Research Into The Rare Species Fund

Research Into The Rare Species Fund Might Make Them Go Extinct (Despite Their Attempt To Thwart CWW’s Freedom Of Speech)

One of the greatest challenges facing our endangered wildlife is simply the failure of the public to properly research the numerous exploitive ploys being hocked on every street corner within the conservation industry. The explosion of social media in the last decade–and along with it, the “feel good and do what you want, and don’t respect anyone who knows more than you do, but is a “Debbie-downer” mindset–has given rise tot he most widely embraced and damaging exploitive, pseudo-conservation organizations ever seen. At no other time in the history of humanity has there ever been organizations celebrated by hundreds of thousands or millions of people for doing nothing but use and abuse animals, such as we now face. Some of the abusive and exploitive social media pseudo-conservationists are new, like Black Jaguar White Tiger, established specifically to take advantage of the surge in the social media world. Others, like Do Antle, and his family, of T.I.G.E.R.S. have been in existence for decades but are now enjoying a massive growth in their popularity, building false reputations as conservationists which have been eagerly embraced by a public too lazy, or ignorant, to complete even the most basic research about the exploiters they’re so willing to tout as helpful to the animals which are actually being abused by them.

Here is a chronological list of the USDA violations, complaints, fines, and issues of abuse attached to Bhagavan Antle (Doc Antle)

Our case in point regarding failure to research? A post from last week made on Instagram by Faulkner. With 121,000 followers on Instagram, Faulkner is, relatively speaking, a lightweight in the social media game. But with friends like @therealtarzann (whose follower count climbed to 4.8 million after he visited a private rhino farm (the owners of whom are actually pro-rhino horn trade) and called it conservation) @docantle and @Kodyantle, Faulkner understands that the fastest way to gain followers is to fake some conservation. Enter Faulkner’s Instagram post, which contained a photo of a tiger cub being coddled, and a video of the same, with text stating that Faulkner had already donated $5,000 to Doc Antle’s Rare Species Fund. Faulkner went on in their post to state that they’ll match other donations to the RSF up to $10,000 USD.

Text accompanying the post by Faulkner.

It’s unclear how many comments might have been made questioning the actions of Faulkner, as the majority of negative comments have been carefully deleted, including multiple responses to the handful of critical comments which do remain. Apparently Faulkner doesn’t “respect” those who know more than they do, and who is trying to educate them, either.

The circled replies have all been removed.

In addition to weeding out any negative comments, Faulkner was quick to defend their post, insisting that the cub shown was “rescued” and was being held “before it went to its natural habitat” challenging one commenter by asking “How much have you donated to conservation of animals?” And claiming that the Rare Species Fund is “making a huge difference in conservation”.

Comments questioning Faulkner's post.

If only Faulkner had bothered to do basic research (or if they cared more about the truth than getting followers) they’d know that they haven’t donated any money to conservation at all, they’ve just help support a decades-old empire of animal abuse and exploitation, which for the Antles, is a family affair. Doc Antle and his son Kody have even joked about their exploitation spanning decades, taking matching photos of themselves 30 years apart sauntering along with captive bred tigers on chain leashes.

From the 1980s, to the 1990s, to the 2000s and moving into the 2020s, Doc Antle and T.I.G.E.R.S. have bred batch, after batch, after batch of big cat cubs which are used for cub petting, before being sold off to parts unknown, or used as breeding stock for more cubs.

In almost 40 years not one single animals produced by the Antles, or involved with the Rare Species Fund has ever set foot in the wild.

Furthermore, the Antles persist in marketing genetically manipulated animals like Ligers as “natural” variants of big cats which are actually healthier and longer lived than non-hybrids, even though the issues associated with captive inbreeding of white tigers and hybrids have been scientifically proven and documented again, and again.

Since Faulkner insisted that the Rare Species Fund was “saving species” and “restoring them to a natural habitat” we performed a basic hashtag search of #rarespeciesfund on Instagram. Here are links to a *small* selection of what we found under the “recent” tab. They are now listed in links, rather than photos. Some posts contain multiple photos.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BstEGutgsGq/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=rvfzoxnhiwym

https://www.instagram.com/p/BmwcFJ1BvUO/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=p4eepu7x1tqj

https://www.instagram.com/p/Btq_pF0Akgu/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=r8pk7cpdactt

Paying to play with cubs, paying to swim with cubs, breeding more cubs for more people to pay to play with. All in the name of the Rare Species Fund.

Yeah, what is CWW thinking? The Rare Species Fund clearly has the corner on conserving big cats, and getting them back into their natural habitat!

Pay to play is the name of the game at the Samutprakarn Wildlife Park aka the Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo.

Of course, only the RSF refers to it as the Samutprakarn Wildlife Park in their promotional media pertaining to “hand delivery” of “the first uniquely colored tigers anywhere in Asia.” The rest of Thailand calls it the Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo, and it might sound familiar to readers because in December of 2018, it made International headlines when photos of its animal hit the airwaves, showcasing a long history of abuse and neglect.

Photo by Somchai Poomlard) Please credit and share this article with others using this link:https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1594182/rest-ordered-for-skinny-elephants-at-samut-prakan-zoo. View our policies at http://goo.gl/9HgTd and http://goo.gl/ou6Ip. © Bangkok Post Public Company Limited. All rights reserved.

The zoo was subsequently ordered by Thailand’s Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation to rest the elephants and put them on a proper diet.

Tiger at Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo photo taken by visiter.

And we aren’t the only ones pointing out the Rare Species Fund’s participating in importing tigers to abusive pits of misery like Samut Prakan Crocodile Farm and Zoo.

Yes, just a little research into the Rare Species Fund might well push it from rarity to extinction. And would that be just awful?

Please, please, kids, just do your own research. We’re not asking you to “listen to leadership you don’t respect” we’re just trying to get you to think for yourselves before you publicly devote yourselves to groups who don’t care about you, or the animals you’re trying to save. We’re sorry that real conservation is “boring” and doesn’t involve handling cubs, playing with big cats, and interacting with captive bred wild animals, but anyone who tries to tell you that holding cubs bred in captivity will save wild animals is lying to you.

Anyone who breeds wild animals in captivity, handles captive wild animals, and interacts with big cats, or other captive wild animals and claims that they’re doing so for the purpose of raising awareness about conservation and supporting conservation is lying.

Period.

No exceptions.

Dean Schneider And Lion ALERT

Dean Schneider Helps Showcase The Exploitation of Lion ALERT

Dean Schneider has proof that captive bred lions can be released back into the wild!

Just kidding, that’s a lie.

It was a lie when we typed it just now, and it was a lie when Dean Schneider said it on his video.

Dean hasn’t seen any proof that captive bred lions have been successfully released into the wild.

No one has.

What Dean’s actually done, is take a note from The Real Tarzann, and visited an exploitive breeding facility which presents itself as being part of conservation. Readers might remember Tarzann “saving” rhinos from poaching a couple of months ago. It caused his follower count to fly up to the millions. The rhinos involved weren’t wild, though. They were owned by private rhino ranchers. The same ranchers who are lobbying to reinstate the trade of rhino horn because they have warehouses of horn harvested from their cattle rhinos, and they need to be able to sell it somewhere. Yeah, nothing is ever as good as it seems with shysters like Tarzann and Schneider.

In Schneider’s case, he paid a visit (probably literally) to Lion ALERT/Antelope Park in Zimbabwe. For those inside lion conservation, Lion ALERT has been a millstone of exploitation for over a decade now, slickly presented, with just enough scientific lingo that anyone without a solid grasp of ecology, biology, and conservation, buys into their bullshit hook line and sinker. It could be suggested that Eduardo Serio might have studied Lion ALERT before founding Black Jaguar White Tiger. After all, Lion ALERT has 4 Stages for it’s captive raised lions to be reintroduced into the wild. Just like BJWT, however, Lion ALERT has never actually used all of its much-discussed “stages”. Just like Serio’s pets always stall out at “Stage 2”, none of Lion ALERT’s cats have ever made it beyond Stage 2. Not in over ten years.

If you go looking for the history of Lion ALERT, don’t be surprised if you can’t find a concise timeline. That’s because they’ve shuffled themselves around like a huge live version of the shell game. Be aware that Lion ALERT and Antelope Park attempt to keep distance between themselves but are indelibly linked and partnered. Lion Alert was founded in 2005 by Andrew Connolly. Connolly had already been working in the African tourism industry, arranging animal encounters for tourists since 1998, and in 1999 he developed the “African Lion Rehabilitation & Release into the Wild Program.” That last sounds pretty awesome, but when you look at the actuality, it just represents multiple “walk with lions” and “cub petting” ventures which all claim that the cubs being held by tourists will later be released into the wild. Because we’ve never heard that one before….

Since it was founded in 2005, Lion ALERT has bred a whole bunch of lions, hosted thousands of tourists to handle, play with and walk with those lions, and has released precisely zero lions into the wild. Yes, the lions seen in Dean’s video seem to be out in open areas, but Dean himself states that the lions are in a 200 hectare enclosure.

To give readers some perspective on this, 200 hectares is about 494 acres. Central Park, in New York City is 840 square acres. So look at this photo:

Now, cut the Park in half, and you have the area of land Dean is referring to where, according to Dean, captive bred lions have been successfully released into the “wild” and are living and hunting and breeding in the “wild.”

Yes, it’s all about spinning reality to sound like a good lie. Lion ALERT places breeding pairs into larger enclosures and allows them to breed. So does Ukutula, Lion Park, and every other predator encounter in South Africa. It doesn’t mean that the captive bred lions are living in the wild, and it doesn’t mean they’ve been successfully released into the wild. For every snazzy publicity stunt like this where Lion ALERT is touted as leading the way in lions conservation, there are dozens of issues spanning from shortly after they were founded, to the present.

There have been situations of selling surplus lions as covered in this 2008 post (prepare to read a little, there are multiple responses from the involved parties)

Please note that the statement issued in reply to an article criticizing ALERT, made by the PR Manager of Antelope Park (where ALERT is situated) states that:

“No lion from Antelope Park has ever been, and never will be, intentionally sold for canned hunting.”

This is basic PR maneuvering. There is no actual promise that lions who have been sold won’t end up in the canned hunting industry, there’s just the promise that the part won’t intentionally sell them into canned hunting. The PR manager goes on to make a point of how the export documents has a pre-condition declaring that the lions could not be used for canned hunting, and that they were “monitored by the relevant wildlife authorities” to assure the provisions of this sale were upheld.

What the PR doesn’t clarify is what happened to the lions after ALERT’s Antelope Park sold them. The only stipulations involved that first sale, and there was no clause forbidding the receiver from turning around and immediately selling the lions to various canned hunting outfits. This is what’s known as the middleman highway. So long as ALERT can declare that they, personally, have never sold lions into canned hunting, they can state that they don’t support the industry. But the truth is, dozens of their homebred lions could well be hanging on the walls of trophy hunters. Once lions are sold to a middleman, they stop being ALERT’s problem.

There are numerous other articles informed by lion conservation experts which repeatedly point out the fact that Lion ALERT literally breeds lions to use in tourist petting schemes, then places the lions in “Stages” which it claims will end in wild release. According to Lion ALERT, it utilizes 4 Stages:

Stage 1: Around 3 months and upwards until 18 months old: the cubs are taken on walks in the bush to help them become familiar with their natural surroundings. At 18 months to 2½ years human contact is removed and they are given the opportunity to hone their hunting skills by taking part in Night and Day Encounters in a safe and secure environment (fenced off, no humans).

Stage 2: The lions are released in a pride into a large enclosure where they can start to live as a wild pride, hunting and fending for themselves. They are closely monitored for research purposes; there is no human contact or intervention.

Stage 3: The pride is relocated to a larger area, where they will spend the rest of their lives. This area is big enough to have many different species in it, including competitive ones. In this stage, the pride breeds cubs which will experience no human intervention.

Stage 4: Cubs born in Stage 3 will be raised by the pride in a totally natural environment, and when old enough, can be relocated into those areas of Africa that need them.

The problems here are numerous. For one, these stages sound good, but “Stage 1” starts with cubs that are 3 months old, without explaining where those cubs come from. They’re bred onsite, but that detail is strategically left out because admitting to breeding lions in captivity is bad for business. Then there’s the fact that in ten years, Lion ALERT has never gotten any lions beyond “Stage 2” where Dean filmed them. As we’ve already established, “Stage 2 is half the size of Central Park in New York City. And Dean calls the cubs there “wild born” but according to Lion ALERT’s own website, only the cubs born in Stage 3 will be “raised by the pride in a totally natural environment” and will eventually be released into the wild. But if the cubs in Dean’s video are in “Stage 4” (which is where Lion ALERT says cubs destined for the wild will be raised) that would mean that “Stage 4” the “totally natural environment” is only half the size of Central Park. The other option, of course, is that the cubs Dean is calling “wild born” are just cubs that were born onsite, and which will later be used to breed more animals, and/or sold off to middlemen and end up who knows where. Neither option has anything to do with functional lion conservation.

And experts agree with that fact.

This screenshot showcases just a handful of the problems experts have with Lion ALERT. Yes, we underlined a few pointed sentences which specify that no captive raised lions have ever successfully been released into the wild. Because, you know, it’s nice when experts back up the facts we’ve presented that people just don’t want to acknowledge.

You can read the very long, but very informative thread from whence the above screenshot was taken here.

There is only one “scientific” paper associated with Lion ALERT and it was written by one of their own staff back in 2013. Furthermore, the article only discusses the proposal of a framework for the release of captive bred lions, it doesn’t document any actual release.

There’s even evidence that Lion ALERT has intentionally thwarted screenings of Blood Lions because BL shows that breeding lions for tourism is not functional conservation.

The rest of these articles all raise the same concerns and issues over and over again, all pointing out that Lion ALERT is just another breeding facility with better PR to create facade of lion conservation. Spend some time researching Lion ALERT for yourself. Pay close attention to dates and details, however, as multiple articles put out by Lion ALERT itself, or supported by them, which praise ALERT discuss the fact that “next year” lions are due to be released into the wild. The problem is, these articles range in date from around 2013-2018, and all of them state that Lion ALERT is planning on releasing captive bred lions into the wild “next year”. Which, of course, never happens.

Nice going, Dean. You helped showcase fellow exploiters very nicely there. Well done.

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.

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".”

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.

Two Months Gone, Two Lives Damaged Forever

Two Months Gone, Two Lives Damaged Forever

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

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

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

The truth is a very different scenario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so the cover up began.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But they are not human.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Her Name Was Megan

Her Name Was Megan

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

Her name was Megan. Megan van der Zwan.

That matters.

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

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

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

Her name was Megan, and she’s dead.

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

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

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

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

Emotions are too high?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An apology.

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

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

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

These women are the victims of a broken conservation system.

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

Substandard Reporting

Unprecedented Events, Substandard Reporting, And Profoundly Appalling Public Reaction

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

One of the young women did not survive that confrontation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It genuinely is as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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