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!

Is Commerce-Conservation Beneficial To Change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see a pattern here?

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

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

Under the share, this comment was made:

We replied with humorous sarcasm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover image screenshot from Mia And The White Lion trailer.

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.