Media Misnomers

Photo by Bank Phrom on Unsplash

How Reporting (Or Lack Thereof) Shapes Public Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE REALITY:

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

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

Photo Credit, Prince Harry

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

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover of Yarrow's book, photo credit David Yarrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Powerful Women Do Powerful Things

Photo by Brooke Lark on Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a complete lie, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For years.

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

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

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

Photo, BJWT

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

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

Photo, BJWT

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

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

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

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

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

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

Now removed from BJWT

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Two Months Gone, Two Lives Damaged Forever

Two Months Gone, Two Lives Damaged Forever

It’s coming up on two months since Megan van Der Zwan was fatally mauled by a lion under the care of famed “Lion Whisperer” Kevin Richardson. Though the devastating occurrence was widely reported at the time that it happened (February 27, 2018) it quickly fell off the radar of the general public. Interest was briefly renewed when Richardson made a single, carefully worded, and legally-minded statement to the media, which laid the blame for the mauling solely on the bloodied brow of the dead young woman.

Richardson’s statement, and nuanced assertion that the mauling was caused by the young women who were attacked, stirred a knee-jerk reaction from the public worldwide, a collective shoulder-shrugging dismissal of the entire thing. The families of both the deceased van der Zwan, and her unnamed friend were subsequently forced to watch as literally thousands of comments informed them that their family members “deserved” to be attacked by a lion because they were “outside their vehicles” as per the “Lion Whisperer’s” own account of the situation.

But that carefully worded statement was designed for the explicit purpose of creating just this reaction and mindset within a public which has long adored and hero-worshipped Kevin Richardson. While it contained no actual lie, it also intentionally misled the entire world to think that van Der Zwan and her friend had stopped their vehicle within the expanses of a Big Five game reserve and gotten out of that vehicle, thus placing themselves in danger.

The truth is a very different scenario.

• While the full details are still unknown–as there is still an ongoing investigation of Richardson’s facilities and practices being carried out by officials–we do know the basic facts of the case. They are as follows:

• Van der Zwan and her friend came to Richardson’s sanctuary for some sort of school project. They interviewed the manager of the bush camp.

• Richardson knew the young women were there, and had spoken to them that morning.

• Richardson had already taken one set of lions off the grounds of his sanctuary, located on the Welgedacht reserve, at the edge of the Dinokeng Game Reserve, hauling them by truck out onto the DGR (and into the territory of established wild lions) so he could “walk” with them. This is the type of interaction that has made Richardson a household name.

• While the two young women were still at the sanctuary, Richardson decided to take out a second set of lions, trucking them onto the DGR, and releasing them to roam freely.

• The young women were inside the fenced and gated bush camp–which regularly hosts tourists for visits and overnight stays, and is considered safe to walk around in, due to the fences and gates–but apparently for reasons unknown the gate to the bush camp was standing open.

• After concluding their interview with the camp’s manager, the young women exited the offices, and walked toward their vehicle where it was parked, pausing en route so they could take photos of the area.

• While taking photos, the two women were ambushed from behind by a lioness who had apparently entered the camp through the open gate. Megan van der Zwan suffered the full attention of the lioness, and was fatally mauled as her friend watched on in horror.

And so the cover up began.

Though authorities were immediately called, and aid was rendered, van der Zwan succumbed to her grievous injuries onsite. Right from the very off, however, Richardson fans mounted a steadfast defense of Richardson’s actions. Even with Watchdog linking directly to realtime articles as they were published, Richardson fans adamantly insisted that the lion who committed the fatal mauling was a wild animal. Despite that Richardson himself had admitted during one of his own videos posted shortly before the incident that he felt as though his lions, if faced with a stranger, might well attack that stranger, fans insisted that it couldn’t have been one of Richardson’s lions. Even after it was repeatedly confirmed that the lion was, in fact, one of Richardson’s animals, fans insisted that the young women had to have done something wrong, had to have broken the rules and put themselves in danger. When Richardson himself, issued the only statement about the incident he’s made to date, stating that the lioness had chased a gazelle for a full mile and a half, where she “encountered the young woman outside her vehicle” fans of the “Lion Whisperer” took it as validation that the dead young woman had caused her own demised by exiting her vehicle when she should not have.

Watchdog was not so easily duped by the self-serving account of Richardson, who has managed to build an entire career out of exploiting lions in the name of conserving them. Writers like Artemis Grey, who have long questioned the ethics of intentionally interacting with big cats, as Richardson does, were also not swayed by the misleading statements made by Richardson and his supporters. Two months later, we remain both unswayed, and unimpressed by the way Richardson has “gone to ground”, refusing to address the suffering endured by the families of both the young women whose lives were sundered and irrevocably changed by his own actions. While Richardson has completely withdrawn, he’s allowed those who manage his social media sites to issue statements repeatedly which attempt to garner sympathy for the “Lion Whisperer” during this “trying time”.

While van der Zwan’s family laid their daughter to rest, Richardson’s Facebook posted saying that the past week had “been a traumatic time for everyone.” And that they wanted to assure that “Obviously being out in the open in any Reserve carries personal risk”.

When Watchdog continued to post notes, etc. reminding readers that the young women were not, in fact “out in the open” on any Reserve at all, the manager of Richardson’s social media pages took to various groups slandering us, and accusing us of having ulterior motives and personal vendettas against Richardson. Artemis Grey confided in us that she, too, had been notified by multiple people, that Richardson’s page manager was trash-talking her.

Shortly thereafter, Richardson’s pages began posting references to “successful” release projects such as that of several spotted hyenas. The definition of “successful” remains up for debate, as it has not been confirmed by uninvolved parties that the hyenas are functioning without outside help.

As the investigations into Richardson’s sanctuary, and his own actions remain ongoing, his page manager continues to grasp at straws, even contriving absurd, and anthropomorphized conversations between Richardson and his animals. The inane one-liners aside, these falsely humanizing portrayals of captive wild animals are the perfect representation of all that’s wrong with the public’s perception of wild animals in general. Wild animals–captive, or not–are every bit as worthy of life, and rights, as humans.

But they are not human.

To construe wild animals as thinking in human terms, acting in human terms, or emoting in human fashion is how Megan van der Zwan got fatally mauled in the first place.

Kevin Richardson became famous the world over, not for his work in the active conservation of wild-roaming lions, but for “becoming one of the pride” and directly interacting with his privately owned captive lions. Never mind that those lions aren’t actually a “pride” at all, but rather living in several small groups of two and three animals. The point is, Richardson’s perceived ability to interact with his lions as if he were a lion, and they were human, is what’s made him who he is. Not respect for lions as they are in the wild, but rather, lions as they are with Richardson riding them around like ponies, lounging on them as if they were living pillows, and playing with them as if they were oversized domestic house cats.

The idealized fantasy of a lion, is what Richardson has built his mythos around, the reality of a lion, is what happened to Megan van der Zwan.

Two months out from Megan’s death, it’s unclear just what Richardson’s future holds for him, and his “bigger than life” persona as the “Lion Whisperer” but the future for Megan’s family, and that of her unnamed friend and her family, is much more obvious. Their’s is a future of struggle.

A struggle to adjust to life without the presence of someone who should still be with them.

A struggle to redeem the name of their dead and traumatized loved ones, from that of a “foolish tourists” to that of “innocent victims”.

A struggle to understand why the man responsible for the death and traumatization of those loved ones, is still being celebrated for the actions which resulted in their deaths and trauma.

Her Name Was Megan

Her Name Was Megan

Some twelve days ago, a 22 year-old-woman was mauled to death by a hand-raised lion belonging to the famed “Lion Whisperer” Kevin Richardson.

Her name was Megan. Megan van der Zwan.

That matters.

It matters more than the fact that the “Lion Whisperer’s reputation is now in question.

It matters more than the fact that the “Lion Whisperer’s” TAG Heuer ad campaign got cancelled.

It matters more than the fact that the “Lion Whisperer’s sanctuary is now involved in an investigation.

Her name was Megan, and she’s dead.

Her family is still struggling to come to terms with losing her, not that the media cares very much. In the days since Megan’s untimely and savage death, there was an immediate rush of interest, primarily in the fact that the famed “Lion Whisperer” had failed to control one of his lions, followed by days of radio silence. Then, just before and right after Megan’s funeral on Friday, two articles appeared, short, and devoid of any functional conversation about what actually happened.

One of the articles contained misinformation (that “Kevin” said the women were outside the camp, he has not ever said that) while the other was more interested in how Megan’s family was “dealing with” her death, the answer which of course, is that they aren’t dealing well at all. Their child is dead. That speaks for itself.

What’s not being spoken of is how all of this happened. How did a lion wind up in the direct proximity of two innocent young women in a location which is supposedly secure enough to house guests that pay to stay there? How was that lion comfortable enough with humans and human structures to approach the area without hesitation?

The answer is Kevin Richardson, himself. The conservation community just doesn’t have the fortitude to own up to that fact, and to discuss it in depth. In fact, proponents of Richardson within the conservation community are actually counseling that the community avoid discussing the fact that Richardson’s choice to create the mythos of the “Lion Whisperer” and promote his handling of his lions directly led to the death of Megan van der Zwan, because, as they put it “emotions are too high”.

Emotions are too high?

There was just another school shooting in America, and do you know who’s refusing to discuss gun control because emotions are too high? Pro-gun factions. It’s a classic stalling tactic.

Right now, even the most devoted “Lion Whisperer” fans are having a hard time coming up with valid arguments as to why it’s perfectly acceptable for Richardson to handle his lions after such handling resulted in Megan’s death. Therefore, they’re taking a subject that’s been discreetly brushed aside and intentionally avoided for years, and setting it aside yet again with the excuse that “emotions are too high” to discuss it. Strange, since before a young woman was mauled to death, attempts at discussing why it’s a bad idea for anyone to promote the handling of captive wild animals, no matter who they are, were brushed off as the attempt of a few “jealous” groups or individuals who “didn’t understand” how Richardson, and those like him, “operate”.

So it’s up to CWW, and anyone else willing to have the discussion about hands-on conservation versus hands-off conservation to pursue the issue. Especially since Richardson himself is refusing to talk about any of it. While one of the most recent two articles cites a statement from Richardson’s Facebook page, they aren’t actually quoting Richardson, but rather, the lay-person who runs his social media accounts. The only direct public statement Richardson has made about Megan’s death didn’t have to do with her, so much as himself.

“Myself and an experienced colleague took three lions walking in the Reserve, as we do on a weekly basis, as part of their exercise and stimulation regiment. We assessed the landscape for other big 5 animals and as per procedure sent out a notification that we were walking in the reserve. One of the lionesses charged off after an Impala and must have run 2,0 to 2,5km where she encountered the 22-year-old outside the car”

“I am devastated and my heart goes out to this young woman’s family.”

This is, as of the time of the drafting of this article, the only public statement Kevin Richardson has made about Megan’s death, or the mauling. It was only issued after some 24hrs of careful consideration to wording and presentation.

I took my lions out as I always do. I made sure there were no wild animals in the area, and I told my employees that I was taking my lions out. I’m devastated, and I feel badly for the other people dealing with this mess.

A simple rewording brings the actual content of Richardson’s statement forward to showcase just how self-serving and self-centered the statement is. And the most prominent thing missing from Richardson’s so carefully worded statement?

An apology.

You see, you can’t apologize for something without admitting guilt for it in at least some capacity. And Richardson can’t afford to publicly admit guilt without opening himself up for legal repercussions, both civil, and possibly criminal. Watchdog maintains the stipulation that Richardson did not want Megan to be injured or killed, just as we stipulate that Richardson feels terrible that she’s dead. However, the fact that Richardson recognized the tenuousness of his situation so profoundly as to wait 24hrs before issuing a public statement, and then wording that statement so cautiously as to avoid even apologizing to Megan’s family in order to also avoid anything that could be construed as an admittance of guilt that might be used against him later tells you where Richardson’s concern lay. And it wasn’t with the family of the dead young woman, or with the surviving young woman who is now dealing with the repercussions of having watched as her friend was killed.

Take a moment and let that sink in. Even less considered in this mess than Megan, who was killed by Richardson’s lioness, is her as-of-yet-unnamed friend. This second young woman was laughing and talking with Megan one moment, and then in the next moment found herself watching as Megan was torn apart alive by a lion. Graphic, we know. That’s precisely why we’re offering readers this gentle reminder of just how devastating this event was for the victims.

Watchdog has been accused of “exploiting” this situation for our own purposes. Our focus, however, is on the young women who suffered in this attack. One of them is dead, and the other irrevocably traumatized by witnessing the fatal mauling of her friend.

These women are the victims of a broken conservation system.

A broken system that Watchdog was founded to rail against. And we will continue to do so. Megan and her surviving friend will not have suffered in vain. They will not be forgotten, we will make sure of it.

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.

The Tragedy Of Reality

The Tragedy Of Reality

Yesterday morning, Watchdog made a post about the tragic fatal mauling of a young woman which took place at the sanctuary of the famed “Lion Whisperer” Kevin Richardson. Our post was based both on firsthand, confidential information we were given by persons present in the immediate area of Kevin’s sanctuary, as well as statements made by officials of the Dinokeng Game Reserve. Despite these firsthand facts, our post was met with disbelief and anger. Some people chose to unfollow our page, while others defended Richardson, insisting that it must have been a wild lion who carried out the attack. Throughout the day Kevin Richardson fans continued to present outrage that we would dare attack the sovereignty of the “Lion Whisperer”.

Today, those fans, and conservationists awoke to a changed world, as far as dreamy, idealistic “becoming one of the pride” illusions are concerned.

Kevin Richardson himself has now made a public statement admitting that one of his hand-raised lions–one of the lions who “accepted” him as “one of the pride” in his own words–left Richardson while he was “walking” her on the Dinokeng Game Reserve. That lioness returned to Richardson’s sanctuary alone where she fatally mauled a young woman. The deceased young woman was accompanying a friend who was interviewing the manager of Richardson’s posh “bush camp”.

Richardson’s distress at this young woman’s death is doubtlessly earnest. However, it’s clear by his very careful public statement that Richardson and his team are already working toward damage control. Richardson’s brief statement gently supplants the understanding that he “sent out a notice” that he’d be walking lions, alluding to the fact that somehow two young women visiting Welgedacht for only a few hours should have known to expect that a lion habituated to human contact might ambush them if they got out of a vehicle to take photos.

Let’s begin by listing some verified facts, many of which the public might not be aware of.

1. When the “Lion Whisperer” produces those dramatic videos of himself walking his lions he’s not actually at his sanctuary, or on Welgedacht where his sanctuary is located. Not most of the time. Although there is a large “central enclosure” on Welgedacht where the cats are rotated on a weekly basis, Richardson also takes lions from that location, and out onto the expanse of the Dinokeng Game Reserve (DGR) where they can run and “be lions” for a while.

2. These “lion walks” have caused problems with the wild lions on DGR more than once. Watchdog’s contacts, who live adjacent to DGR, have told us that the wild lions have been pushed aside by the encroachment of Richardson’s captive lions.

3. Behavioral changes have been noted in the wild lions of DGR, in response to the presence of Richardson’s lions, and the scent marks and spore they leave behind on their “enrichment walks”. It’s also known that the wild lions can approach, and have approached the captive lions on Richardson’s sanctuary, which only provokes more troubling behavior on the part of the wild lions. Richardson has never made a public statement on how he would react should any of these wild lions confront his own lions while walking on DGR.

4. Multiple complaints about the impact that Richardson’s lions have on the existing pride of wild lions have been swept under the rug so far. Our contacts believe this is due to Richardson’s prominence, but they remained justifiably outraged by his continued pressure on the wild lions. Remember, Richardson claims to be handling his lions in order to protect wild lions, but by taking his own lions into the territory of a wild pride, he’s repeatedly creating stress on that wild population.

5. Despite the widespread belief that “no one but Kevin interacts with his lions or other animals” this simply IS NOT TRUE. One only needs to research Richardson’s “volunteer” program to discover a vastly different reality. “Volunteer” is a misnomer, as the “volunteers” pay thousands of dollars for the right to “volunteer” at Richardson’s reserve. And the #1 draw? The chance to “walk with Kevin and his lions when they go for enrichment”. Review after review lists the highlight of the “volunteer’s” trip to be “getting to walk with Kevin and his lions”. * Because there has been some confusion as to whether or not volunteers literally walk on the ground with Richardson, we are adding this clarification. “Walking with Kevin” refers to volunteers riding in an open-topped vehicle alongside Richardson and his lions. This offers them little to no protection, should the lions choose to attack, but it does keep volunteers off the ground. However, volunteers who “walk” with Richardson are allowed to feed the lions they “walk” with by hand. This constitutes direct interaction, and also habituates the lions to associate vehicles and the people in them with food rewards.

6. The “bush camp” where the young woman was killed is on Welgedacht, though it’s not been made clear which bush camp it was. Richardson recently opened a second “bush camp”. According to Constable Connie Moganedi, the victim had accompanied a friend who was working on a school project and “When they were about to leave, the lioness attacked the young lady.” Moganedi stated that the pair were walking to their car when a lioness attacked from behind. *We originally reported her that the young women had gotten out of their car to take photos. We have updated our article to reflect the latest information as it is released.

Remember, these women were only visiting Richardson’s sanctuary briefly, and weren’t privy to any of his “notices” about the fact that he was walking lions.

As we said in our post yesterday, Watchdog was founded to expose the exploitation of Black Jaguar White Tiger, but we have never shied away from publicly criticizing Kevin Richardson for his continued role in exploiting his own animals, and for influencing people like Serio to follow in his footsteps. Fans of Richardson often become irate when we make comparisons between the “Lion Whisperer” and Serio, yet the facts speak for themselves. Even details like the arrangement of Richardson’s sanctuary, with cats living in smaller enclosures, with a central enrichment area where they’re rotated on a weekly basis is mimicked by Serio in his own setup. Groups like I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc. have also written about this, and I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc. member Artemis Grey continues to be outspoken against Richardson and his behavior.

Richardson out "walking" his captive lions.

These truths are hard pills for diehard Richardson fans to swallow, but that doesn’t make them untrue. Even now, Richardson’s Facebook page is being swamped with comments supporting Richardson, and condemning the innocent dead woman, blaming her entirely for causing the incident. Richardson himself set up this reaction by stating that he’d “given notice” that he was taking out some of his lions. Well, to quote someone defending Richardson on a post yesterday, let’s tuck in to some “reality sandwiches”.

Reality Sandwich: Wild lions have been recorded traveling as far as 31 miles a day. The entirety of the Welgedacht is about 3,000 acres, or about 4.5 miles, and Richardson’s lions do not have the run of all of that land.

Reality Sandwich: A “classic” wild lion pride consists of 2-12 female lions and their cubs, and 1-6 adult male lions. Despite that Richardson repeatedly states he’s “Been accepted into the pride.” his own lions don’t actually live or function as a pride. They live in separate enclosures, and are walked only in small sets of two or three not as a real pride.

Reality Sandwich: The only consistent threat to a pride of wild lions (aside from humans) is other lions. The invasion of other prides, or prideless lions is an extreme stress factor for wild lions. It’s been regularly documented that dominant males will become so short-tempered as to lash out at their own females and cubs when also dealing with threats from outside lions. Richardson imposes foreign lions on the existing wild lions of Dinokeng every single time he chooses to “walk” his lions inside the established territory of the Dinokeng’s wild lions.

Reality Sandwich: It’s a long-accepted scientific fact that wild animals which have been habituated to humans and human contact are at a hugely increased risk for conflict, both fatal and nonfatal, with humans. Richardson’s lions have been hand-raised, and are completely habituated to human presence, yet Richardson intentionally takes them into a wild setting where they are completely uncontrolled, and unconfined. As Dinokeng is open to the public, Richardson’s lions could potentially run afoul other human visitors anywhere in the reserve.

Reality Sandwich: A lion is an ambush predator, which generally stalks prey to within 30 meters or less, or about 98 feet. The average success rate of a lion ambush is only around 30%, and lions simply do not possess the stamina to chase prey for more than 200 meters or about 650 feet at the most. Richardson’s public announcement states that the lioness responsible for yesterday’s fatal attack “charged off after an Impala and must have run 2,0 to 2,5km where she encountered the 22-year-old outside the car.” So, Richardson, whom is touted as a leading expert in lions, is claiming that one of his lionesses chased prospective prey for 1.5 miles–that’s some 2,400 meters, and ended up near a young woman, who she then attacked. We only have Richardson’s account of the incident, but that’s some amazing stamina.

Reality Sandwich: Hundreds of humans are injured by, and dozens of humans are killed by, captive wild animals every year, world wide. Interaction between captive wild animals and humans is dangerous, and usually results in bad outcome. Richardson’s lions, hyenas, and other animals are captive wild animals, and for all his mythic reputation, Richardson is fundamentally no different from anyone else who owns captive wild animals.

Reality Sandwich: When it comes down to it, the key words are “captive” and “wild”, a paradoxical description of animals which can never be truly wild, but will also never be completely tame. Outside of containment, Richardson has no more control over his lions than he would have over an actual wild lion. Had he been standing directly beside this young woman when the lioness chose to attack her, he could not have stopped the attack from taking place.

Biggest, Rankest Reality Sandwich: Kevin Richardson is not a lion. He’s just another human making a living off the animals in his care, and just like any other human exploiting captive wild animals, eventually something was going to go wrong.

No one is happy this happened. We at Watchdog, as well as Artemis Grey, whom we’ve spoken to about this incident, would have been perfectly happy to go our entire lives disapproving of Kevin Richardson and his behavior, without ever having our disproval validated. But it has been validated. All of our concerns about Kevin’s revered “bond” and his use of that mythos have come to fruition. The manifestation of that fruition is the tragic, needless death of a young woman. A young woman who, we might add, was tagging along with a friend specifically so she could experience the wonders of the “Lion Whisperer” she obviously admired.

So, what’s next? What will we learn from this tragedy? From this irrefutable proof that the “Lion Whisperer” possess no more influence over the lions in his care than that which can be affected through conditioning and control? For those of us who always expected (but hoped against) an outcome like this, nothing will change. We will continue to speak out against the exploitation of captive wild animals. We will continue to patiently explain to the public that you can’t teach someone not to do something by doing it yourself.

For the famed “Lion Whisperer” the future is less certain. Famous now for something very different than “being one of the pride” Richardson is facing an investigation not only from local authorities, but also undoubtedly from the authorities who control the Dinokeng Game Reserve. If the DGR chooses to rescind permission for Richardson to walk his lions openly on DGR land, where will he make his adored videos, commercial, fashion shoots, and other media?

Photo taken from the ad campaign Richardson participated in for Dutch menswear label Van Gils

Then there’s Richardson’s upcoming movie “Charlie the White Lion” to consider. Set for release in the next year or so, the movie, directed by Gilles de Maistre, has been creating a huge stir within distribution companies, all eager to capitalize on the profit to be had by pairing lions and children. De Maistre tweeted links just a day before this fatal mauling which showcased bidding wars and excitement over the film.

Screenshot taken from the Instagram account of Gilles de Maistre

A primary factor in the desirableness of the movie? The fact that it contains no CGI, and that real lions, and real children really interacted together in the production.

Lions which Richardson personally helped procure specifically for the purpose of making a movie with children that’s supposed to teach people not to interact with lions. Children which Richardson personally selected to make a movie with lions that’s supposed to teach people not to interact with lions.

Lions and children which Richardson personally taught to directly interact with each other in order to make a movie that’s supposed to teach people not to interact with lions.

One can only wonder if those who choose to screen the movie will grasp that it was made possible by a man who valued his own persona more than he valued the lives of the public who upheld him as the mythical “Lion Whisperer” and the lives of the lions forced to perform for his profit?

Idealistic Communes

Why Idealistic Communes Are Both Legendary, And Almost Non-Existent

There is a distinctive mythos attached to the idea of communal living. From the reverently famous Peaceable Kingdom series by Edward Hicks, (and the underlying theology of the “peaceable kingdom” on earth) to nefariously infamous communes like Jonestown and Charles Manson’s Manson Family, the iconic idealism of living together in harmony has been around since the beginning of time. However, there’s a good reason that communes remain an idealistic version of society, rather than how we actually function: because they just don’t work the way they’re supposed to.

Most of the time communes–even when formed by socially bonded, and unified people–just “don’t work out” in the long run, and break apart. Or, if the area on which a commune is built is owned by a person willing to continue the process, the members of that commune turn over many times through the years, never maintaining for long. Occasionally, communes devolve into truly horrific ends, such as the massacre of Jonestown where nearly a thousand people died, rather than admit the failure of their commune, or the murders committed by the Manson Family.

But however a commune ends, or continues to limp along, sustaining them is, even according to avid believers, very difficult, and success is based off personality factors, infrastructure, not ideals, as the mythos suggests. Merely believing the same things does not, in fact, lead to sustainable living conditions.

Which brings us to dear old Eduardo Serio, of Black Jaguar White Tiger, otherwise known as Papa Bear, and his lengthy “Papa Bear Chronicles”. As the hashtag suggests the Papa Bear Chronicles chronicle Serio’s largely directionless commentary on “life”. One such post, made several weeks ago, addressed Serio’s “haters” with a decidedly superior air, proclaiming that “contrary to 99 percent of “Sanctuaries”, my kids live in Prides, so they’re super happy playing with each other” and therefore don’t need “entertainment”. He goes on to say that other big cat groups “don’t have the capacity to look after whole Prides which obviously require more money, more personnel, more knowledge and intuition.”

This lofty post was subsequently followed just recently, by an unrelated post in which Serio thanks a known BJWT supporter, saying that “Beverly, Merida, Matilda, Bedrock, and Bedrock Love their new playground”.

Now, aside from the fact that this graciousness directly contradicts Serio’s own post stating that his cats don’t need any enrichment aside from their own interactions, the “playground” pictured is little more than scraps of wood nailed together, and in a weird configuration, at that. It took us a few minutes to sort out that the structure was nothing more than a replica of the children’s play equipment so often featured in Serio’s backyard. Because child’s play sets are completely appropriate for big cat enrichment–enrichment that BJWT cats don’t even need.

But I digress. Back to communes, or, in the case of BJWT “Prides”. You see, despite all of his droning of life theories, and higher enlightenment, all Eduardo Serio does is parrot the musings and theology of actual philosophers (and some of those hold grievously flawed beliefs) All he does with his “Prides” and the internal structure of BJWT, is attempt to replicate the Peaceable Kingdom, with himself featured as David in the lions den, or Jesus, or God, for that matter, able to walk amongst the “wild beasts” without harm, due to the purity of his own heart. Think I’m being sarcastic? Just go check out the Papa Bear Chronicles, I’m drawing from Serio’s own ramblings.

What Papa Bear doesn’t explain to the adoring fans who hang on his every illogical, and misrepresented words of wisdom, is the fact that by forcing his animals into these communal “Prides” Serio is actually robbing them of their own birthrights as big cats.

In his “Papa Bear Chronicle” regarding the lack of enrichment for BJWT cats, he posted a photo of an actual sub-Saharan pride of lions, lounging in dust, surrounded by nothing, not even brush. This was the perfect foil against the “haters” who question his lack of enrichment. However, it does nothing to address his own cats, because of all Serio’s “Prides” only a few are actually comprised solely of lions. The rest of them contain multiple species of cat. And of all of those multiple species of cat, only lions inhabit sub-Saharan conditions on a full-time basis. The other species present in these forced “Prides” evolved for thousands of years–and wild members continue to inhabit–rainforests, and other heavily forested, tropical regions.

Lions, in general, are poor climbers, and while in recent years, there’s been documentation of “tree-climbing lions” in several areas, the behavior is largely learned by observation within those isolated prides. Mechanically, lions are not built for climbing, and as a species, they remain “ground-bound” aside from occasional lounging, or climbing up short trees to get a better view of their surroundings.

In sharp contrast, leopards spend some 60% or more of their life off the ground, and in trees, or other elevated positions. Though they might cross paths with lions in a natural setting, leopards are completely solitary animals. Furthermore, science postulates that one of the definitive factors dictating their evolution as “tree dwellers” was the present of lions in shared territories, as lions view leopards as part of the food chain, and regularly kill and eat leopards.

So, right off the bat, Serio is forcing two apex predators from completely opposing evolutionary tracts, one of which historically consumes the other for food, into a “family group”. Then he immediately removes a fundamental foundation stone of the existence of the leopard, by providing them with no way of getting off the ground.

Jaguars are also extremely solitary and territorial creatures (one reason Eddie has never been able to get some of his to live in his beloved “Prides”, though he suggests the problem is with the cats’ personalities, not their species) who spend huge amounts of time in trees. In other areas (jaguars are the widest ranging of all panthera) jaguars are forced to use rocky outcroppings and even cacti to stand-in for treetops. But the preferred territory of jaguars is dense forests, where they are the predominant ambush killer of the big cat world.

Jaguars might spend days at a time up in the canopy

Papa Bear’s barren wastelands of cubicle style open ground enclosures provide the polar opposite of the world that jaguars have evolved to inhabit. It’s no surprise, then, when many of Serio’s jaguars hide in their night boxes, as those tiny shelters are the only available cover for an animal accustomed to spending its entire life hidden from view.

Tiger habitat, meanwhile, also consists of deep forests, both deciduous and rain.

A Sumatran tiger caught on a study camera

They do not, however, enjoy sub-Saharan deserts.

Tigers can spend cumulatively years of their lives in water. Some have even been documented swimming between islands.

But alas, according to Papa Bear’s Chronicles, his tigers don’t need “pools” because they have other big cats to play with! Never mind that tigers, leopards, and jaguars are all–by natural evolution–devoutly solitary animals, uninterested in living in “Prides”. And never mind that leopards–the smallest, and meekest of these species–are often, in a natural setting, eaten by lions, and killed by other larger big cats.

While Papa Bear beats his chests and boasts about his “Prides” he fails to acknowledge the fact that within his forced family “Prides” every member of every species of cat is denied the most basic yearnings and requirements needed to offer that cat the most natural and enjoyable life possible.

Eddie’s 100% is comprised of only about 25% of what each species of animal actually needs. Largely, shelter, food, and water. Just the barest things required to sustain life. But for each mixed “Pride" he boasts about, every species within it is being deprived of 75% of what they need to enjoy life. BJWT fans will insist that the cats are all “happy” but they base their perceptions off of primarily what Papa Bear says, rather than actually grasping the dichotomy of each individual species.

For a domestic house pet, like a dog or domestic cat, simply providing food, shelter, water, and companionship is all that’s needed in order to declare that the animal possesses a happy, sustainable life.

But these factors are only a fraction of what’s needed to make captivity acceptable for a wild animal.

And if you don’t understand that, then you really are viewing the cats of BJWT as pets, which is exactly how Eduardo Serio houses and maintains them.

If BJWT fans truly believe that all lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, ocelots, etc. need to in order have a happy life is food, water, shelter, and human companionship, then all they see at BJWT are large pets, not captive wild animals.

Despite often posting for photos like this, Serio claims than his animals are not pets, and are not maintained as pets

BWJT is nothing more than a commune of species which looks idealistic, but which like so many communes before it, is forced, unnatural, and imminently doomed to fail.