The Enduringly Ephemeral Nature of Social Media and Captive Wildlife Exploitation

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

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

Social media is one thing that can.

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rising Stars of Commerce-Conservation

Lead Image Source : Puma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period.

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

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

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

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

Photo taken from Grazia.com.au

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So which is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Will To Truth

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

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

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

Yes, that accusation has actually been made.

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

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

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

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

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

So how can donating to Richardson save wild lions?

It can’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment immediately received a heated reply from another fan:

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

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

Another fan quickly added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They simply don’t know any better.

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

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

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

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

Mia And The White Lion Premiers In Monaco

Its Acclaim Highlights The Viability of Commodifying Captive Lions For Profit

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

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

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

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

Period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo from Richardson's autobiography.

According to Richardson’s own words:

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

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

In Richardson’s words:

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

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

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

Screenshot of Letsatsi taken this year at Lion Park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing The Mythical White Lion

Marketing the Mythical White Lion

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

Again.

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

Again.

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

Again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Mufasa was confiscated from a private owner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White lions are not rare. Not in captivity.

They’re just not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post goes on to state that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post continues to say:

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

Okay, now just hold on.

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

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

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

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

Screenshot of the "new" fundraising campaign created for Mufasa

Are you confused yet? Because we sure are.

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

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

Wait, what?

Is, or is Mufasa not in any real danger?

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

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

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

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

Just which sanctuary has been anonymously funded to house Mufasa?

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

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

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

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

The answer to everything above, is:

We don’t know.

But we do have a few ideas.

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

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

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

Oh, the drama of it all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*** ADDENDUM***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ambiguous Ambitions

Ambiguous Ambitions

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

The caption of their post reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by an adolescent boy

• Lion is rare, boy is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Lion and boy must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

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

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

Filming White Lion

Mia And The White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by adolescent girl

• Lion is rare, girl is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Girl and lion must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

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

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

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

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

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

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

From White Lion’s About page:

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

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

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

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

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

From Mia And The White Lion’s Pages:

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

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

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

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

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

To Recap:

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“she died because of her own transgression”

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

And here are some of the reactions toward Hodges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit Andrew Van Ginkel

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

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

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

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

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

Exploitation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s start with David Yarrow.

https://davidyarrow.photography

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

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

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

https://www.adriansteirn.com/index

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on to Jeroen Hofman.

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

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

Finally, we come to Gary Lankford.

http://www.lankfordfilms.com/photography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservation, or CONservation?

Conservation, or CONservation?

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

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

And just what is this most recent defense?

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

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

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

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

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

The star of numerous documentaries about conservation

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

The author of a book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In recent years:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we’re right back to the question,

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

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

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.

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

In the words of the immortal (and abusive, exploitive, and capitalist) P.T. Barnum, “There’s a fool born every minute.” Today, that fool happens to be the young, award wining singer Demi Lovato.

At a glance, Lovato’s visit to Black Jaguar White Tiger, where she cuddled with “rescued” cubs could be dismissed as complete, if epically vast, ignorance. However, a read through the gushing article by the Daily Mail which covers her visit reveals the more lurid (and less surprising to anyone who’s researched BJWT and it’s notorious founder, Eduardo Serio) truth of the matter. It’s all about connections, back scratching, and publicity.

Demi Lovato at Black Jaguar White Tiger

You see, Ms. Lovato is preparing for a North American tour with DJ Khaled. And Khaled is best pals with good old Eddie Serio. Yes, they go waaaay back. Back to Eddie’s days as a Hollywood socialite. You know, before he ever started buying, er, pardon me, “rescuing” big cats, and keeping them in his closet. How better to drum up a little publicity for one’s North American tour than to spend a little time playing with the pet big cats of your costar’s old buddy? Get your fans all stirred up, and, hey, Black Jaguar White Tiger’s stats have been fading somewhat of late. They could use the pat on the back.

After all, Eduardo Serio’s currently juggling somewhere around $500,000.00 in unaccounted for donations to that little 501(c)3 of his. About $69,000.00 of that money was intended for lions he was supposedly going to “rescue” from Colombia. Lions that he was also supposedly going to “rescue” last year. Another chunk, $74,889.00 was thrown at him so that he could single-handedly parade around Mexico, salvaging his country from the grip of the tragic earthquake. Last we heard about that was some blankets Eddie supposedly bought with his own money, and a few promises that he’d “give the money to the best places”. $161,599.00 was raised via GoFundMe supposedly just to pay for the cats Serio already has. And of course, the Foundation has never formally posted any detailed financials, as American 501(c)3’s are required by law to do. So, yeah, a flashy young attractive star hoisting around adorable baby big cats would be a great distraction for the fans of BJWT.

Cue Eddie’s buddy, DJ Khaled, who is conveniently preparing a North American tour with just such an attractive young woman. And, of course, the scheme is working grandly. Ms. Lovato promptly posted a photo of herself on Instagram rubbing noses with a young lion cub, which has already garnered over 1.3 million likes, and some 6,500 comments. In her description, Lovato says the cub was “rescued” but, of course, we know it was secured, just like every other cub at BJWT through Serio’s persistent connections with illegal traders, and sellers, solely for the purpose of that for which it’s being used: to take photos with guests.

With Serio literally subletting the “biographies” of his cats to his fans and followers (I’m not being facetious, he’s literally set up an email account so his fans can submit biographies of his animals, because, he says, he’s too busy rescuing more to keep track of them) the actual origins of the animals at BJWT are not only up for debate, but also constantly changing. In fact, one only needs to peruse the submitted biographies already posted to the BJWTBios Instagram page to realize that virtually every biography documented contains gross inaccuracies, and many, if not most, also contain the phrase “Eddie said” which brings us right back to the lack of documentation.

Eddie “says” a lot of things. When Karma died, “Eddie said” she wasn’t actually sick, and was going to be fine. Then “Eddie said” she had to have surgery. Then “Eddie said” she had to have surgery. Then “Eddie said” the surgeons found dead intestines, and a piece of wood. Then “Eddie Said” Karma came through surgery fine, and was doing great. Now, two years later, “Eddie says” that there was no wood found in Karma’s intestines. Now “Eddie says” that Karma did not live through surgery, but died on the operating table. Now “Eddie says” that no one, the vets or anyone else, knows why Karma died. So when, exactly, was Eddie telling the truth?

Is the “rescued” lion cub Lovato is holding in her Instagram photo from a zoo, as so very many of BJWT’s cubs are? I wonder if it was “rescued” the same way this cubs “rescued” from the zoo owned by Eddie’s friend were. Does anyone remember those cubs? Rocky and Rambo? Hmm? Their “biographies” were recently posted, describing how they were “rescued” because the people who owned them gave them up. Funny. Back when they were just “box babies” the story was that they’d been removed from their mothers at a zoo so as to save them. There was also a third cub, who died right after their public reveal, and which was immediately forgotten. At the time, Eddie declared that he’d “rescued” the cubs from a zoo, and because he “didn’t have room” for their mothers, he’d taken the cubs. After weeks of having fans ask about the mother lions, after weeks of fans questioning the mothers and if they were suffering, Eddie admitted that the mother lions were fine, because his friend Gustavo owned the zoo. Meaning that those lionesses were never in danger, and their cubs never needed to be removed in the first place. Yet Serio did remove the cubs solely for the purpose of using them to make money off his fans.

The Daily Mail article delicately suggests that BJWT is “controversial” and references a Daily Beast article as evidence of the “controversy” of BJWT’s actions. It’s a truly laughable attempt to “cover their bases”. The Daily Mail didn’t bother linking to BJWTWatchdog, where hundreds of researched and documented problems surrounding BJWT are available to the public. Neither did the Daily Mail bother to reference the few, but well researched articles written by conservationists–not just other fluff media outlets–which in great detail explain everything that’s wrong with BJWT and Serio’s ongoing actions. Neither did the Daily Mail bother mentioning the fact that at least on very prominent, and completely factual article, was removed after Serio attempted to legally threaten the author of that article because it showed BJWT in a very poor light. Maybe the Daily Mail is afraid of Serio’s temper. Well-rounded reporting doesn’t seem to matter these days.

And speaking of threats, for someone who describes themselves as a “feminist” Lovato must wear her feminism like she does designers shows–only when they match her current outfit. After all, she posed happily for a photo op with Eduardo Serio when Serio has repeatedly attacked women with such condescending savagery that even his own followers have called him out on it. Serio even published the private information of a young American woman after his fans offered to kill her to get her out of Serio’s way. Ms. Lovato claims to support mental health, and wants to spread awareness about it. She, herself, has been diagnosed as bipolar. One wonders if she’s intentionally overlooking the fact that Serio has repeatedly referred to anyone with mental health concerns as “crazy”. One wonders if Ms. Lovato is intentionally overlooking the fact that Serio has publicly suggested that couples undergo genetic testing in order to avoid giving birth to “defective” children with mental disease. Or any other disease. Ms. Lovato works with a number of international groups supporting the sort of children Serio believes should never be born. Ms. Lovato also supports gay rights, meanwhile, Serio publicly derides gays, transgenders, and anyone else who does not fit within the perimeters of mainstream heterosexuals.

Is it really possible that Demi Lovato cares so little for the truth that she’s ignoring the fact that Serio, and everything he stands for, is in direct opposition of all the things Lovato herself supports? Or does Lovato just not give a shit about the fact that by visiting BJWT, she’s actively supporting, and advertising a homophobic, xenophobic, exploitive capitalist who’s willing to happily destroy anything and anyone who thwarts their plans? I mean, honestly, she could have just had coffee with the current President and posted a photo of herself, and she’d have achieved the same thing. Or maybe Ms. Lovato knows what Serio’s really like, and she just doesn’t care because, hey, North American tour coming up with Serio’s good friend DJ Khaled! Might as well get as much attention as she can before the tour gets underway, right?

Whatever the reasons behind Ms. Lovato’s ill-conceived visit to BJWT, and her beaming photo with founder Eduardo Serio, one thing is certain. There’s a fool born every minute, and Ms. Lovato just joined their ranks. We can only hope she comes to realize the reality of BJWT’s lies and abuse. She’ll never speak out about it, even if she does, celebrities never do, because they fear Serio’s connections with Hollywood, which could tank careers. But it’d be nice to think she might educate herself, and avoid making the same mistake twice.

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

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

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

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

But here’s where the disconnect comes in.

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

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

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

Which brings us back to celebrity endorsements.

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

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