The Will To Truth

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

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

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

Yes, that accusation has actually been made.

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

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

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

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

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

So how can donating to Richardson save wild lions?

It can’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment immediately received a heated reply from another fan:

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

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

Another fan quickly added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They simply don’t know any better.

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

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

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

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

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".”

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.