Conservation, or CONservation?
Watchdog had intended, in the near future, to write a followup regarding the ominously quiet, but ongoing investigation into the fatal mauling that occurred at famed “Lion Whisperer” Kevin Richardson’s sanctuary. However, after we were tagged in several posts today by commenters drawing our attention to an outdated blog post which is now being shared around, we decided that the subject matter of this newly-shared, five year old blog post, needs to be addressed immediately.
In the last few weeks, Richardson fans have found themselves in a quandary, as far as their beloved “Lion Whisperer” goes. For better than a decade, it seems that they simply didn’t believe it would ever be possible for a Richardson lion to do something like fatally maul a human. (Her name, by the way, was Megan) Now that they’re faced with that very thing, we’ve seen every argument under the sun, from the utterly reprehensible suggestion that it was the innocent victim, Megan’s, own fault (an idea carefully planted by Richardson himself in his only public statement on the incident) to the suggestion that “it’s not the time to discuss whether it’s right or wrong” for Richardson to handle his animals (even though Kevin’s handling of his animals is, and we can’t stress this enough, literally the *only* reason a lion was in the area to fatally maul Megan in the first place) to the newest, and possibly strangest defense of Richardson yet.
And just what is this most recent defense?
That “Kevin does not pretend that caring for his small pride has anything to do with conservation.”
No, you didn’t misread that. The blog post (which, again, is five years old) being shared by Richardson fans posits that Richardson himself does not pretend that caring for his lions has anything to do with conservation.
Frankly, this one quoted sentence is the only sentence from the entire post that can be construed as pertaining to Richardson’s current situation, or the articles that question Richardson’s practices which Watchdog has recently published. The rest of the blog post is merely a (unpretentiously biased toward Richardson) side-by-side comparison of Richardson and cub-petting farms in South Africa, which has literally nothing to do with the argument of whether or not it’s acceptable for Richardson to handle his lions.
But back to the assertion that Richardson himself does not pretend that caring for his lions has anything to do with conservation….
Apologies, we got distracted laughing. Where did we leave off? Oh, yes, the assertion that Kevin Richardson, the “Lion Whisperer” of worldwide fame, Richardson, who is:
The star of numerous documentaries about conservation
http://www.lionwhisperer.co.za/feature-film.php
The author of a book
The guest speaker at numerous events, with the conservation of lions as his main topic
https://www.bigspeak.com/speakers/kevin-richardson/
http://www.painteddogconservation.iinet.net.au/news.html
https://www.craghoppers.com/community/ambassadors/kevin-richardson
https://www.zeitgeistminds.com/talk/4930110146740224/the-art-of-living-with-lions-kevin-richardson
The focus of multiple articles put out by entities like The Smithsonian Institute which suggest that Richardson can teach us about “ethical conservation”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-makes-lion-whisperer-roar-180955290/
https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/animals-pets/kevin-richardson-the-lion-whisperer
And whose own website has an entire page dedicated to “conservation”
http://www.lionwhisperer.co.za/conservation.php
does not, in fact, “pretend” that what he does with his own lions has “anything to do with conservation”.
At least not according to this latest attempt to defend Richardson. Honestly, with fans like this defending him, Richardson would be safer coming to hang out with those of us who are questioning his ethics and behavior. Because this defense is literally suggesting that *everything* Richardson has done and said for conservation utilizing his own lions, and the persona he’s built on their backs, has been an intentional lie to the public.
What makes this new suggestion even more mind boggling, is the fact that for years, pro-Richardson folks–some of them conservationists themselves–have been using Richardson’s “raising awareness for conservation” as the primary excuse as to why it’s okay for him to play with his lions. In fact, just last year (after several pro-Richardson folks got their panties in a wad during a couple of no-hold-barred Facebook posts) one pro-Richardson gentleman wrote an exceptionally long article that basically called out Watchdog, and other anti-Richardson folks (without actually using our name, because, you know, official denial, and all that) and explained “What big cats need from US activists” (the author apparently assumed Watchdog was US based. We’re not. We have members all over the world)
In this article, the author says that while *most* hands-on techniques are damaging to the animals involved, Richardson’s aren’t, and that hands-on conservation “works” in South Africa because,
“Kevin is using the technique to demonstrate to the people of South Africa that lions are not the ferocious beasts that they have grown to fear through human-wildlife conflict.”
We wonder how that angle is working for the author now that one of Richardson’s non-ferocious beasts has fatally mauled one of the people of South Africa who he’s supposedly teaching not to fear lions.
But then, according to that article, the real problem is that we don’t understand what a “wicked complex” problem conservation is, so we don’t understand why Richardson’s hands-on techniques work in South Africa. Or maybe we’re not poor enough to understand... It was a confusing article. You’re welcome to read it here. Be ye forewarned, though, it’s a painful amount of rambling mixed with blatant and offensive condescension directed at the reader.
The point is, that article, along with the others we’ve linked to in this note reference the fact that supposedly everything Kevin Richardson does with his lions, from the films made using them, to the various speaking engagements, the government lobbying done by Richardson, the movies made by Richardson, and so on and so forth, has been done/said/made/engaged in, for the sole purpose of raising awareness about conservation, and the issue of canned hunting, including the fact that canned hunting does not help conservation.
In recent years:
We’ve asked how handling lions can teach the public to not touch lions:
*Richardson supporters explain that he’s raising awareness about the plight of lions, and their conservation, and lion farms.
We’ve pointed out that Richardson bought a number of his lions from a lion farm:
*Richardson supporters explain that he “rescued his lions” and is using them to show the public that canned hunting is bad and doesn’t help conservation.
We’ve questioned the fact that others will want to act like Richardson, and will visit lion farms and walking with lion tours:
*Richardson supporters explain that he’s not responsible for people who mistakenly think it’s a good idea to do the things he does in all his videos and shows, and that he’s raising awareness about ethical conservation.
We’ve mused that Richardson is making quite a bit of money through his commercial endeavors, which capitalize off his interactions with his lions, and that he makes thousands of dollars off the “volunteers” who eagerly pay to come work at his sanctuary (and, if they’re lucky, walk with, and hand feed the lions):
*Richardson fans suggest that we’re jealous of Richardson’s success, and explain that volunteers are learning all about “real” conservation in South Africa, and that the money goes to support Richardson’s lions, and conservation.
We’ve suggested that it’s dangerous for Richardson to handle his lions, because it’s the lions that will suffer if anyone gets hurt:
*Richardson supporters inform us that we don’t understand the level of Richardson’s bond with his lions, and that he’s “one of the pride” and teaching the public about lion conservation.
One of Richardson’s lions does, in fact, kill an innocent bystander, who was visiting Richardson’s own sanctuary, and was in a designated area where she was supposedly safe:
*Richardson supporters accuse us of “exploiting the situation” to “trash-talk” Richardson, and go on to claim that, Richardson has never “pretended” that what he does has “anything to do with conservation”.
So we’re right back to the question,
Does Kevin Richardson truly act in the name of conservation, or merely make money under the guise of it?
We know where we stand on this matter, but what about you?