Why Do Big Name Celebrities Constantly Get Big Passes?

When It Comes To Responsible Tourism Why Do Big Name Celebrities Get Passes?

Kim Kardashian is in the news.

Again.

For engaging in exploitive animal abuse with elephants.

Again.

Back in 2014, KK made unflattering headlines by attempting to take a selfie with an exploited baby elephant in Thailand. Although animal welfare groups did their best to use the incident as a teaching tool to highlight the systemic abuse suffered by the elephants used in the tourism industry, the majority of the population simply took it as an opportunity to laugh at the ultra-elite Kardashian.

Four years later, and KK is still making headlines, and still making uninformed and abusive choices. After photos of the famous-for-no-reason-other-than-being-famous celebrity surfaced showing her and her sister riding “rescued elephants” (and that oxymoronic statement really highlights the stupidity involved here) in Bali the animal community promptly stepped forward to criticize Kardashian’s decision to participate in the abuse of captive elephants.

This time, however, KK decided to “hit back” (as one article described it) in response to the deluge of public criticisms deeming her “ignorant” regarding the plight of captive elephants enslaved within the tourist industry. Unfortunately for little Kimmie, her version of “hitting back” turned out to be the equivalent of one of those “fingers over your thumb” toddler punches. Apparently the poor dear only knows how Instagram works, not Google, or Bing, or any other search engine which can be used to educate oneself about things like animal abuse in the tourism industry

In reply to a critical tweet by the rather brilliant Peter Egan, who happens to be the UK Ambassador for Animals Asia, Kardashian said:

“We visited an elephant sanctuary that has rescued these elephants from Sumatra where they would have otherwise gone extinct. It is an organization that is working to save these beautiful animals. We did full research before going.”

Oh, poor dear. KK is woefully out of her league in class, education, and intellectualism when it comes to taking on Peter Egan.

There is so much mind-numbing ignorance, and incorrect information in just those three sentences. Bear with us, there’s a lot to cover here.

“We visited an elephant sanctuary that has rescued these elephants from Sumatra where they would have otherwise gone extinct.”

Wow. Um, okay, let’s just dive in. To start with, the park where Kim rode the captive elephant is in Bali, not Sumatra. The highly endangered Sumatran elephant is indigenous *only* to Sumatra. For anyone who doesn’t understand the significance of this, Sumatra is part of the Sunda Islands (which are divided between the countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and East Timor) Sumatra is located in western Indonesia. Meanwhile the island of Bali, where Kim rode the elephant, is part of the Lesser Sunda Islands, and is located some 1,800 kilometers, or 1,100 miles (by air) to the west of Sumatra. Since the Sumatran elephant is exclusively indigenous only to Sumatra, this means that the “rescued Sumatran elephants” Kardashian is describing were actually removed from their homes, and hauled over a thousand miles to the island of Bali, which is not large enough to sustain any wild elephant population. On top of that, these elephants are actually invasive species, relative to the species which are indigenous to Bali.

And while the Sumatran elephant is highly endangered in Sumatra, with numbers around 2,000 or less, they are not extinct (yet) and the 27 kidnapped exported elephants that Kimmie played with have literally no helpful impact on the diminishing wild populations of Sumatran elephants still living in Sumatra. Sorry Kimmie-boo, that abusive tourist trap you dropped major coin on didn’t save anything from extinction.

“It is an organization that is working to save these beautiful animals.”

And just what organization was it that Kardashian visited? Although no story has named it, we were able to find out that it was the Mason Elephant Park and Lodge. Is it a sanctuary like KK claims? That would be a resounding hell no. Not unless your idea of a “sanctuary” is a for-profit venture dreamed up by a business man. Oh, the Park’s website is quite the pinnacle of carnival barker half-truths and misinformation. They’re careful to comport themselves with brainy-sounding information that seems legit to anyone who doesn’t dig deeper. They even make a point to list the Five Freedoms of animal welfare. But then, lots of things look good on paper, but we all know what happens to paper when you actually put it through the wash. In the case of Nigel Mason, and his elephants, this means that basically everything disintegrates with a little water.

Nigel Mason first arrived in Bali in 1980, where he “pioneered” (in his own words) “the adventure business” starting with white water rafting, then mountain cycling tours, and eventually the Elephant Safari Park, in 1997. That’s right the “sanctuary” Kimmie-dear is touting, started out as a safari park. And the first elephants weren’t “rescued” from Sumatra, they had already been bought by another individual and shipped to Bali. When Nigel Mason learned about them living in the Taro area he saw dollar signs decided to buy them from their original owner. Depending on what interview you read, Mason’s story of the first elephants runs the gamut from taking “pity on nine deserted and emaciated elephants that were being mistreated and exploited” (we’re not sure how they were both deserted, and at the same time being exploited) to simply being owned by “a person who had no idea what to do with them” but who readily sold them to Mason. This article even looks at MEPL as the extremely successful capitalist venture that it is, and here Mason forthrightly states that the first elephants he obtained had been bought to be used in a trekking outfit, but the owner ran out of capital, so Mason and his wife bought the elephants explicitly to add them to their adventure tours for diversity.

Likewise, the stories of the other elephants at the park differ depending on what article or interview you read. Sometimes Mason claims that he traveled to Sumatra and campaigned with the Sumatran government to save imprisoned elephants and whisk them away to Bali in a sort of black-ops rescue mission “despite the clear terrorist threats” while other articles state that Mason’s elephants came from “government-run “training camps” where wild elephants were rounded up and chained. The last ten elephants were bought “rescued” solely for the purpose of making the “documentary” Operation Jumbo, which documents the dramatic (but not very ethical, or practical) choice to long-haul truck elephants over 3,000 kilometers from their natural habitat in Sumatra, to the tourist hub of Bali, where, surprise surprise, they’re now being used as money-making tourist attractions. And breeding machines. Four babies born to the tourist trap and counting. Of course, each Sumatran elephant born not-in-Sumatra is being touted by Mason as a “conservation success” even though they’re part of a captive population which will never see their natural habitat of Sumatra.

“We did full research before going.”

Apparently in Kimmie-poo’s world “full research” just means checking the roster of the World Luxury Hotel Awards (for which MEPL won “Best Eco Lodge” in 2016 and 2107) because everything written in this note was located and verified in under one hour of Google research. Furthermore, we can tell you where MEPL is not listed as winning any trophies: MEPL is not considered ethical or humane by the Bali Animal Welfare Association. MEPL is not considered ethical or humane by sites like Backpacker Bible. MEPL is not considered ethical or humane by groups such as World Animal Protection, which has stated as recently as May, 2018 that a whopping 100% of Bali animal tourism venues fail to meet even basic animal welfare standards. WAP considers Bali in its entirety to be a “no-go for animal tourism” at this time. It’s even been suggested that Bali might currently be literally the worst destination for animal cruelty.

Even people who patronized MEPL in recent months had plenty of regrets and warnings about the abuse that goes on there:

“The elephants are chained to a spot with a radius of around 8 feet. The only time they are unchained is for the various activities including elephant riding and elephant safari.” –September 2018

Map of the MEPL the "elephant resting pads" are listed under 51 (underlined and circled in red)

“The elephant equivalent of Sea World. Elephants chained all day, no freedom. Only released to give rides and Bull hooks being brandished by Mahouts ready to use them.” –September 2018

“All the elephants are chained to the ground by a 2 foot chain and can barely move . The only time they appear to get "walked" is when tourists get their rides. The mahouts use bull hooks on all the elephants to make them bend down, walk a certain way and do what is needed to put on a good show for tourists . They hide this well , but once you notice it you can't unsee it . They are CONSTANTLY stabbing the sharp metal bull hook into the elephants heads and behind ears. The elephant acts are repetitive and it feels like a cruel merry go round where they are exploited for money.” –September 2018

Example of the small, incredibly sharp but easily concealed prongs used to abuse the elephants into submission. Photos taken from reviews of MEPL.

Example of the small, incredibly sharp but easily concealed prongs used to abuse the elephants into submission. Photos taken from reviews of MEPL

“Was dismayed when we first arrived to see a small area with several sand circles, each with an elephant chained to the middle, most were rocking back and forth on the same spot. I have several videos of the elephants doing this - if you read up on this you can see rocking is a sign of abnormal mental behaviour of animals in captivity.” –August 2018

“This place sells itself as a "sanctuary for elephants", but this is completely false. It is yet another cruel animal attraction. Elephants here are forced to perform acts and carry tourists around on elephant rides. Elephant rides are NOT comfortable for the animal and cause long-term damage to the animal's spine. The elephants are also chained on metre long chains before their performances.

They lie to guests about the "reasons" for chains and elephant rides. It was heartbreaking to see the elephants. I regret not researching this place properly.” –August 2018

“The elephants are chained up to 2 foot long chains alone all day until they are needed for rides. During the ‘Elephant Introduction’ they started by explaining that the elephants weren’t treated like circus animals here but then went on to make them paint, crush coconuts and other little unessesary ‘tricks’. The worst part about this place is the lies they feed us to convince us that these elephants are happy. They are absolutely not and it was heartbreaking.

Each little cabin had a chained elephant outside as if it was a statue.” –August 2018

“1. All elephants, unless they are being forced to take photos or paraded in the 'talent show', are CHAINED TO THE GROUND. The image on the website shows a lady being massaged by a pool with elephants dotted in the background with NO chains.....this photo gives a dishonest view of what it is like.

2. The 'Talent Show'. I can't express enough how horrifying it is to see a creature of that size perform tricks that are completely unnatural for their size and habitual nature. They sat bolt upright on a log....scooped up a man on his head and played football....I was in tears and we left after the first 3 'tricks'...which was 3 tricks too long. They do this out of fear and because their spirit is broken, not because they want to or find any pleasure in it....all for the pleasure of the paying tourist. It's abhorrent and should not be allowed in this day and age.

3. The animals had chunks out of their ears and you could see where they had been spiked by their keepers if they disobeyed their orders. So not only are they chained up, they are spiked and harmed to do what the trainer wants them to do.” –April 2018

Performance at MEPL

Example of "tricks" elephants at MEPL are forced to perform.

Again, all of the information found within this article was located, and verified in under one hour.

One. Hour.

But apparently Kim Kardashian’s thumbs were in casts, so she couldn’t type into a search bar before going on her luxury vacation. Or maybe she’d just gotten her nails done. Or maybe, here’s a shocker, she just doesn’t care.

After all, Kardashian got what she wanted out of the elephants she helped abuse. A little limelight, a little attention, some nice conflict. And ratings, hits, and follows. And in the end, that’s all she cares about. That’s literally how people like Kardashian make their money.

And until big name animal welfare and conservation organizations start calling out big name celebrities, nothing is going to change.

Until those same animal welfare and conservation organizations start drawing a hard line on matters like animal exploitation for tourism, public opinion is still going to be mixed.

For example, Steve Irwin publicly supported MEPL back when it went by the name of Elephant Safari Park, and since becoming MEPL the lodge has been listed in the top ten most unique hotels in the world by National Geographic and the Discovery Travel Channel. This, in spite of the fact that elephants are forced to give up to 17 rides a day to paying tourists and spend the rest of their lives chained up. But being “unique” does not mean being “ethical”.

We have to stop overlooking egregious faults while rewarding irrelevant fluff.

If animal exploitation and abuse is going to end, the double standards applied to big celebrities, and big networks have to end as well.

When You’re Too Popular To Give A Crap About Reality.

When You’re Too Popular To Give A Crap About Reality.

By all accounts, Shaquille O’Neal is a pretty likeable guy. He almost always has a smile on his face in media photos, he’s never been shy about using his position and wealth to help other humans. And on a professional level, he seems well liked by everyone, teammates, opponents, and others in the industry.

But there’s another side to the all-smiles-friendly-guy Shaquille O’Neal. Shaq owns several pet big cats, and regularly visits, and supports facilities which breed, inbreed, exploit, abuse, and sell for profit, big cats of various species and hybrids.

It’s important, before we go any farther, to understand that the majority of the public (literally, billions of people) either don’t care, or don’t understand, that what Shaquille, and other celebrities who engage in the exploitation of captive wild animals are doing, is exploitation of those animals. This is why it’s vital for those of us who do understand to raise awareness whenever possible. Only when the general public reacts in an adverse way, rather than in a supportive and praising manner, can we hope to cultivate within people like Shaq a new perception of their actions.

So back to the fact that Shaq owns big cats. By his own words, Shaq first got “involved” with big cats somewhere around 2005. It’s only been in the last 3-4 years that videos of him with the tigers have really hit social media, but according to this 2015 article, Shaq stated that he owned tigers, and had owned them at the time of the interview for some 10 years already. Of course, the two tigers he keeps as pets are billed as “rare white tigers”. “Rare” only in the purview of the often intentionally-ignorant public. Anyone who has engaged in Google could explain the fact that white tigers are neither “rare” nor “endangered” but are, rather, the product of repeated and intentional inbreeding to cultivate recessive genes. The creation of white tigers also creates immense by-products, those by-products being normal colored tigers, and deformed white cubs which must be euthanized. For each adorable, normal looking white tiger cub you see, there are usually multiple average colored tiger cubs, and deformed tiger cubs which were either sold as offal and/or pets, or euthanized due to their deformities lost in the background. Think of white tiger cubs as the milk in the dairy industry, and the normal colored tiger cubs as the calves. In order to get a white tiger cub, you must produce a large number of undesired cubs which are then simply disposed of as waste product, just as bull calves are disposed of in the dairy industry.

Example of the sort of genetic abnormalities not uncommon in the inbreeding of white tigers.

If the fact that Shaq owns two inbred tigers (and is extra proud of it) doesn’t repulse you, there’s also the fact that just recently Shaq presented his pet liger to fans on his Instagram account. That’s right, Shaq is now the happy owner of a genetically twisted inter-species crossbred (and in many cases also inbred) pet big cat. According to O’Neal only two people in the world own a liger, him, and the Prince of Dubai. We presume that Shaq means there are only two private owners of ligers in the world. Because thanks to folks like Doc Antle (to whom Shaq is also connected, but more on that later) ligers have become the “pretty much my favorite animal” of countless members of the public. Heck, Antle and several other exploiters, even posit that ligers could become their own species of big cat in the future, and with their breeding programs. Never mind that many ligers are sterile. Never mind that many ligers are born with either visible, or invisible deformities. Never mind that many ligers live shortened lives, wrought with medical complications.

Scientific facts don’t seem to matter when you’re Shaquille O’Neal, and you decide to buy yourself the must-have exotic pet of the moment!

Apparently moral and legal quandaries don’t matter for folks like Shaq, either. Most, if not all, of the big cat “experts” Shaquille pals around with have faced citations for abuse of the animals in their care, USDA failings, inappropriate husbandry and some have faced even more serious legal issues. Joe Exotic Maldonado Passage (he also goes by Joe Schreibvogel) was recently arrested on two counts of murder for hire.

Joe Exotic in times past.

Yet days after Exotic was arrested and indicted, Shaq spent the weekend visiting the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park, which was owned, at one point, by Exotic. After GWEAP was forced to shutdown after multiple allegations of animal cruelty, and abuse, it was purchased by Jeff Lowe, another well known abuser and exploiter who has also faced multiple accusations of animal abuse in various locations. On our prior posts regarding Joe Exotic and GWEAP, several people have commented insisting that Exotic is not, and never was, president of the park, nor has he ever held any similar position. We are still working to verify these claims. Many sources, however, including Wikipedia (we’re citing it simply because it’s one of the most referred to references sources on the internet) state that Joe Exotic is the president or CEO of GWEAP. Once we’re able to verify Exotic’s current relationship with GWEAP we will update you.

Regardless of Joe Exotic’s present connection to–or lack of connection to–GWEAP it is a verified fact that Shaquille has been friends with Exotic since before he managed to lose the original version of the park. There are multiple videos floating around which show Shaq visiting Exotic, and playing with big cats. And since Shaquille is still frequenting GWEAP and interacting with its big cats, he’s now associated with Jeff Lowe. Lowe, himself, fields charges of abuse regarding the animals in his care on a regular basis. Yes, he still holds a license to possess and exhibit exotic animals, but only in spite of the efforts of numerous captive wild animal advocates who have pled with the USDA to terminate Lowe’s license. Just this year, in May, PETA petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to decline the renewal of Lowe’s license.

Lowe’s issues go back years, with a laundry list of citations including unfit and insecure enclosures, and leaving animals unsupervised in inappropriate conditions (in 2016 tiger cubs were found roaming in a house located on the GWEAP facility grounds) and in June of 2013 Lowe was investigated by the USDA for the deaths of 23 tiger cubs in the span of seven months. Nevertheless, that same USDA has yet to withdraw Lowe’s licenses. Then there’s the fact that back in 2013 there was a mirrored situation involving Low and Joe wherein Lowe (still operating a decrepit “zoo” in South Carolina) repeatedly claimed to be a partner in Exotic’s Wynnewood park, GWEAP, while Exotic admitted that Lowe had visited his park, he emphatically insisted that Lowe “has absolutely no ties to us.” Fast forward to 2018 and now Lowe–who bought GWEAP after it was shutdown and Joe Exotic lost it–is claiming the exact same thing about Joe, in spite of the fact that Exotic is referred to as being partnered with, or president of the park.

Jeff Lowe with one of his own inbred hybrids, which he calls a liliger.

Both Lowe and Joe Exotic and their considerable laundry lists of exploitation and abuse pale in comparison to Shaquille O’Neal’s association with Doc Antle, of T.I.G.E.R.S. With literally decades of abuse and exploitation behind him (spanning multiple states, no less) few men have been able to turn animal abuse into a commercial business the way Doc Antle has. But that’s not for lack of trying on Antle’s part. He’s all too happy to take on apprentices, teaching them the same bunk science, and behavior he’s based his own empire on.

It was one of these apprentices named Robert Johnson who provided the inbred white tiger to Shaq for this 34th Birthday party. You know, the one he dragged down a red carpet while dressed like a old school gangster.

Johnson has also provided captive wild animals for handling at events like Obama’s inauguration, movies, and live shows. That’s kind of what he does. Breed captive wild animals, and then use them to make money. This includes ligers. Ligers like the one Shaq presented to his fans recently. Just where Shaq purchased his liger remains a mystery. With Antle breeding them constantly, however, the inbred hybrids are no longer just the stuff of legend. They’re quickly becoming the new hotness. And with Shaq now advertising his personal liger like the newest model of must-have cuddliness, things are only going to get worse.

Robert Johnson

Johnson’s teacher, Doc Antle.

Likewise, with ignorant, but very popular morons like Shaquille O’Neal (who has been repeatedly, and consistently berated by former fans trying to make him understand how keeping tigers and ligers as pets is exploitive and wrong, to no avail) continue to associate with abusers like Antle, Johnson, Joe Exotic, and Jeff Lowe those abusers are only going to continue to grow their followings, and continue to abuse and exploit the captive wildlife who cannot escape them. Even know, an entire new generation of abusive exploiters like the infamous “Real Tarzann” are modeling themselves after the likes of Antle, and younger generations are all too happy to buy into the lies.

The "Real Tarzann" who just surpassed 3 million followers on Instagram, and who constantly tags Doc Antle, and promotes him.

Ambiguous Ambitions

Ambiguous Ambitions

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

The caption of their post reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by an adolescent boy

• Lion is rare, boy is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Lion and boy must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

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

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

Filming White Lion

Mia And The White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by adolescent girl

• Lion is rare, girl is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Girl and lion must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

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

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

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

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

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

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

From White Lion’s About page:

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

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

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

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

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

From Mia And The White Lion’s Pages:

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

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

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

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

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

To Recap:

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

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

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

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

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

Hard Choices, Which Only You Can Make

Hard Choices, Which Only You Can Make

Recently, there have been many questions raised by Captive Wildlife Watchdog about Kevin Richardson’s active, and continued, involvement with the purchase and use of captive bred lions in commercial productions like the upcoming movie Mia And The White Lion. In response, supporters of Richardson have cited the movie Born Free, along with Joy and George Adamson, alluding to the idea that Richardson’s activities are just as important to spreading awareness and aiding in lion conservation as the Adamsons and their lions were, and likening Richardson to the Adamsons.

Since the Adamsons have been brought up repeatedly, we felt it important to address the subject. The facts presented here have been objectively gathered from various sources. They will undoubtedly startle and upset some readers, but they are in no way intended as any sort of attack on the Adamsons. They are simply unbiased facts regarding the family and its actions.

While George Adamson attended boarding school in England, George and his brother Terence originally fantasized about becoming Big Game Hunters in Africa.

• At the age of 18, in 1924, George traveled to Kenya to work on his father’s sprawling coffee plantation.

• Disliking the work, George tried gold prospecting and several other odd jobs before signing on as a professional Safari Hunter.

• After several years of professionally killing trophy animals for Safari customers, George joined Kenya’s Game Department.

• In 1956 while tracking a “maneater” lion George Adamson shot and killed a lioness. There are two accounts of the killing. In one, George shot the lioness after mistaking her for the maneater he was hunting, and in another, Adamson shot the lioness when she charged him. Either way, Adamson shot and killed a lioness.

• Upon discovering that the lioness he had killed was the mother of three cubs, George took the cubs back home to his wife Joy.

• Two of the three cubs, being large and healthy, were promptly sold off to a Dutch zoo.

• Because the third cub was undersized and easily managed, Joy kept her as a pet, and named her Elsa.

• After living with Elsa as a pet for three full years, the Adamsons decided to “re-wild” the adult lioness and try to reintroduce her to a natural habitat.

• Despite this professed goal, the main “adventures” within the later published “Free” books (as Joy’s Elsa trilogy is often called) are the Adamson’s continual attempts to actually retrieve Elsa and her cubs after they’ve wandered off into the wild bush. In addition, even after Joy acknowledged that Elsa had proved her ability to fend for herself, the Adamsons continued to kill antelopes and provide them for the lions.

• The Adamson’s lions (being Elsa’s cubs, which though born wild were still considered pets by the Kenyan government because they were habituated to the presence of and interaction with the Adamsons) became such a nuisance, killing cattle, goats, and sheep which belonged to neighboring herdsmen, that Kenyan officials finally ordered the Adamsons to round them up and remove them.

• Officials in Tanzania agreed to allow the lions (Elsa had since died) to be released into the Serengeti National Park.

• The Adamsons, however, also moved into the park, and began making regular trips outside the boundary to shoot animals, and then bring them back to supplement the feeding of their “re-wilded” lions.

• Park officials were subsequently forced to formally forbid the Adamsons from feeding the lions, who without their “help” did, in fact, thrive in the wild, and subsequently left the area.

• The Adamsons then spent 19 months searching for, and trying to reengage with the now-living-wild lions–rather than allowing them to live free and without human interaction–before finally being forced to give up the effort.

• By this time, the book written by Joy which documented Elsa’s life as a pet, and then her release, as well as that of her cubs (though their release only happened after the Adamsons were banned from interfering with them) had become a best seller, and a movie adaptation of “Born Free” was in the works. *As a little known aside, George Adamson never received a penny of money from the “Free” books. All royalties went to Joy alone, and were subsequently used for various conservation projects (some of them her own) which she believed in supporting.

• The huge success of the books and movie, and the fame of the Adamsons allowed them to demand that local authorities exempt their own programs from game park regulations. Particularly because Joy’s worth as a benefactor (she had been wealthy even before her commercial success) outweighed her nuisance, the Adamsons and their projects were tolerated by the Kenyan government.

• George Adamson (now retired, and living near Meru National Park) helped obtain, and train, the 24 lions which were used to make the movie Born Free.

• George then took three of the lions used in the movie stating his desire to rehabilitate and release them, and returned to Meru (he wanted to take all the lions, but the Kenyan government considered his prior efforts to be less than successful, and had doubts, and only allowed George to take three animals)

• While working to “re-wild” the lions, George also took on the task of “re-wilding” a lion named Christian (who shot to internet fame in 2008 after footage of him hugging his former owners hit the airways) who had been purchased from Harrods of London, and then raised as a pet by his “rescuers”.

• One of Christian’s former owners, Ace Bourke, would later say (showing a deep understanding of the situation) that “One of the many lessons we learned from our experience with Christian was that while some see us as “saving” Christian – and we did have the best (if naive) intentions, we were unwittingly participating in and encouraging the trade in exotic animals.”

• Christian eventually succeeding in learning to live on his own in the wild, leaving the area with his new pride.

• One of George Adamson’s favorite lions, Boy, however, went on to maul and kill George’s assistant, a man named Stanley. According to several accounts, Boy then proceeded to drag the man’s corpse into camp and began eating it, at which point George shot and killed the lion.

• This occurred some five years after George originally took the lions (there were now seven lions in total, as George continued to add more without every releasing any, proving the government’s dubiousness to be wise) to be “re-wilded” and released.

• After the fatal mauling, George and his lions were permanently expelled from the reserve.

• By then, the only place the government would allow Adamson to once again set up his “rehabilitation” program was a place called Kora, which was considered a veritable “no-man’s land”. This exile would provide the final break between Joy and George who began living separately.

• Going her own way, Joy continued to breed, and work with cheetahs. Pippa the cheetah had four litters before her death, and Penny the leopard had two cubs. Joy wrote multiple books about the captive big cats and their offspring, though her continued intimate interactions with the cats after they “returned to the wild” begs the question of whether or not the cats were, in fact, ever successfully “released”. Joy Adamson was murdered in 1980.

• That same year, one of George’s lions badly mauled his brother, Terence, prompting the Kenyan government to shut down Adamson’s program once and for all.

• In 1981, George briefly attempted to start a leopard training program, but the effort quickly faltered.

• George Adamson was murdered in 1989 at his primitive camp in Kora, where he lived with some sixteen of his “re-wilded” lions, along with several servants.

• Guests at the camp recall how in the evening, George would “call” his lions with a megaphone and then exit the fenced camp in order to walk among them, feeding them hunks of camel meat, a mirror of the Adamson’s prior inability to refrain from forcefully interacting with their lions even once those lions have been “released” into the wild.

• At the time of his death, George was also in possession of three adolescent lion cubs, which he had obtained the year prior from an up-country ranch, something the Kenyan government had reluctantly allowed after having banned Adamson from obtaining new lions for almost a decade.

George Adamson’s programs and efforts were always controversial within Kenya. Even established contemporary conservationists at the time maintained that his projects were unimportant, dismissing him as a sentimental eccentric. Joy was viewed in similar fashion, as she very vocally attributed her bond with Elsa, and other animals, to the powers of telepathy, and insisted that they spoke to each other as two humans would, simply without words. This, along with her books, were viewed by the scientific and conservation community as anthropomorphizing and detrimental to the perception of wild animals by the general public.

George himself, had little interest in trying to document anything he did for science, declaring that he would not “reduce his lions to behavioral charts and graphs” so any functional knowledge that might have been gained through his efforts was lost within the biased, and personally-shaded entries of his private diary.

Articles eulogizing George at the time of his death in 1989 referenced the fact that a “romantic vision of Africa may have died with him.”

And that’s really what this is all about.

A romanticized ideal of humanity’s relationship with wild animals and captive wild animals versus the real version of it.

Captive Wildlife Watchdog is focused on the very real perils facing wildlife, and captive wildlife. One of those very real perils is the romanticization of wildlife itself.

The romantic ideal of Elsa and her offspring exists in the photos and videos of them playing with the Adamsons.

The reality of them exists in the maulings, fatalities, other injuries, and property damage caused by those same lions, as well as the subsequent death of the lions when they were killed by either locals, or in the case of Boy, George Adamson himself.

The romanticized ideal of Kevin Richardson exists in his own book, and the various movies, commercials, ad campaigns and photos which show him lounging and playing with his lions.

The reality of those captive lions exists in the fatal mauling of Megan van der Zwan by one of Richardson’s animals in February of this year.

Reality is something the Adamsons found out the hard way decades ago. Both George and Joy were injured multiple times by their own lions. Joy was later repeatedly injured by her leopard, Penny. George’s brother, Terence, was badly mauled by one of George’s lions. Stanley, George’s assistant was fatally mauled by one of George’s lions. Even a Japanese journalist was mauled–more than once–by a lion in George’s possession. It was the last two incidents which caused the government to permanently shut down George Adamson’s program, deeming it too risky because of the habituation of the lions to humans.

We know that big cats habituated to human interaction are much more likely to eventually injure, maul, or kill a human, at some point in their lives. And we know that once this happens, the habituated big cats who perpetrated the incident are, at worst, killed, and at best, forced to live under guard, and without the human interaction they were subjected to before the incident.

Why then do we repeatedly defend, and persist with embracing the forced habituation of captive big cats to humans?

Why do we romanticize these interactions, and idealize the bond created by forced habituation and conditioning?

Why do we continue to declare that the romanticizing and idealizing of captive wild animals is somehow beneficial to conservation simply because it captures the imagination of a public which doesn’t understand that it’s viewing a carefully constructed story rather than a forthright reality?

Yes, the Adamsons captured the worlds imagination. Yes, the Adamsons had “good intentions”. Yes, the Adamsons eventually managed to convey a handful of lions from captivity to a wild existence.

But one must also then say that:

Yes, the Adamsons created situations which resulted in the death of both humans and lions. Yes, the Adamsons “collected” lions, most of which were never successfully “re-wilded”. Yes, the Adamsons forced their lions to continue to interact with them by pursuing them in a wild setting them, feeding them in that wild setting, and then documenting for profit (in the case of Joy) those interactions.

The Adamsons were neither perfect, nor horrible. They had good intentions, but they made many mistakes. Their overall goal, despite their own struggles with “letting go” and their failings at large in the matter, was to return once-captive lions to the wild where they believed they belonged. They did not set out to exploit Elsa, even if they ended up willingly using many other lions in order to portray Elsa in a big screen movie. George, despite being considered by current generations to be a figurehead in lion conservation, resisted even properly documenting his own efforts, while Joy, pursued using captive big cats for profit in order to raise money to conserve wild versions of the same. The Adamsons represented both the most beautiful ideals of big cats, and the worst realities of them.

The questions Captive Wildlife Watchdog would pose to our readers, are:

Do you want to learn from the reality of the Adamsons, and evolve from them and what they did? Do you want to help create the understanding that in reality wild animals need to be wild, and do not need humans at all, but rather need to be allowed by humans to exist as they were intended to exist?

Or do you want to continue as the Adamsons did, repeating the same mistakes they made, creating the same result, that result being beautiful and romanticized stories involving captive big cats forced by circumstance to bond with humans while never living wild as they were meant to?

Are you willing to endorse the use of captive wild animals for commercial entertainment if that entertainment claims to contain a conservation message? Do you find the trade of a captive wild animal’s life in captivity in exchange for a beautiful story about how they should not be forced to live in captivity acceptable?

Or do you want to endorse the idea that wild animals which are forced into captivity through no fault of their own should be provided with as natural an existence as possible? Do you believe that humans have no right to impose their will upon that of an animal which cannot distance itself from them, and that we should, instead, remove our inappropriate influence from their sphere of existence whenever it’s possible to do so?

These are choices we cannot force on any of our readers. You must come to your own decisions. It is not wrong to admire the Adamsons and what they attempted to do, nor the beautiful, idealized, story they gave to the world. The members of CWW have all seen, Born Free, and read the books written by the Adamsons. We have all taken the impact and influence of those stories and shaped ourselves with them.

But we have also chosen to move on from them, to tackle the reality of the issues behind those beautiful, idealized stories. And in order to do that, we cannot, and will not, support the creation of more beautiful, idealized stories, which serve only to cover hard reality with a lovely, marketable, veneer of romanticism.

*****Addendum

Since posting this note, CWW was contacted by a follower, who forwarded a message to us, that they had received from someone else. We have verified that the author of the below statement did, in fact, personally know both Joy and George Adamson. He, himself, has decades of experience with wild, and captive wild animals. Because this was forwarded to us through a third party, we have left his name out, but again, we have verified that he knew the Adamsons personally, and greatly respected both of them. Please note the fact that this conservationists also personally knew the rancher involved, who was, himself, a conservationist.

“Having lived in the same Reserve in Kenya as Joy Adamson gave me some insight into this complex, intelligent and very tough old broad. Thus, while a very stern and callous individual in her dealings with other humans, she did also realize that she had quite a unique story on her hands and having the top publishers and editors in England as friends assured continuity in the warmth of the story throughout, even if it meant fudging a fact or two about Elsa's death.

The death of our beloved Elsa at the tender age of five was not "when she succumbed to Babesia felis, a form of babesiosis, a tick-borne blood disease similar to malaria" but instead directly related to the "local sentiment beginning to turn against Elsa and her cubs" as reported by Joy. If the story continued in this accurate telling, we would then have discovered that Elsa had begun hunting and killing the easiest non-human "game" - cattle on private ranches.

The Adamsons had little luck finding anywhere that would accept Elsa and her cubs with her growing reputation for killing livestock. This search dragged on so long as to see Elsa ramping up her attacks on the herds of cattle, so much so that it got to a point that the ranchers firmly believed that it was only a matter of time until she would turn her attentions to the only animal easier than cattle to kill, people.

Elsa was shot and killed by a ranch owner whose cattle were under increasing attacks from Elsa. They had gone as long as they felt they possibly could.

As things would play out, I would not only get to know and visit with Joy, but would coincidentally become quite close friends with the rancher in this tragic and fateful saga. A true conservationist, who I believe probably did try as long as possible to avoid this unfortunate and tragic ending.

FINAL NOTE
Most of my early work with captive wildlife was focused on big cats, having worked with as many as 60 free roaming lions and tigers at once. And, I also went on to successfully rehabilitate a zoo born baboon to a free living troop in the African bush. Yet, I always thought trying to rehabilitate a predatory animal that had already experienced a close loving relationship with humans was a recipe for tragedy. Joy came to believe this, though she was working with a very small leopard Penny, at the time of her death. George always remained steadfast, in his view any lion that he came across deserved a chance to be "Forever Free".”

When Conservation Is Just Another Way To Spell Exploitation

When Conservation Is Just Another Way To Spell Exploitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Gilles' website.

From Gilles' website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profit.

Profit is why Ukutula breeds lions in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which will you choose?

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“she died because of her own transgression”

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

And here are some of the reactions toward Hodges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit Andrew Van Ginkel

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

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

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

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

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

Exploitation.

The Truth Hurts

The Truth Hurts

Captive Wildlife Watchdog is devoted to the truth.

We were founded to expose the truth behind groups such as Black Jaguar White Tiger, and others, who exploit captive wildlife under the guise of conservation. Just because someone is adored by thousands of fans–or so powerful within the conservation community that few have the fortitude to call them out on their problematic behavior, does not mean they’re right in what they’re doing. The truth hurts. And conveying these hard truths means that Watchdog is not very popular amongst those we discuss. Yet, we are professionals. We do not snidely comment in groups about people who cannot see our comments. We do not “trash talk” others, or say anything covertly that we’re not willing to say to their faces. And we do not lash out at those who do these very things to us.

However, because we have been directed–yet again–by our followers to Kevin Richardson’s Lion Whisperer Facebook page where “Kevin” has posted veiled references to us, and then also commented on that post, alluding to us so heavily-that multiple fans commented describing the “ladies” who “made it their business to “Watch” over people” and stating that they know what group “Kevin” is talking about, we felt it was overdue for us to lay out a few legally sound facts about this ongoing, and tiresomely annoying issue.

Firstly, and most importantly, when you read something that “Kevin” posted on the Lion Whisperer’s Facebook page, Kevin Richardson did not write what you are reading. Unless the post contains a statement like “Hi, Kevin here…” or utilizes directly quoted text–with quotation marks–it was not written by Kevin Richardson. Like any other celebrity, Richardson does not run his social media platforms. Instead, a social media marketing company is retained to run all social media sites. This is standard procedure for all celebrities.

Below is a collage of the post in question (a memorial post no less) put up on the Lion Whisperer’s Facebook page yesterday by “Kevin” along with one of the comments made by “Kevin”. The bottom photo a screenshot from the Linkd profile of Pam, who is the woman being paid to run all of Kevin Richardson’s social media platforms. Any post on the Lion Whisperer sites which do not contain a direct quote from Richardson, are actually being made by Pam. She does the same thing with dozens of other social media platforms owned by other people. You see, Pam owns an entire company, Buzzwordz, the sole purpose of which is to manage and post on the social media platforms belonging to various clients.

"Kevin's" post and comments, and the woman who actually made them.

Pam is not in South Africa. Despite her fondness for criticizing others for “having no idea what life in Africa consists of” Pam, herself, does not live in Africa, either. She lives and works out of Toronto Canada.

According to the About section of Pam’s Buzzwordz website, “We give your brand a voice and a personality, which allows you more time to take care of what you do best – manage your business.” And she promises to “post customized text on your behalf geared directly towards your clientele on an ongoing basis.”

This is exactly what Pam does on the Lion Whisperer’s social media pages. They’re Richardson’s pages, so they bear his name, but it’s Pam–not Richardson–who is creating the posts you read, replying to fans in the comments, and answering (sometimes incorrectly) questions posed by people who think they’re actually talking to Kevin Richardson. It’s also Pam who chooses to block followers who question the Lion Whisperer mythos, or otherwise come off as “haters”. And it’s why (which astute readers will have noticed) other conservation groups have recently been so supportive of Richardson in the wake of the fatal mauling at his reserve, when they maybe have never mentioned him one way or another before. Any of the platforms belonging to clients of Pam’s have been used by her to support Richardson in an attempt to counter any controversy regarding him.

You can check out Pam’s company, Buzzwordz here, read the About section here, and see a list of her company’s clients (notice several well known conservation names) here. Also notice at the bottom of the home page that new testimonies appear whenever the page is refreshed, all addressed specifically to Pam. It’s fine that Pam runs this company, we don’t take issue with that. What BJWTWatchdog takes acceptation to (but have until now, magnanimously ignored, for the most part) is the fact that Pam continues to post about us under the guise of being other conservationists, like Richardson, or Outreach For Animals (the founder of whom is actually quite supportive of us) in an attempt to discredit our work simply because she doesn’t agree with what we do.

Below are a few facts about us, which have been repeatedly falsified by Pam, either under the guise of Kevin Richardson, through the various platforms Pam controls for other conservation groups, or as herself, in hidden groups (we’re contacted regularly to be told that we, and our supporters are being trashed by Pam).

Our location: For security reasons, our exact home base must remain hidden. However, we ARE NOT based in the United States. Repeat, CWW is NOT located in the U.S.A. This is a legal fact. We presume Pam’s insistence that CWW is located in the states is linked to her hatred of author Artemis Grey, who is American. Feel free to look for other Yanks who are completely visible and vocal about the issues of Kevin Richardson, but we’re pretty sure Ms. Grey is the only visible and openly questioning American person you’ll find, which makes her an easy target for Richardson supporters like Pam.

Our Members: CWW is not one person. We have members in multiple countries, literally spanning the world. We are not controlled by one person, we are not run by one person. Contrary to Pam’s repeated allegations that CWW was founded by/is run by Artemis Grey, we were not founded by Artemis Grey, nor are we run by her, though she does openly support us. Poor Ms. Grey, BJWT fans insist that she’s associated with and/or paid by Big Cat Rescue solely to attack Eduardo Serio, and Kevin Richardson fans (led by Pam) insist that she singlehandedly created CWW just so she could attack the Lion Whisperer. Artemis must feel like she’s at a pingpong match watching those who dislike her attempt to bat her reputation back and forth.

Our Agenda: CWW is a coalition of like-minded conservationists determined to help correct our current dysfunctional conservation system. One of the primary dysfunctions of that system, is the fact that supposed conservationists, like Kevin Richardson, and Eduardo Serio use their own animals for profit, handling them, etc. while “bad animal exploiters” also use their animals for profit, handling them, etc. This hypocrisy is unacceptable. Fans of Richardson (and literally every other exploiter) have a ready stockpile of rationals and excuses as to why it’s okay for these people to do what it’s not okay for others to do, but the fact remains that all of them are profiting off the exploitation of captive wild animals. And that’s something BJWTWatchdog will not accept.

Keyboard Gangsters, or Conservationists? Because the members of CWW have been threatened with physical harm, among other things, precisely who we work with on the ground in various areas like Mexico, South America, and South Africa, etc. cannot be divulged. Not only would it expose our members to those who would very much like to see us silenced (literally, as well as figuratively) but it would gravely endanger those who have been brave enough to work with us. To put it bluntly, we care more about our informants, contacts and coworkers than we do about “proving” that we aren’t just “keyboard gangsters” to people who are fans of those we’re working against. Pam refers to us and our members as “animal activists” because in general, activists are seen as protestors who complain about the treatment of animals yet do nothing to change it. As BJWTWatchdog has been, and continues to be, involved in functional, on the ground changes in conservation, Pam’s terminology is only wishful thinking.

Personal Opinion, or Actual Science? The adoring fans of those we call out–as well as folks like Pam, who run the social media pages of some of our opposition–love to accuse us of having personal grudges against their heroes, and constantly refer to our hands-off conservation position as nothing more than a “personal opinion”. This is why such care is taken with every note, post, or article we put out, and often multiple citations are used. Many of these citations link to published scientific articles, which have been put through a vetting board before original publication, or involve accepted standards of big cat care as listed by the GFAS, AZA, AVMA or facts derived from medical and psychology journals. The problem isn’t that our positions on conservation aren’t sound, and aren’t scientifically backed, it’s that those who adore exploiters don’t want to hear the facts we’re presenting, so they choose not to listen, and instead insist that we’re just offering “opinions” rather than supported facts.

Accusations Relating To Pam’s Recent Post On the Lion Whisperer Page Regarding the wording of Pam’s original post let’s first look at the actual post in it entirety. It’s presented as a memorial tribute to Louise Joubert (who recently died unexpectedly. We offer our condolences to her family) but of the 141 words utilized in the post, a whopping 111 words are specifically focused on BJWTWatchdog, accusing us of being “trolls” who “wreak havoc” with “fellow conservationists” while asserting that we’re located “in the U.S.” Doing the math, a full 79% of this “memorial” post is actually rhetoric against a group Pam doesn’t like. And that’s being generous, because we didn’t include the last sentence “Let this be a lesson to all.” into the calculations as it wasn’t clear who Pam was talking to, or about, so we disregarded the line entirely. If one were to count that last sentence, Pam’s “memorial” post becomes a mind-boggling 83% focused on anti-CWW rhetoric, while only directing a meager 17% of the post to actually honoring Louise Joubert’s efforts and memory.

Because Pam alludes to the idea that CWW has taken some sort of action against Louise, and more importantly, because commenters have mentioned activists giving Louise death threats (and Pam has not countered these comments) let us be clear that CWW has never written, criticized or spoken out against Louise Joubert, nor have we ever issued death threats against her, or anyone else. We were saddened to hear about Louise’s death, and while we might not have agreed with all of her methods, we certainly wouldn’t be so insensitive to the agony that Louise’s family is currently going through as to post anything criticizing of her now. With such indignant rage from Pam over the idea that CWW would theoretically (but did not in actuality) somehow tarnish the name of a deceased woman, one can’t help but wonder where Pam’s empathy absconded to when an innocent young woman was savagely mauled to death by one of her hero’s hand raised lions. It’s hard not to wonder, since Pam has posted repeatedly asserting that the young woman killed by Richardson’s lion caused her own death. But then, it’s impossible to admit that Megan was innocent without also admitting that Richardson is at fault, so there you go.

We could go on breaking down the inaccuracies in Pam’s post (buying lions from canned hunts and making movies with them is not “saving” “wild heritage” BJWTWatchdog has never made any statements against rehabbers, unless anyone reading this considered Eduardo Serio and his ilk to be rehabbers, etc.) but there’s not much point in doing so. Instead, we’ll sign off, and leave readers to explore the actual human behind the “face” of Kevin Richardson’s social media pages.

Conservation, or CONservation?

Conservation, or CONservation?

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

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

And just what is this most recent defense?

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

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

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

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

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

The star of numerous documentaries about conservation

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

The author of a book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In recent years:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we’re right back to the question,

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

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

Substandard Reporting

Unprecedented Events, Substandard Reporting, And Profoundly Appalling Public Reaction

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

One of the young women did not survive that confrontation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It genuinely is as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

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

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

Demi Lovato at Black Jaguar White Tiger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

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

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

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

But here’s where the disconnect comes in.

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

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

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

Which brings us back to celebrity endorsements.

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

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