lions, it’s also important to understand not just *any* lion would do for de Maistre.

No, for Mia And The White Lion, only *white* lions would do. Obviously. Which meant that several white lion cubs, the same age, color, and general appearance needed to be purchased at the same time so they could be trained together, and used interchangeably in the making of the movie. And what breeding facility happens to specialize in breeding white lions? Ukutula! Add to that, the fact that de Maistre has photos of his own walks with white lions at “a facility in South Africa” as well as himself playing with white lion cubs, and just do the math yourselves.

The precise source and number of the cubs de Maistre purchased (with the help of Richardson) for his movie has not been disclosed, but on a now (suspiciously) defunct website devoted solely to the movie, and containing in-depth information about its making, de Maistre stated that the cubs (but only white ones!) had been saved from an exploitive situation in the canned hunting industry. The website went on to say that after filming the lions would be cared for in a sanctuary for the rest of their lives by experts. *cough cough* We wonder whose sanctuary and what expert that might be? *cough Richardson cough*

But back to Ukutula, the most notorious lion farm and proud breeders of “rare” white lions in South Africa. According to de Maistre, evil lion farms like Ukutula are why he’s making Mia And The White Lion in the first place. To showcase the agonizing horror of lions bred in captivity, and exploited by humans, kind of like he’s doing with his own movie. According to de Maistre (very much on the now-removed movie website, but also on his personal website, here) his movie is supposed to combat cub-petting, lion farming, and canned hunting. According to de Maistre it’s this captive breeding industry in South Africa which is destroying lions, and harming conservation.

So why is Gilles de Maistre friends with Willi Jacobs, the owner–and therefore perpetrator of lion abuse and exploitation–of Ukutula Lion Farm?

You’d think that someone who’s making an entire movie to combat heinous activities like lion farming, cub-petting and canned hunting would have some brusque, if not outright derogatory, words for the owner of South Africa’s most notorious lion farm and cub-petting empire. Not so, in the case of de Maistre. Instead, director de Maistre actually invited Jacobs to visit the set of his anti-cub-petting, anti-lion farming, anti-canned hunting movie–a movie being filmed at least in part, according to the now-defunct website, on the sanctuary property of famed Lion Whisperer, Kevin Richardson. And it wasn’t just a formal, for-show, invitation to visit the set.

De Maistre said Jacobs was “welcome to come on the set when do you want” and then went on to say that “we” will come to visit Ukutula inDecember after filming.

And that’s all in response to Jacobs asking de Maistre “When are we going to see you at Ukutula again?” Clearly indicating that not only has de Maistre visited Ukutula, but that he and Jacobs know each other personally. After all, hundreds of thousands of tourists visit Ukutula annually, one rather doubts that Jacobs, the owner, interacts directly with all of them.

Friendly and familiar interaction between de Maistre and Willi Jacobs, owner of the infamous Ukutula Lion Farm on de Maistre's Instagram.

This interaction took place on de Maistre’s Instagram in November of last year, and while he’s posted numerous photos of his child actress and the lions since, nothing confirms whether or not Jacobs indeed visited the movie set, nor whether or not de Maistre visited Ukutula, as he said he would. But then, it wouldn’t be great for publicity if the two were seen publicly hanging out.

And with the fatal mauling that took place on Richardson’s reserve in February of 2018, (and several articles by us mentioning the upcoming movie by name) de Maistre has apparently already been on damage control for his precious movie. Having tweeted excitedly about how much money was being thrown at him by companies just the day before a young woman was torn apart by a lion owned by Richardson–who’s now spent three years training another young woman to interact with lions like he does–de Maistre went silent for a time regarding the movie. The title has changed from Charlie And The White Lion, to Mia And The White Lion, and the website for the former–which was flush with information about it–has been shut down. If one googles the former title, they find nothing of any importance. Googling the new title provides nothing but a IMDB profile, along with basic profiles on other movie sites–no information on the making of–and a few articles about how it’s been fought over in a purchase war in Europe.

And that’s really what matters, isn’t it?

Profit.

Profit is why Ukutula breeds lions in the first place.

Profit is why de Maistre purchased lions to make a commercial movie about them.

Profit is why Richardson signed on get paid to teach children to do what he does–something he adamantly states that no one else should ever do.

And Profit is why movie distributers have been fighting over distribution rights.

Not because any of them are hoping to save lions, but because they can see the dollar signs dangling off the timeless allure of a beautiful young girl walking alongside the king of beasts.

Its one of the oldest, and most profitable tropes in the civilized world.

And it’s going to keep making money for everyone involved, while continuing to commodify both the lions exploited in its making and captive lions in South Africa.

Lions and profit are the unbreakable bonds tying Ukutula, Gilles de Maistre, Kevin Richardson together.

No amount of marketing is going to change that, or make it acceptable. Not if conservationists, and the public decide that it’s not.

It all comes down to ethics. Either you stand by them, even if it means calling out big names like Kevin Richardson and Gille de Maistre, or you’re willing to toss them in the trash whenever you feel like it’s convenient and profitable to do so.

Which will you choose?

Substandard Reporting

Unprecedented Events, Substandard Reporting, And Profoundly Appalling Public Reaction

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, the often-divided world of wild animal conservation got a fatal wakeup call. After almost two decades of being heralded as “one of the pride” by both his own propaganda, and the majority of the general public, Kevin Richardson failed to “whisper” one of his hand-raised lions after taking them off the grounds of his South African sanctuary. While out “walking” with three unrestrained lions on the Dinokeng Game Reserve Richardson “lost” a lioness who then traveled 1.2–1.5 miles back toward home where she came across two young women who were in the process of getting into their car to leave Richardson’s sanctuary when the lioness confronted them.

One of the young women did not survive that confrontation.

The mythos of the “Lion Whisperer” has long afforded Richardson a nearly impermeable armor in regard to his methods and actions. Despite having worked for a decade at Lion Park–a notorious lion farm which offers cubs for tourists to play with, and older lions for sale to be used in canned hunting–Richardson went on to style himself (via Youtube videos, and later television shows, movies and “documentaries”) as an avid opponent of the canned hunting industry. With his charismatic charm and cavalier confidence, Richardson used his experience with captive bred, hand-reared lions to construct a milieu of unity between himself and his big cats. For years since, Richardson has enjoyed basking in the adoration of virtually everyone he encounters.

After a decade at Lion Park (top image) Richardson later partnered with other individuals involved in lion farms and parks, even while establishing himself as the figurehead, and primary voice decrying such activities. Using the allure of children and cubs, however, seems to be a hook Richardson can't quite give up entirely, as he's spent the last three years working on a film "Charlie the White Lion" the entire premise of which is based on the "special bond" formed between a lion and young girl. The main selling point for the movie? No CGI, real children working directly with real lions. The movie has spanned some 3-4 years, with the lions and children "growing up together" with continued direct contact–something proponents of Richardson adamantly insist he counsels should *never* be done. Except, apparently, when he's the one doing it.

Virtually everyone. Both I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc. and CWW have, at different times, criticized, and addressed the problematic behavior of idolizing, and deferring to someone who engages in the very behavior they claim to be teaching other to avoid. I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc. published multiple articles pointing out both the hypocrisy and danger inherent in Richardson’s highly publicized interactions with his lions, while Watchdog cited his influence on others, such as Eduardo Serio, of Black Jaguar White Tiger, who was inspired by Richardson’s activity, and followed in his steps, creating a Foundation wherein he handles and plays with big cats. Such articles were repeatedly met by outrage that anyone would dare criticize Richardson, who has been touted as “the face of conservation”.

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s fatal mauling Watchdog, utilizing firsthand information from contacts in South Africa, issued an article addressing the tragic situation in the same forthright manner we always do. Our article listed a number of verified facts which are not wildly known by Richardson’s adoring public, such as how when he famously “walks” with his lions, he’s doing so on the Dinokeng Game Reserve, which is inhabited by wild lions. Those lions are suffering for the encroachment, which has caused a history of under-publicized conflicts with others living on the borders of the DGR.

We covered a great deal of other important information in that first article, which you can read here.

When we published that first article we did so understanding that we were likely going to be the first group to call out Richardson for his many issues which led to the avoidable death of an innocent young woman. What we didn’t realize was that we would end up being the only group to address Richardson’s burden of responsibility in creating the situation that resulted in this young woman’s death. If Richardson did not take his lions off the grounds of his own sanctuary in order to “walk” unrestrained, and unconfined on the land of the DGR, the family of this fatally mauled young woman would not be currently planning her funeral.

It genuinely is as simple as that.

Since the publication of our article, we’ve been gobsmacked by the utter ineptitude of media outlets across the board, and across the globe, in their coverage of such a high profile event as a fatal mauling carried out by one of the “Lion Whisperer’s” own “pride” members. Apparently nabbing a few hundred clicks simply by producing an “article” about the incident was the only interest of most outlets, who offered nor more than the statement that a young woman had been mauled, along with a copied and pasted blurb from Richardson’s social media accounts. For those outlets who hoped to garner a more profound reaction, article titles were altered to focus on the emotional devastation caused by the young woman’s death. Not the emotional devastation of her family and friends, but that of Kevin Richardson, the famed “Lion Whisperer”. Because, let’s be honest, Richardson is a household name due to his lions and his apparent ability to function within their social structure as “one of the pride”. Now the worlds idealistic fantasy of the “Lion Whisperer’s” Peaceable Kingdom has been forever shattered. Obviously that’s the real tragedy here.

At least that seems to be the real tragedy for the hundreds of thousands of “Lion Whisperer” fans. On our own article, Watchdog has seen a jaw-dropping amount of malice directed entirely toward, not the man who turned hand-raised lions loose in a wild reserve, not even the lioness habituated to associating humans with food rewards, but rather toward a young woman who’s life was ripped from her amidst a violent fray of blood splatter and red South African dust.

According to the comments on our first article (at the drafting of this article) 104 comments and responses out of 279 involved stating that Richardson was not responsible at all, deriding the dead young woman as stupid, or accusations that Watchdog had fabricated evidence/facts and/or was “jealous” of Richardson’s fame and “had an agenda” against him. 104 out of 279. Roughly 38% of the comments were devoted to insisting that the supposed big cat expert in charge of the lioness was not actually responsible for what the lioness did, and insinuating that a dead woman deserves to be dead or that the entire article was a lie designed to somehow frame Richardson out of malice.

The worst part? Over here on Watchdog, we got off easy in regard to the public’s ignorant condemnation of the innocent woman who lost her life. Over on CNN, for example, (as of the drafting of this article(477 out of 538 comments and responses outright stated that the victim was 100% at fault for her own death, that she deserved to die, and/or made fun of the victim for being mauled to death. 477 comments and responses out of 538. A full 88.6% of people who commented were glad that the victim was dead. And of that 88.6% not one displayed any actual understanding of what took place on February 27, 2018. 477 out of 538 comments on a news article portrayed no evidence that the person leaving the comment grasped facts such as a lion which had been born in captivity and raised by hand, and trained by Kevin Richardson had been turned loose on a wild game reserve, and subsequently attacked and killed a young woman. *It should be noted as per reports given by a police spokesperson, we now know that these young women had not even gotten to their car in order to leave. They were in the process of walking to their car (in the camp, which was presumably secure) when they were attacked from behind by the lioness.

This gross ignorance and misunderstanding of how game reserves work, and how Richardson himself operates is directly linked to poor reporting on the part of news agencies, and, much more troubling, the underlying failures of conservation groups to convey and promote a unified ideology in regard to human interaction with wild, and captive wild animals. Even within the heinously callus jokes which are being made regarding the victim of this attack, the public’s confusion over human interaction with wild and captive wild animals is evident. Commenters thinking themselves witty jabbed puns such as “guess she didn’t whisper loud enough” and “just because he’s one of the pride, doesn’t mean she was”. These members of the public are, quite literally, insulting a dead woman for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting killed by a captive lion, while reinforcing the idea that it’s acceptable for the man who was supposed to be in charge of that lion, and failed, to interact with the lion directly. They’re saying that the civilian deserved to die for being in proximity with the lion, while commending Richardson for raising that lion to expect proximity with humans, namely, Richardson himself. And these commenters don’t see the hypocrisy as a problem, because, well, frankly, for the last decade and a half, the conservation community, and commercial television have told them that this hypocrisy is perfectly acceptable, because Richardson is “special”.

Meanwhile, down in Mexico at Black Jaguar White Tiger, Eduardo Serio indulged in his own hypocrisy regarding big cat management, by poking fun at both the death of this young woman, and Richardson’s statement about her death. During a live feed on Friday afternoon, someone watching made the mistake of asking why the lion cubs running around Serio’s bedroom were running around his bedroom instead of being raised in a proper sanctuary setting. Serio’s response can be heard here, but we’ll directly quote it in text below. It reads a little strangely, as Serio has a habit of repeating words, which is just part of his linguistically “fingerprint”.

“These imbeciles think that they can insult me by saying ‘Why, why aren’t aren’t they in a sanctuary?’ So they envision these guys, they think outside in the wild at this age are hunting for gazelles and antelopes.” *laughs* “Heeeey. An impala, chasing an impala for a mile and a half. That’s how they envision this.” *laugh again* After turning away from the speaker Serio can be heard murmuring “I’m so evil, in my comments, I’m sorry”. He then turns back to the speaker, and more loudly continues, “That’s all I’m going to say about impalas.”

Because, hey, nothing justifies raising lion cubs in your house like making fun of a dead woman, and the public statement regarding that dead woman made by the guy who inspired you to create your exploitative Foundation. Back when Serio first started promoting BJWT, he referred to himself as “The Mexican Lion Whisperer” and BJWT as “The Mexican Serengeti”. Three years later Serio’s dropped all pretenses of keeping his big cats in even a remotely Serengeti-like setting, and continues to hand-raise them in his closet, and poke fun at Richardson’s current fatal incident predicament. As long as the world of conservation remains divided over the issue of whether or not it’s acceptable for “special people” with “special bonds” to handle their captive wild animals, folks like Serio are going to keep big cats in their closets and receive criticism, while folks like Richardson are going to “walk with lions” and be revered for it.

And, back in reality, people like the family of this innocent victim of the conservation controversy are going to keep mopping up the aftermath, while reporters are going to keep covering the issue with mediocre explanations that only serve to further muddle the situation.

*BJWTWatchdog is updating our article to coincide with the most current facts we’ve been given. As the young women involved with this mauling had not even reached their car in their attempt to leave the sanctuary camp THE YOUNG WOMEN ARE BOTH ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF ANY BEHAVIOR THAT MY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS INCIDENT.

BJWTWatchdog stipulates that Richardson is deeply affected by this, and distressed by the victim’s death. We have never suggested otherwise, nor have we ever suggested that Richardson intended for anyone to be harmed. Therefore we will also not entertain comments stating that Richardson never meant for anyone to die, as it’s inferred that he never intended such to happen.