Loopholes Of Gray Space

Recent headlines have been flush with praise for the charges brought against the systemic abuse of lions perpetrated by North West lion farmer, Jan Steinman of Pienika Farm. Dozens of lions at his property were found to be suffering from mange, while two cubs were seen dragging themselves, unable to walk for unknown reasons. A variety of smaller species of big cat, such as caracals were found in small enclosures, so grossly obese from the confinement that they were unable to even groom themselves. The announcement that charges were being filed against Steinman was met with widespread approval, and dozens of articles covering the subject have since hit the airways.

But while these articles applaud authorities for their investigation and the subsequent charges against Steinman, the majority fail to explore what this means, or doesn’t mean, for the captive lion breeding industry. Without the appropriate context, and itemized possible repercussions, the public is perceiving a false sense of justice and progress in the fight against the captive lion breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting industry.

It’s unlikely that Steinman will face any jail time, or that his Pienika Farm will suffer any longterm consequences in the wake of the charges being made. Rather, Steinman will be slapped with fines, and forced to treat the animals suffering at his establishment. It’s possible that Steinman will be banned (it’s unclear whether banishment would be permanent, more likely it would be temporary) from the South African Predator Association. Especially since Steinman is listed as being a council member of that association. And that will likely be the extent of the matter. You see, instead of banning the captive breeding of lions for cub petting, lion walking, canned hunting, and the lion bone trade, there is and ongoing, and immense, pressure to simply regulate the industry in order, according to proponents of the idea, to assure that lions are humanely bred and raised.

The suggestion that breeding lions in captivity is inhumane, is, according to those who support the regulation of captive lion breeding, largely a contrived falsehood put forth and promoted by animal rights extremists who don’t understand the industry, or how to properly manage wildlife and captive wildlife. While the recent articles addressing Steinman’s abuse of lions and the charges against him tout this case as yet one more galvanizing sign that the public should call for a total ban on captive lion breeding, the vast majority of that industry is viewing this media glut as a showcase of how little understanding the public has of both the CLB industry, and the management of wildlife in general.

In recent years the conservation industry has become an amalgamation of of pro-hunting and -anti-hunting entities which both exploit the ideology that nothing in conservation is “straight forward” and that conservation as a whole is comprised entirely of shades of gray. Both sides of the coin insist that anyone who argues otherwise is an extremist who doesn’t understand the complexities of wild and captive wild conservation.

We’ve seen these accusations from both hunters, and non-hunters here on CWW firsthand. Hunters occasionally show up in the comments of CWW posts insisting that trophy hunting (for our purposes trophy hunting is specifically what we’re referring to, rather than substance hunting, which is not something that’s normally a factor in situations of lion or other big cat hunting) actually helps the conservation of lions and other big cats and wild animal species. Likewise fans of entities like Eduardo Serio, Dean Schneider, Kevin Richardson, and even the Irwins, and Doc Antle, etc. all claim that what those entities do, handling captive wild animals, and in some cases allowing others to handle or interact with captive wild animals, is, in the end, beneficial to the wild conservation of them. Although these two factions vehemently disagree specifically about hunting, they both adhere to the exact same methodology, both claiming that conservation is comprised of “gray spaces” and both claiming to rightfully inhabit such “gray space” and both claiming that they’re supporting conservation 100%.

And, when someone like CWW dares to point out that participating in industries which damage conservation in the immediacy cannot bring about longterm support of it, both these factions lash out, accusing CWW of being extremist and ignorant as to the complexity of conservation matters, or of having some sort of personal agenda in “attacking” those we don’t agree with.

The basic inability of those who participate in the exploitation of wild and captive wild animals to view their own activities with an objective and impartial gaze is what triggers their conflict with anyone who raises concerns about them. They have no qualms about calling down others who engage in the same activities in which they engage, yet they are unable to admit that their own participation is also a problem. Rather, they will go to great lengths to justify their own actions, and contrive purported benefits and/or positive results gained through their activities.

In the realm of trophy hunting, those who support it, like Safari Club International, often fall back on claims that trophy hunting brings huge amounts of money into the conservation industry, and into local communities. Regardless of how many studies you cite verifying that comparatively little local monetary gains are achieved through trophy hunting, and that there is no scientific evidence to prove that allowing trophy hunting boosts populations or species in any way, and that it can cause catastrophic damage to species like elephants, supporters refuse to give up their positions.

In the case of commerce conservationists, like those we've mentioned, the primary excuse and justification for their exploitation of captive wild animals is the assertion that they’re “raising awareness” and “educating the public” about the animals they handle and exploit. Regardless of how much evidence you provide to show that the public perceives and retains a different message than the one exploiters claim to convey, they refuse to cede their position, or acknowledge that the activities they participate in are part of the problem. Groups continue to use them of saving endangered wild animals to raise money for Kevin Richardson to use in the care of his captive bred captive animals.

In both cases, it’s a matter of self preservation. If the fans who support trophy hunters, or exploiters of captive wild animals admit that what they’re supporting damages conservation efforts, then their heroes become the enemy. They become the cause of the problem. This is one reason that the supporters of those CWW discusses have such poor reactions to our unbiased reporting, and attempt to discredit or otherwise malign us. It’s the only defense mechanism they can adopt, especially when in some cases those same supporters will criticize others who do the same thing as their revered heroes.

The greatest danger in embracing the ideology of “gray spaces” is the fact that once you remove the definitive lines between conserving animals and exploiting them, where do you redraw that definition? How do you separate what is conservation from what is exploitation? If two people engage in the exact same activity, but one of them has cultivated a persuasively attractive persona, does that charisma alone make them a conservationist? Are leading conservationists really decided by something as trivial as a popularity contest?

Tragically, it seems as though that’s quickly becoming the case. Although similar “popularity contests” between cute or attractive endangered species and less appealing endangered species have been sharply criticized, the reputation alone of popular figures is being used more, and more, to justify the actions of the person in question. If the supposed “message” supplied by a person is deemed worthy, the method in which they deliver that message is being devoutly defended, even when that method involves directly putting money into the captive breeding, cub petting, canned hunting and other exploitative industries that are crippling and destroying current wildlife populations. And the damage isn’t confined to purchasing captive bred lions or other animals in order to “rescue” them.

The captive lion breeding industry has been protected, yet again, with defenders insisting that proper regulation can solve the problems within. Some conservation groups such as The True Green Alliance–which describes itself as being devoted to creating a society which is properly informed about the principles and practices of wildlife management–have released persuasive, and excellently written articles advocating for canned lion breeding, and concisely explaining why the arguments against it are being driven by extremists who don’t understand the matter in its entirety.

Japan has refused to ban ivory, instead insisting that firm regulations can adequately stem the import and sale of illegal ivory, despite studies showing that the opposite is true.

Botswana, according to this article, also by TGA, is now moving to follow South Africa in refusing to be influenced by the positions of non-African entities where conservation is concerned. According to Botswana’s Minister of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism Onkokame Mokaila, the single factor most responsible for any failings within African wildlife conservation is directly due to the fact that “outsiders” continue to “dictate to Africa on how it should manage and use its wildlife resources.”

Private rhino owners within South Africa now control some 50% (conservatively) of all the rhinos in existence, and they have been pressing to lift all bans legalizing the trade of rhino horn for years. Their voices are only getting stronger. And with growing social media commerce conservationists like The Real Tarzann garnering millions of followers and fans by promoting these private rhino owners, the strength of those private owners is only growing. In the video that launched Tarzann to star status on Instagram, he actively lobbied viewers to support the “conservation of rhinos” by following him, and supporting those he was working with. The rhinos seen in his video happened to be owned by Buffalo Kloof Game Reserve, which breeds–and sells–rhinos, including rhinos which are then killed by high-paying trophy hunters. Yet Tarzann advertised them as being the leading rhino conservationists, and his millions of Instagram followers don’t differentiate between a hunting game reserve which breeds rhinos like cattle, and the conservation of wild rhinos, in wild spaces.

The same sort of misleading presentation has seen Kevin Richardson’s #landforlions campaign touted as a new and exciting way to protect wild lions. Fans of Kevin Richardson were urged to donate to the #landforlions campaign in order to help stave off the loss of habitat which is threatening wild lions. Eventually nearly $200,000 USD were raised through the effort, but what Lion Whisperer fans seemed to misunderstand is that this money will never be used to buy wild land, where wild lions are currently struggling to survive. Rather, the money raised through this campaign will be used–as per the information on the campaigns Thundafund page, and as cited in articles promoting the campaign–to purchase the land where Richardson’s sanctuary is located, and will be used for Richardson’s captive bred lions, and other captive bred animals. Only after all of those animals have passed away of natural causes–as much as 20-30 years from now–will the land be available as a protected area for wildlife. Richardson’s Foundation page estimates that unless something changes, wild lions will be extinct by 2050, which is also the earliest that any of the land purchased through his #landforlions campaign would become available for use by wild lions. Yet even when Richardson himself provides these contradictory points of information to his fans, those fans continue to believe that wild lions will somehow benefit from Richardson’s #landforlions campaign, even though wild lions will be extinct by the time that land is made available to them. And that’s presuming Richardson does not continue to purchase more animals for his sanctuary. After all, he now has five young captive bred lions which were purchased for the express purpose of making the feature length film Mia And The White Lion. Those five lions will live out their lives on the same land that Richardson fan’s thought they were buying for wild lions. Interestingly, there is no longer any page devoted to this campaign on the Kevin Richardson Foundation’s website, and the only place where the campaign is fully explained is on the Thundafund page devoted to it.

Screenshot from the Thundafund webpage devoted to the #landforlions campaign run by Richardson.

Another campaign that seems largely misunderstood by fans of the famed ‘Lion Whisperer’ is the #cupforacause which promotes the idea of giving up the cost of a cup of coffee each month in order to “improve the lives of lions”. Because Richardson focuses solely on discussing the decline of wild lions, human conflict with wild lions, habitat loss of wild lions, etc. fans seem to think that giving up a cup of store bought coffee, and in turn donating that price to Richardson’s Foundation every month, will somehow improve the lives of wild lions, but this isn’t the case. No where in any literature or video discussion can we find any specification that the monies donated to the KR Foundation will ever be spent to directly improve the lives of wild lions in specific ways. Rather, it will be used to improve the lives of Richardson’s captive bred lions–some of which already enjoy a trust fund explicitly for their care, courtesy of the Crowned Prince of Monaco. The use of the term wild lions is nothing more than a selling point.

Perversely, fans of Richardson seem incapable of holding him accountable for anything he does, choosing instead to excuse any and all problematic actions. The end result, they claim is worth whatever Richardson does to present the message. Buying lions, and making movies with them, hiring out his animals to be used in props for commercial advertising, interacting with his animals and promoting such interactions, all things those fans would criticize if others engaged in them, are permissible for Richardson because he’s “spreading awareness” about the plight of wild lions. How the conservation of wild lions, in wild places, can be effectively impacted by using captive bred captive lions, to pose with models in a watch advertisement is not clear. But according to Richardson’s fans, it does.

Following the trend of interacting with captive wild animals in order to discuss the conservation of wild animals, Dean Schneider has bought multiple lions and other captive wild animals, explaining that he’s done so in order to “rescue” those animals, and “spread awareness” to his fans. His claims have been readily spread by ignorant news media outlets who understand that they can make a splash with the story. Just like The Real Tarzann (you might recognize the name of the author here, it’s the same one who wrote about Schneider, then publicly lied about CWW and subsequently deleted his own article and scrubbed it from all websites) Richardson, and Eduardo Serio.

All of these commerce conservationists and their fans and followers vehemently argue that conservation is not clear cut, and is instead comprised of gray spaces. Sometimes, in order to conserve animals, you must exploit them. This is nearly the same argument verbatim that trophy hunters use to justify their own interests. In order to conserve the majority of a species, it’s necessary to allow some of them to be killed. Proponents of ivory and rhino horn trade say the same thing. In order to control such trades, and protect elephants and rhinos, you must sacrifice some elephants and rhinos and allow the sale of their body parts. Those who defend captive lion breeding agree. In order to protect wild lions, and keep lions everywhere from becoming extinct, you must allow them to be bred and traded for exploitation by the public.

So where does the gray ever end?

If Dean Schneider buying lions and playing with them is conservation, why not just encourage people to move to Africa from other countries and buy lions from breeders?

If Richardson buying lions and using them to make movies and ad campaigns is conservation, why not just open ranches where lions are bought from breeders and trained for use in entertainment media?

If controlling the ivory trade rather than banning it can save elephants, why are countries like China reducing the desire for ivory by banning it? Why not make all ivory legal everywhere, if legalizing the trade is the best way to conserve elephants?

If farming rhinos and selling their products is what will save rhinos, then why have countries spent millions, or billions of dollars to stop the trade of rhino horn?

Within the gray spaces so covetously defended by those who support them the answer to all of these questions can be answered, with ‘Yes, that’s acceptable.’ if those defenders decide that circumstances are agreeable.

The only place where one can state with a calm, unbending ethical “No, it’s not acceptable to buy and use lions for profit, it’s not acceptable to kill elephants for ivory, it’s not acceptable to farm and harvest rhinos for rhino horn.” is outside the ambiguity of undefined gray spaces.

As we careen toward the eradication of huge swaths of environments and the species living within them, and toward the destruction of our planet as we know it, the last thing the earth needs us to do is make more allowances for exploitation and destruction. If you have to justify what you’re doing, if you have to provide lengthy explanations as to why what you’re doing isn’t the same as what others are doing, if you have to lay out arguments to try and back up claims that what you’re doing saves animals, while others doing it harms animals, that in and of itself is an admission that you understand you’re position is so ambiguous that it requires definition.

Honesty and ethics stand on their own, easy for anyone to see at a glance. It’s not a complicated shell game of participation and exploitation under the guise of stopping participation and exploitation. It’s black and white, true or false. Not shapeless gray and morally ambiguous.

Media Misnomers

Photo by Bank Phrom on Unsplash

How Reporting (Or Lack Thereof) Shapes Public Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE REALITY:

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

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

Photo Credit, Prince Harry

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

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

Photo credit Sussex Royal Instagram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover of Yarrow's book, photo credit David Yarrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Jaguar White Tiger - “Fact” or "Fiction?"

Black Jaguar White Tiger’s “Facts” More Influenced by Edward Bernays’ “Order out of Chaos” Theory Than By The Truth

The title really does make sense. And, as this post will be a long one, we can afford to offer readers some background as to what inspired it.

Billed by himself as “America’s No1 Publicist” Edward Bernays is widely regarded as a pioneer in the fields of public relations and propaganda, and his influence continues on in today’s ever-growing digital world where good propaganda, and a chic public relations manager can create an entirely false public identity for a person or group. Often, such efforts of “rebranding” an already known entity take place directly in front of the public eye, but dazzled by slick graphics, and “feel-good” stories, that the public will either not recognize the fact that they’re being lied to, or they’ll choose to embrace an idealistic promise over the reality they already hold in their hand. Even if they understand the falsehoods for what they are, fear of ostracism will cause them to abjure from taking a stand about it.

Such are the psychological and sociological natures of humanity on which Bernays constructed his immensely successful public relations career. Bernays believed vehemently (and correctly) that the “masses” of humanity were easily swayed, and could be manipulated into believing anything if the idea was presented to them in the correct way. You can listen to Bernays himself explain how he successfully altered the fashion of an era in order to sell Lucky Strike cigarettes to women here.

Bernays just as correctly observed that:

“Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power…”

However, in a darker, disturbing manner, Bernays also believed that because humanity in general was so easily manipulated, and that those who carried out that manipulation held ruling power, it was the duty of those capable of manipulating the public to do so for the greater good.

Bernays stated in his books, and publications that:

“Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos.”

Bernays argued that the “masses” would inevitably succumb to manipulation anyway, and that “good” propagandists could therefore compete with “evil” propagandists without incurring any moral cost for it. He thoroughly believed that lying to the public for the right reasons in order to counter those lying to the public for what he perceived to be the wrong reasons negated the fact that you were lying to the public at all. His designs for public manipulation were so well thought out and successful that Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich, Joseph Goebbels used them as the blueprint for his campaigns.

This ideology, although hugely problematic on a moral level, is one that is currently being embraced by the vast majority of media constructs, and in every facet of society.

Conservation is no exception. All of the organizations and people addressed by CWW have embraced the activity of lying to the public, their fans, and supporters, in order to further what they perceive to be the “greater good” of their own endeavors.

Kevin Richardson supports the captive lion breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting industries monetarily through the purchase of lions from within it, rationalizing this activity by insisting that the lions he bought will have good lives, and that the movie he made using them will “spread awareness”. Richardson supports the use of captive wild animals in for-hire activities, such as TV productions, movies, ad campaigns, staged photography of “wildlife” and other commercial venues, rationalizing that these for-profit ventures “raise awareness” about conservation. He also actively tries to minimize his participation in these industries by suggesting those who criticize him are quibbling over his methods, and dividing the conservation arena.

Dean Schneider supports the captive lion breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting industries by funding through the purchase of lions from within it, rationalizing this activity by insisting that the lions he bought have been “rescued” from terrible lives. He is currently, avidly manipulating the public, and his ever-growing fan base, to believe that holding lions in large enclosures which also contain prey species, allows those captive lions to “live wild” and is no different from the existence of wild lions, despite that they’re actually in captivity.

And then there’s Black Jaguar White Tiger, who provides an entirely different, but synonymous sort of lies to the public.

Anyone who has followed CWW will recall the repeated claims by Black Jaguar White Tiger founder Eduardo Serio that it’s his responsibility to “save #planetstupid” from its own mechanizations via BJWT’s social media presence. Again, and again on the BJWT Instagram, Serio has ranted about how he, and his foundation, are responsible for wresting the control of #planetstupid away from the “dark side of humanity” who don’t understand anything. Serio’s superiority over the rest of humanity, and his assertion that he intends to bring the world into alignment with his own beliefs, which he regularly posits are the only beliefs that can save #planetstupid serve to provide the objective viewer with clear evidence as to his utter, and complete, narcissism.

The very wellspring of Black Jaguar White Tiger was a personal social media account documenting the daily life of a pet black jaguar, as she was raised in the well-appointed, second-residence, Acapulco mansion of Hollywood socialite, Eduardo Serio. In 2013, a black jaguar cub was introduced to followers of Serio’s personal Instagram page–many of whom were well-connected actors, actresses, models, fashion designers, and entrepreneurs, as his “daughter” Cielo. The black jaguar was followed in short order with a tiger cub, Tierris, and, after voicing the fact that his family would be complete with a female lion, the magical appearance of a female lion cub, Karma, all of them “adopted” by their “Papa Bear”.

It was from this private Instagram page, that BJWT was born. Eventually, Serio announced the development of the Black Jaguar White Tiger Foundation, hosting his friends to play with the various big cat cubs he magically came into possession of on a constant basis. Four years later, BJWT is arguably the “best known” animal-related Instagram account in existence, and still regularly hosts celebrities playing with cubs. The BJWT Instagram feed is filled with guests handling cubs, volunteers handling cubs, and Eduardo Serio and his personal friends handling cubs and larger cats.

Originally visiting BJWT for two days, once a year was listed as a sponsorship reward for anyone willing to shell out $1,000 USD a month in monthly donations. Only after groups like CWW began pointing out that this was simply a fancy pay-to-play scheme was that reward removed from the BJWT website. To this day, BJWT fans claim the screenshots like those shown below have been faked by “haters” to make Serio look bad, and they claim that Serio never “sold” visits to BJWT in exchange for money.

The animals at BJWT have come from various sources, cubs (in many cases early on) were purchased within Mexico’s rampant big cat breeding industries. In other cases, Serio has obtained former pets (sometimes by forcing owners who had licenses and did not want to give them up, to hand them over anyway, according to a few sources) or, according to yet other sources, Serio arranged with various zoos to receive cubs from them. This isn’t something Serio made any attempt to hide. He’s posted photos of Maztu’s father, still living in a zoo-like facility where tourists pay to take photos with him (Serio defends this breeding and petting facility claiming that they take great care of the cats they use) and Maztu’s cousin (whose father is the brother of Matzu’s father) was “rescued” by BJWT after being bred at the same facility where Maztu’s father lives (which begs the question of why he needed to be “rescued, since Serio says that facility is great, despite the breeding and letting the public handle animals). Serio’s friendships within the government to assure that any animals confiscated are funneled to BJWT, or, at least according to our government contacts, that he gets “first dibs” on them, at which point he might pick and choose who to rescue. He has also used these government connections, again, according to CWW’s Mexican contacts, who are widespread within the Mexican conservation industry, to force the closure of facilities, or stop the construction of new facilities which he feels would threaten BJWT’s position as the best known facility in Mexico.

Serio doesn’t try to hide any of these facts. Instead, he simply rebrands, and redefines them, and their accompanying implications in ways that ascribe a sense of righteous beneficence to the actions, with himself and BJWT as the heroes of the story.

Celebrated, and world renown big cat organizations, are to be eschewed, according to Serio. He publicly scorns any established standard of care and ethical creed, like the GFAS, which is admired by others, informing his followers that such establishments are what have destroyed the planet to start with. But behind the scenes, Serio changed BJWT’s name on its Mexican registration to Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco simply so that he could insist that BJWT is a “registered sanctuary”.

Celebrated, and world renown big cat organizations, are to be eschewed, according to Serio. He publicly scorns any established standard of care and ethical creed, like the GFAS, which is admired by others, informing his followers that such establishments are what have destroyed the planet to start with. But behind the scenes, Serio changed BJWT’s name on its Mexican registration to Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco simply so that he could insist that BJWT is a “registered sanctuary”.

One of the few things overtly indicating the cheap, abusive underpinnings of BJWT and its founder, Eduardo Serio, has always been Serio’s flare for hyper-dramatized posts, on both the BJWT social media accounts. His habit of grandstanding and his gleeful hate-filled rhetoric that spans the gamut of themes.

From publicly accusing women who thwart him in some way of being whores simply because they thwarted him in some way

Translation of Serio's caption:O remember our lion Hope? As it turns out, this cheap woman Erika Ortigoza ran a superficial mediocre and small zoo, so mediocre that it was forced to close and become a veterinary clinic only because all the people complained. When we started, Erica had relations with Jorge Maksabedian, in charge of permits and give money scholarships to zoos on behalf of the government. Well, that idiot, following the instructions from his lover, Erika, he withheld our permission already authorized and had to transfer Hope to that clinic, but Erika is so mediocre that I just lost Hope and returned her to the owners of the restaurant where it had been confiscated from a cement cage and bars instead of be in a pack with us. I cried and cried and the years passed and I waited to say the whereabouts of Hope. She was saying that we didn’t have permission, what she did not say, is that we already had it authorized but had been held by his Lover whom literally, he had relationships for in exchange of scholarships. The new administration arrived and they ran Jorge Maksabedian and sometime later, to Erika. They cleaned the house.

To suggesting that certain groups of people should either be executed, or forced to kill themselves, Serio’s history of sectarian and intolerant public rants on the BJWT social media pages have, indeed, been the stuff of legend.

Until now.

In recent months, material has been quietly disappearing from the BJWT social media sites. Beginning with the brutal, and abusive posts concerning the young woman who entrusted him with her Savannah cats (whom he has been attacking in court repeatedly for years now, like the egomaniacal cretin he is) and continuing to posts that publicly attacked the ethical conservationists involved in trying to avoid BJWT obtaining custody of six Colombian circus lions (which BJWT had already promised to take, and then abandoned after Serio was not able to gain the permits required to import them) Serio’s more outrageous attacks have now been deleted from BJWT’s pages.

In many cases (such as those involving the Colombian lions) the posts contained photoshopped images of confidential letters sent to the Columbian government, which had been passed on (illegally) to Serio, lying about what the people Serio was attacking had done.

The letter which Serio photoshopped and falsified, then attributed to I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc.

The actual letter that was sent to the Colombian government by I.C.A.R.U.S. Inc.

In other cases Serio’s captions were simply disgusting rants declaring his superiority (for his connections to a corrupt Colombian government, no less) in a fashion more suited to a drunk frat boy than a professional entity.

Never mind that the "2 years" cited by Serio involved BJWT abandoning the lions. Only after he started a second fundraiser (no one knows where the funds from his first fundraiser ended up) did it become clear that BJWT had already raised money for these lions and then abandoned them.

If posts of this nature remain, the captions have now been deleted, leaving only the photos behind, without explanation.

The posts remain on BJWT's Instagram account, but now have no captions.

From stating that Erika Ortigoza slept around to get what she wanted, to an unexplained photo of her.

Then BJWT’s newest website overhaul was recently announced, giving some context to the disappearance of Serio’s more childish, and lying photoshopped posts. In just the short time since Serio announced that BJWT would be working with Greathergood, a company that specializes in Public Relations, Greathergood has, apparently done its best to “clean up” BJWT’s immature, and distasteful edges in hopes of making the foundation look more legitimate.

The new BJWT website contains donate buttons on every page, sometimes in more than one place, and newsletter buttons everywhere else. Photo credit BJWT

The announcement of a revamped BJWT website was not a surprise to CWW or others who have spoken out about the pseudo-sanctuary. It was obvious that Serio was no longer the only person making social media posts. BJWT’s Instagram description had changed from announcing that they were making #planetstupid fall in love animals one post at a time to a description nobly claiming that BJWT is “Changing the world by rescuing Animals, educating humans, and reforming laws.”

Photo credit BJWT. The message of intent on the BJWT has also been rewritten in a more appealing and less condescending manner.

Captions on social media posts began containing proper grammar, and though still lacking in information, and a knowledge about conservation, blurbs were longer, with a noted focus on bettering the Foundation, bettering enclosures. Posts had begun appearing which actually discussed–for the first time in four years–the widespread abuse of captive wild animals, with accompanying dialogue encouraging fans to help BJWT stop it–by supporting BJWT, of course. Directly counter to Serio’s longstanding criticism of “political correctness” BJWT had become just that, precisely caring enough to look caring, but superficial enough not to offer any hard information, or facts.

The demarcation between the “Serio is in solely charge of BJWT’s public image” and “A Public Relations Rep is in charge of BJWT’s public image” had already been sharply drawn. A new website with new content was just the next logical step in the process.

Only, this is Black Jaguar White Tiger, built from the ground up on lies, misinformation and misrepresentation, and controlled entirely by Eduardo Serio. So of course, the new website does not actually provide fans with any “new” information, nor does it provide them with anymore clarity about BJWT’s actions, or goals. It simply conveys the misnomers and talk-arounds in a less-grating and more professional manner. For BJWT fans, and those of the public not educated to know any better, the new BJWT website is flashy, and well-written.

To the eye of a professional conservationist, however, the lack of big cat, conservation, ecological, medical, and scientific understanding is painfully obvious. For those of us with all of the above, the new BJWT looks like what it is: a shiny illusion created by lay-folk.

The various areas of the new website contain snazzy tabs leading to pages which, at best, contain either inanely superficial, but “clean and pleasant” versions of what on the old BJWT website contained, or likewise inanely superficial blurbs about subjects that have never been addressed in BJWT’s four year history. Each new page provides bright red donate buttons.

Clicking "Stop the cruelty" takes you to the donation page. Photo credit BJWT

Clicking "Support BJWT" takes you to the donation page. Photo credit BJWT

The upper corner always contains a bright orange Donate button. Photo credit BJWT

Some pages contain multiple vectors which take viewers directly to the donation page. Here you can see the standard Donate button in the upper right corner, but the "Support BJWT" also takes you directly to the donation page. Photo credit BJWT

But at worst, these pages of the new BJWT website contain blatantly displayed contradictions, incorrect information, unfounded claims, or entirely pointless facts that serve no purpose but to look important. The much ado about “legal reform” for example. Simply knowing people involved in making laws doesn’t mean you’re actually involved with influencing or working toward reform. Our Mexican contacts keep us abreast of issues, and while there are several laws in process that would potentially benefit captive big cats, they remain in process and Serio has not participated in any part of their creation or furtherance.

Clicking "Pledge BJWT" takes you directly to the donation page, as does the Donate button. Photo credit, BJWT

Clicking on the BJWT Legal Reform takes you to the page shown in the image above this one, where the only "option" is to click "Pledge BJWT" which takes you directly to the donation page, rather than discussing any laws currently being lobbied. Photo credit, BJWT

Then there’s Serio’s repeated lie about being a registered sanctuary. Notice that while the question “Are we a licensed sanctuary” is listed as “Absolutely” the continuance specifies that BJWT is licensed as a PIMVS. Under SEMARNAT’s definition, a PIMVS facility is described as: “PIMVS are considered to be intensive breeding sites, nurseries, botanical gardens or similar that manage wildlife in a confined manner for purposes of controlled reproduction of species or populations for commercial use (LGVS Regulation, Art. 2) You can read SEMARNAT’s breakdown here.

Photo credit BJWT. The new BJWT website continues to mislead viewers and fans into thinking they possess a sanctuary license, something that doesn't exist.

The actual registration BJWT holds as a PIMVS.

Serio has repeatedly posted his PIMVS registration to “prove” BJWt is a registered sanctuary, but the truth is that BJWT is registered as a PIMVS (not a sanctuary) under the name Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco.

And in combination with that continued lie, is the perpetuated misinformation that the Mexican Foundation, “Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco” which fans see all over social media is registered in the US as a nonprofit.

The facilities viewers see in Eduardo Serio’s social media posts is not registered in the US as a nonprofit.

Photo credit BJWT. Note the date specified here. BJWT threatened legal action against the author of an article published before January 11 2016 which stated that BJWT was not a 501c3. Serio attempted to smear the name of the author, calling them a liar, and stating he would sue, when in fact the information in the article was 100% correct. At the time of publication, BJWT was not a 501c3.

Serio proudly proclaims that BJWT holds a nonprofit status in the US, but notice the name on in the BJWT answer, and the name on the 990 listed below. The name listed on the US 501c3 documentation is not Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco, the name on the Mexican PIMVS registration. Serio’s “licensed sanctuary” Gran Santuario Mexicano Jaguar Negro Tigre Blanco is not recognized as a nonprofit in the US. The US nonprofit is an entirely separate entity, registered under the name Black Jaguar White Tiger Foundation, located in Woodland Hills CA. Serio intentionally lies to his fans, telling them that the BJWT they watch on his social media posts, which has “rescued” so many animals is a registered US nonprofit.

Another issue where the new BJWT just provides the same lies Serio has been telling since BJWT is founded, is in regard to habitats and space. For example, this screenshot from the new BJWT website describes the customized habitats (for new viewers, the image shown here is not the area the blurb is actually describing. The area shown below is at Stage 1, where Serio does most of his interaction filming) Still, it looks beautiful and sounds great. Only it’s not true.

Stage 1, rather than Stage 2 which is being described. Photo credit BJWT

Below is a photos Serio himself posted on the BJWT Instagram page intending to prove that PETA was lying about BJWT in their article criticizing the pseudo-sanctuary. Although he likely felt better for making the post, Serio inadvertently proved his own billing on the new BJWT website was a lie. In the below photo, around 70 enclosures are visible. However, there are only two swimming pools. There have only ever been two pools located at Stage 2, and both contain tigers, the “Blue Pride” being one of them. We’ve circled the two pools (one slightly large than the other, the second partial hidden by shadow but still visible) This arial image–which Serio considered valid and correct, and used himself to “prove” how wonderful BJWT is–allows any viewer to look for the 70 custom pools he’s supposedly put in every habitat. Serio has even pointed out lions within it, offering perspective on size. Clearly there is not a “custom swimming pool” inside each habitat.

Again, recent Instagram posts made by Serio discussing overhauls of habitats clearly show the two pools which can be seen above, both containing tigers.

When the BJWT website attempts to impress readers with the amount of land in BJWT’s possession, again, they fall woefully short, and instead put their ignorance and lack of comprehension on full display.

Photo credit BJWT

On one area of the new BJWT website it states BJWT has 130 acres, but in another area, it lists 120 acres leaving 10 acres that’s either unaccounted for, or falsely claimed. While mistakes can happen, an entity that bills itself as the “best Sanctuary on Planet Earth” should be able to accurately state how many acres they own.

Photo credit BJWT

More troubling than the discrepancy of 10 acres, however, is the statistics provided by these points of information.

As per the new BJWT website, they have 700 animals living onsite.

Photo Credit BJWT

And as per Serio’s most recent boast about big cat numbers, 400 of those animals are big cats.

Out of the total acreage listed as belonging to BJWT–we’ll be generous and call it 130 acres–only 30 acres have been built on. Those 30 acres contain 70 habitats which house, let’s be generous, and say 350 animals, leaving 50 cats at Stage 1. For simplicity, let’s divide the acreage evenly by the number of habitats.

30 ÷ 70 = 0.42.

So, if all the habitats were the same size, each one would only contain 0.42 acres of space. But let’s be even more generous, and round that up to 0.5, a full half acre. 0.5 of an acre is 21,780 square feet of space.

Again, let’s be generous, and round up to 22,000 square feet of space. Trust us, BJWT needs the generosity because to give readers some perspective, a standard American Football field is 57,600 square feet.

So even with our generous, repeated rounding up of the numbers, and the removal of 50 big cats from Serio’s claim that he’s rescued 400, once you break down the numbers BJWT houses an average of 5 adult big cats on less than half a football field of space.

Now, it’s clear from Serio’s own arial view of BJWT’s habitats that some are larger than others, so that means some of them are larger than 0.5 acres. But that also means that a great many of them are smaller than 0.5 acres, too. And as can be seen in the image provided by Serio, some of those habitats are considerably smaller than the rest. Half or more, in fact, of the visible enclosures are very small.

By comparison, The Wild Animal Sanctuary located in Colorado (which Serio disdains) houses a similar number of big cats and other carnivores in habitats varying in size from 5 full acres to 25 acres. Serio boasts of having 120-130 acres of land, assuring fans that BJWT has only built on 30 so far to house their 350-400 big cats, while TWAS (which Serio derides as not caring about big cats) encompasses 789 acres at their Keensburg educational facility which houses around 400 carnivore and is open to the public.

The TWAS Refuge facility which is not open to the public, contains an additional 9,684 acres, of habitats ranging from 100 to 1,000 acres in size where rescued animals live in as natural conditions as possible.

The TWAS educational facility houses state of the art medical and surgical buildings, specialized housing, and opportunities for teaching and observation by the public (all without any human/animal interaction) and has set the highest standard for big cat care in the USA.

Readers might recall some of Serio’s rants against TWAS and its founder Pat Craig from December of 2017 when he publicly attacked the conservationists who petitioned the Colombian government on behalf of former circus lions which had been living in cages for almost 6 years, hoping to have the lions sent to TWAS (which offered to fully fund rescue and transport of the cats to their new home) The Colombian government chose to send the lions to BJWT in Mexico instead because, they stated after the fact, they already had some paperwork partially filled out for BJWT to receive the lions from more than a year prior when Serio tired to take possession of them, but failed to do so.

After the Colombian government chose to give the beleaguered lions to Serio (one of which magically arrived pregnant through unknown causes) they also passed on to Serio all the private information and documents of those who petitioned them in regard to moving the lions to TWAS. It’s still unclear why the Colombian government would pass on information to a private Mexican citizen, but, you know, corruption, and all that.

The life those who petitioned the Colombian government wanted the former Colombian circus lions to have at TWAS:

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

Photo credit The Wild Animal Sanctuary

And the life the former Colombian circus lions got at BJWT:

Note the reference to fighting.

The lioness above clearly feels defensive and threatened, her cubs surrounded by strange lions which are not family members and which if they could gain access to her and her offspring would immediately kill the cubs. Serio openly admits that the lioness has been fighting the opposing pride of lions housed just feet away from her and her cubs with no visual barrier. Imagine living in constant fear that a challenging pride was going to kill your cubs.

And here are others of the Colombian lions, again, fighting the other lions around them “all day long” through the border fences of their habitat. Rather than understanding the extreme social and emotional stress caused by theses conditions, Serio happily informs his fans that these lions have simply that “Their Lion Spirit got back into their bodies after arriving to our Sacred Grounds.”

Again, fighting is referenced.

There are other, numerous issues with the new BJWT website, not the least of which is the continuation of using interactions to sell volunteer slots and donation slots. Serio’s original, highly dramatic “Sacred Ground” rhetoric is still present, though quietly shelved in a less visible area of the website. In its place are Volunteer guidelines, carefully worded so as to put emphasis on the safety of the animals and volunteers.

Photo credit BJWT

And yet, even these revamp “rules of engagement” are accompanied by blatantly contradicting media. Despite that the “rules” for volunteering state that “All volunteers are required to wear the BJWT Volunteer uniform while at the Foundation” that “Accessories will are not worn at any time.” and that “Colored nail polish is prohibited.” The accompanying photos clearly show volunteers wearing all manner of clothing, none of it a uniform of any sort, handling cubs while wearing jewelry, and wearing colored nail polish.

Photo Credit BJWT

Photo credit BJWT

Photo credit BJWT

Cell phones are supposedly prohibited on the “Sacred Grounds” of BJWT, yet volunteers happily pose with them against enclosure fences.

Photo credit BJWT

“YOU CAN NOT TOUCH THE ANIMALS THROUGH THE FENCE.” is stated in all caps definitively, and yet... Serio turns around and posts photos of volunteers petting Bradshaw (renown amongst BJWT fans for being “huge” no less)

Photo credit BJWT

The recent injury sustained by a woman who got close enough for a jaguar (less than half the size of Bradshaw) to snag her arm through a fence similar to the one seen above with just one claw showcases how quickly a captive big cat can act, and how devastating even glancing contact can be for the human involved.

Photo credit Adam Wilkerson

The list of issues with BJWT goes on. But as long as the public continues to submit to Serio’s propaganda and manipulation of them, nothing will change. After four years of lies and manipulation, it’s long overdue for the public to start waking up and asking questions, rather than blindly swallowing whatever false information, and self-serving lies Serio spoon feeds them in order to further his own ends.

CWW is often accused by those we discuss as having some sort of personal agenda, and/or we’re challenged by them, or their fans, as to what we’re doing that’s “better” than whatever the person in question is doing. These statements about us are designed to create the impression that CWW has set out to vilify the entities we discuss, thus creating some sort of conflict in an “us versus them” context.

This is categorically incorrect.

What CWW wants to encourage the public to do is to look beyond the propaganda, and PR lingo and objectively view the actuality of the person they’re supporting. Humanity’s general inability to set aside personal preference for objective assessment has played a huge role in creating the debacle that our world is currently facing. It’s more comfortable to look at someone playing with lions, or bottle feeding (even incorrectly) adorable cubs and believe that what you’re seeing is special, that it represents hope, and affection. It’s far less comfortable to look at such things and admit that the lions were raised with daily interaction to behave in a certain way, and that the video clip you’re viewing is one created specifically to show you exactly what’s visible, or to admit that the cubs being bottle fed are simply the most recent in a line of cubs being bottle fed that stretches back years, just the most recent cubs in a list of cubs being bottle fed.

We also understand that CWW itself is–and should be–subject to being viewed with the same detached objectivity with which we want readers to view the exploiters we discuss on a daily basis. This is why we strive to provide our readers with citations and media to verify everything we write, and all the information we disseminate. Why, many times, we provide multiple citations to entirely separate sources which all confirm the same facts we’ve utilized in an article.

We don’t want readers to simply embrace our word as fact. Doing so erroneously relegates the information we publish as nothing more than our own “propaganda” by presuming that what we’ve said is simply our own opinion, rather than an issuance of categorized, cited and documented facts intended to encourage readers to go and do their own research on a person or organization.

To create in readers the desire to know more, to develop their own breadth of education, grasp and understanding of captive wildlife, wild wildlife, and the conservation of both, is the underlying desire of CWW.

Don’t stop at our pages and articles, don’t receive them as a result or conclusion.

Use the information found through CWW as a starting point, as the catalyst for change in your own awareness. Use the tools for research, for analytical reasoning and impartial assessment that we have offered in regard to the various exploiters we discuss, to go out and commit to your own investigations of those parties.

*Headline photo credit to Black Jaguar White Tiger *Other photo credits as noted.

Is Commerce-Conservation Beneficial To Change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see a pattern here?

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

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

Under the share, this comment was made:

We replied with humorous sarcasm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover image screenshot from Mia And The White Lion trailer.

BORED PANDA'S DUMPING OF DEAN SCHNEIDER

Bored Panda Promotes Dean Schneider, Then Grows Bored Of The Controversary

CWW logged in this morning with a big cup of coffee, and bright-eyed determination to write a more in-depth post about Bored Panda’s inaccurate, misleading, and irresponsible “spotlight” showcasing Dean Schneider the former (?) investment banker who “sold everything to go rescue mutilated animals in Africa” (or something like that).

After being tagged in the Facebook share of Bored Panda’s “spotlight” on Schneider, CWW debunked most of the photos used in it, pointing out that they either portrayed Dean interacting with animals in places that weren’t Hakuna Mapika, or that the animals shown were dead due to Schneider’s failure to care for them properly. While there were (for the situation) quite a lot of comments questioning the post, and/or linking to CWW and our articles about Dean, the vast majority of the thousands of comments were positive, praising of the interactions shown, and after CWW commented as well, and then made our own post in response to Bored Panda’s promotion of Schneider, we got some extremely amusing hate-comments from one fan in particular, which (in between curse words) suggested that we needed to get a lawyer and that they’d sue us for libel and slander. Goodness, the drama. The author of the Bored Panda post also commented, claiming that Dean Schneider had gone to CWW’s page to defend himself (more on that, later).

Needless to say, we were prepared to buckle down and hash out a thorough addressment of Schneider, and Bored Panda’s misrepresentation of him. However, we quickly discovered that Bored Panda has quietly removed the entire post, from both its website, and its Facebook Page.

Without public comment, or explanation, Bored Panda removed an article that had nearly 3,000 comments on its Facebook Page, and had been shared thousands, and thousands of times (we don’t have a screenshot, but it approached, if not surpassed tens of thousands of shares) and is now quietly going about its business as if that “spotlight” had never been published.

Without admitting that the “spotlight” they’d intentionally promoted was incorrect, and contained untrue elements, and had not been vetted, Bored Panda removed the entire thing like it never happened.

Without acknowledging that their publication–which was disseminated to millions of online readers who liked, commented, shared, and promoted the post–was completely full of lies, and self-serving promotional material which served to advertise someone who exploits animals for profit and is actively building his instagram followers, Bored Panda then retracted that publication.

And today, in place of the publication which was chocked full of photos showcasing Dean Schneider coddling lions and other big cats and captive wild animals, Bored Panda has neatly offered a publication addressing the fact that a woman was mauled by a jaguar after getting too close to it at a zoo. Because, you know, two days ago, it was in to promote a guy handling big cats, but today it’s in to point out that big cats are dangerous.

Unfortunately for both Bored Panda, and groups like CWW, the Internet never forgets. While Bored Panda has cut its losses (without actually acknowledging that they published false information, and misrepresented the content therein) and moved on to the next “big thing” Dean Schneider has–just in the last two days, after Bored Panda posted about him–racked up another 31,000 Instagram followers and counting, pushing him from 576,000 to 597,000. In addition, Bored Panda’s fake, unvetted post has been re-posted in multiple languages. Now, of course, Bored Panda has bolted for the proverbial door of responsibility, and removed their content (without admitting any wrong-doing) But the re-posts of their original article–along with the text and photos it used–live on, continuing to promote Dean and his interactions.

CWW has already spoken with the founder of Malkia Park, who expressed dismay over the fact that photos taken at Malkia in its early days, before it adopted a strict hands-off policy, were being used to erroneously promote Schneider and his continued interactions with captive big cats. Malkia Park’s founder is right to be frustrated, and not just because of the fact that out-of-context photos of her facility are being used to promote someone who actually parted ways with her after being told he would not be allowed to continue interacting with her animals. Now that Malkia Park is strictly hands-off in all aspects, its founder includes education about why it is never acceptable to handle captive wild animals, even using herself as an example, explaining that when she first founded Malkia Park, she thought she could handle animals, and still teach the public that handling them wasn’t good. But it quickly became obvious to her that by handling her animals, she was only setting the example that handling them was acceptable. Now Malkia Park’s founder strives to teach the public that the only way to respect captive wild animals is to refrain from touching them.

But in despite her efforts, she says, “I don’t know if they listen when they see all these Dean, Eduardo, Kevin…”

And why would the public listen to hardworking conservationists who are telling them that handling captive wild animals damages conservation when entities like Bored Panda are putting out “spotlights” that praise exploiters for handling captive wild animals? Bored Panda’s “spotlight” actually made a point of Schneider’s social media presence, saying “We can even call him a social media star since he has 567k followers on Instagram to like or positively comment on his adventures in South Africa.” Of course, Bored Panda *didn’t* mention the fact that not all the comments on Dean’s posts are positive, nor did they mention the fact that having so many followers who all seem positive and supportive is more a matter of weeding out “haters” and blocking them than of being without fault. And now, thanks in no small part to Bored Panda’s own false publications about Dean, his Instagram followers are up another 31,000.

And here’s the thing that we’ve pointed out again, and again, and will continue to point out until the public starts to really absorb it:

BEING A STAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A CONSERVATIONIST, OR AN EXPERT ON CAPTIVE WILD ANIMALS.

Yes, Dean Schneider is climbing toward a million followers. That doesn’t make him a conservationist. His entire Hakuna Mipaka “dream” was founded on visiting a lion farm and interacting with them, something he said he’d dreamed of doing his entire life.

Screenshot from one of Dean's Facebook videos.

Not of saving wild lions. Not of protecting them. Not of shutting down an industry based off exploiting them by letting humans interact with them. But Dean’s dream–as per his own words–were to go to Africa and interact with big cats. And that’s what he’s doing. He claims to have “given up everything” and articles like the one Bored Panda published suggest that Dean “sold all his things” to start Hakuna Mipaka.

Yet on Dean’s Facebook post announcing his departure for Africa, he tells people to swing by the Icon Club for his “goodbye event” which is being held there.

The Icon Club is considered a premier club by connoisseurs and just a table on the dance floor will run you the requirement of of $80 bottle-only alcohol consumption per person. “Party Packages” for smaller groups of people range from $1,000-$2,000 to reserve. And Schneider posted an open-door walk-in advertisement to his Facebook followers to just “join us to say good bye” before he left for South Africa. So maybe Dean sold all his things after he paid for his goodbye party? No? Maybe he never sold them at all?

Or, maybe, just like Serio who supposedly sold his house in Beverly Hills to move to Mexico, or Kevin Richardson who lives in an exclusive mansion, but makes no money off his animals, or The Real Tarzann, who lets celebrities play with captive animals, and travels from country to country, but does not make money off his antics, it just sounds better to tell a story where the “hero” gave up the good life to go do whatever he’s doing. And after all, the author of the Bored Panda “spotlight” says “I love telling stories”

“Hidreley” as the author’s name is listed even went so far as to post a screenshot from last year where Dean Schneirder (under the name Muhamed Johan Stroganov) made one comment under a post on CWW, cropping out the “36wks ago” from under the comment and saying “Dean goes to the page “Captive Wildlife Watchdog” and defends himself of so many accusations.” Hidreley was, of course, intentionally misleading commenters into thinking that Dean “goes” in the present tense (as in, is happening right now) to defend himself against CWW.

This is completely untrue.

CWW has had minimal interactions with Schneider, all of them a year or more in the past, and to call them “interactions” at all would be a stretch. On Instagram, and Facebook this same message was sent to us:

Contrary to this comment (which as we said, is from last year) Hakuna Mipaka does allow anyone to visit if they pay as a "volunteer". This includes people on their honeymoon who were allowed to interact with Dexter the lion, among other things. In addition, this comment "defends" against things like breeding which we've never suggested Dean does.

No questions we asked were answered, no real information was exchanged. Rather, Dean made this statement, and then blocked us. So, no, Dean did not “goes” to our page to “defends himself of so many accusations.”

After Bored Panda’s fake promotional post about Dean was made, and CWW countered with our own post on the matter, detailing the inaccuracies and misrepresentations. And, of course, that one super-fan (not just a fan! According to their own comments) accused us repeatedly of failing to provide “proof” of what we were saying.

If you happen to notice it "edited" under her comment, it's because she rewrote most of her comments repeatedly. They would invariably involve just explicatives but then she'd edit to add "facts".

What fans seem incapable of grasping is that we aren’t even putting that much effort into debunking the lies of people like Dean Schneider.

Dean’s Dad, Rolf Schneider is Chairman of the Board of Dr. Blumer & Partner which describes itself as a “Pioneer of quantitative investing”. Dean Schneider is currently listed on the company website as a financial planner. Edita Schneider (who, along with Dean, and several of his friends, is listed on the Hakuna Mipaka AG board) is listed on the company website as office manager/accounting. Also listed on the website of Dr. Blumer & Partner, are several companies which belong to the B&P Group. One of those companies is Life Gate AG, which specializes in, among other things, financial marketing and business start-ups and foundations.

Dean still lists Life Gate AG as where he works:

and one of his earliest videos from South Africa showing him and friends interacting with lions as a “Life Gate Incentive trip”.

We also know Dean was not just an “employee” at Life Gate AG, but rather he was an Authorized Signatory, meaning he had the authority to represent the entire company. And we know this article (which Life Gate AG has refuted, of course) that Life Gate AG, as a new company, brought in younger employees, offering them huge incentives–about $10,000 a month starting, to $20,000, or more–and remember Dean wasn’t just an employee, but also a signatory. The linked article likens Life Gate AG to a “chain letter” because new agents received the aforementioned huge bonuses, but then had to quickly bring in new customers for money, and new employees to bring in more new customers. New employees, of course, also received huge monetary compensation, while the first generation of employees were then made team leaders. While Dean appears now under the “former” employee category at Life Gate AG, he still lists Life Gate AG as his employer, and Dr. Blumer & Partner sill lists Dean as one of their financial advisors. It should also be noted that Rolf Schneider, Dean’s father is listed as both former and current under Life Gate AG, as movement within the company seems to constitute a listing under former for positions no long held, even though he’s still on the Board of Directors (and also an Authorized Signature, we might add).

Now, if we look at Hakuna Mipaka, we find that the Hakuna Mipaka Foundation was registered as a Non-Profit Making Organization 10/14/2016 which is around the same time that Dean began posting videos with the name, and precisely one day after Dean’s Facebook announcement that he’d bought property in South Africa and was moving there.

HMF listed the purpose of the company as:

The Foundation initiates, supports and operates projects worldwide for the protection of animals, especially wildlife. These include :, a. Projects aiming at the protection, care and / or release of, in particular, non-species-based livestock, wild or illegal animal trade or animals. B. Projects aimed at sensitizing people to the importance of nature and animals and the responsible use of nature and animals., C. the development and implementation of training programs and events that raise awareness of the importance of responsible use of animals and nature, the importance of animals for healthy ecosystems and, in particular, demonstrate that "coexistence" and a respectful handling of animals is quite possible., d. the support and establishment of facilities for the welfare of animals derived from non-species livestock, illegal livestock or illegal trafficking, in principle (if possible) with a view to subsequent (re) release; e. the support of institutions or aspirations that have the same or similar goals.

HMF listed branch offices as “Charitable Institutions”

But less than a year after it was registered, the Hakuna Mipaka Foundation was put into liquidation, and in its place, on May 7 2017 Hakuna Mipaka AG was registered as a Joint Stock Company.

But HMAG lists its current purposes as:

The purpose of the company is the trading and distribution of products of all kinds and the provision of various services such as: - Marketing of advertising media (people, animals, etc.) -Human Resources Consulting -Project Management -Organization Development -Business Development -The The Company may also engage in any other activity that is directly or indirectly related to the purpose of the Company. The Company may establish branches and subsidiaries both domestically and abroad, and participate in other domestic and foreign companies, as well as any business that is directly or indirectly related to its purpose. The Company may acquire, encumber, dispose of and administer real estate domestically and abroad.

HMAG lists branch offices as “non-specifed wholesale trade”

Dean Schneider is listed as the main signatory/director for both versions of Hakuna Mipaka, but the difference between the companies is profound.

This is a text-book bait and switch company start-up. Dean set up Hakuna Mipaka Foundation as a non-profit dedicated to animals, gained huge amounts of followers within just a few months and then started the liquidation process of the non-profit and re-registered his company as Hakuna Mipaka AG, a Joint Stock Company. The evidence of this is right here on the internet for anyone to find. He’s not trying to hide this. And CWW isn’t making it up out of “jealousy” or any other reason as we’re so often accused of. All we’re doing is pointing out the truth. And it’s not about money, or making money. We don’t care that Dean is rich, we care that he’s lying about being rich, and about making money off his Joint Stock Company by interacting with animals. Dean is not in this to save animals by making people love them, he’s in it to make money off making people love him, and his interactions with animals.

As has been said numerous times in recent discussions CWW has had with people:

“Animals don’t need your money or your fan-hood. They need habitat to be protected, they need to be left alone, they need for people to stop using them as a platform to get famous and they need the public to stop supporting people who used animals as props and platforms to get famous.”

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.

The Gift Of Education

The Gift Of Education, And The Bravery To Use It

On the eve of Christmas (for those who celebrate Christmas) CWW thought it would be fitting to do a sort of holiday gift post focused on giving the gift of education and the bravery to use that education in defense of the world around us.

Earlier this month the conservation world was shocked and outraged when the US and Russia chose to align themselves with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during climate talks at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The four countries then contrived to prevent the landmark 1.5C Report from being openly “welcomed” as fact to be considered in making future policies. Instead they suggested that the 1.5C Report merely be “noted” as existing. This allows such major powers to brush the gravity of climate change aside and continue to feed the public misinformation about it, while continuing to further their own agendas.

Although the delegates in attendance voiced their concern, saying that the unexpected development was “very frustrating” and “troubling” they stopped short of completely condemning the actions of their opposers. With only five days to establish a rulebook for the Paris agreement focus fell on Poland who would chair the final week of the meeting. The motion to “welcome” the IPCC 1.5C report instead of merely “noting” it could not pass with the current opposition. Poland’s vote, however, could make the difference and so delegates hoped to curry favor with that country and gain its support.

Even larger, however, than the issue of having world leaders choose to ignore hard science in favor of personal preferences, is the choice of those who have provided and accepted that science–those with the education to know that what the report contains is absolute truth–to not publicly take a hardline stance against those unwilling to accept that truth. The fate of our planet and it inhabitants literally depend on the willingness of these scientists and leaders to confront those who would try and ignore the truth, and when that confrontation doesn’t happen, when the only people who can speak up against truth-deniers remain silent, then the only voice left for the public to hear and cling to is the voice which is telling them lies.

Nowhere is this vacuum of silence more deafening than in the arena of animal conservation. In a world where the human population is booming while animal populations dwindle, truth should be the only thing that matters. Not making friends. Not giving old colleagues a free pass for questionable actions. Not allowing issues to go unaddressed in exchange for support which will allow you to do good elsewhere.

The truth is what separates those determined to protect the animals we share this earth with, and those who would profit off the illusion of protecting them.

In two days Kevin Richardson’s new movie, Mia And The White Lion will be released all across France, and after that elsewhere throughout the world. Despite that CWW has repeatedly addressed the endless problems with this film, moral and else wise that plague literally every facet of it, no other organization that opposes handling lions, and petting cubs has stepped up to point out that everything Richardson is doing is wrong. Nor had any other group made any statement about the fact that the movie, its production, and its current promotion is inextricably tangled with outright lies and misinformation that is astronomically damaging to the plight of both wild and captive wild lions.

Nevertheless, we persist, to spin a currently hot schtick.

In two days, the silence created by the groups, and foundations who have failed to publicly speak out about this movie beforehand will be filled by the fallacies, lies, and misinformation cobbled together into the fantasy that is Mia And The White Lion. And those fallacies, lies and misinformation will then be soaked up by the spongy minds of children everywhere–which is the very intention of the movie, as stated by both the director, Gilles de Maistre, and Kevin Richardson himself. And just as intentional as their goal of connecting with children is their intent in shaping and controlling what information they convey with their movie.

Photo from de Maistre's Instagram taken at one of the early screenings of his movie. Note that the majority of this audience is comprised of children about the same age as the character of Mia.

Much has been claimed by supporters of Richardson, but the Lion Whisperer’s own actions speak far more loudly than the idealistic defenses offered by his fans.

For example, the official plot synopsis, approved and released by those responsible for the movie–Richardson and de Maistre–suggests that captive born and raised lions can simply be released into the wild to live freely as wild lions.

From IMDb:

“Distraught by the thought that Charlie could be in harm, Mia decides to run away with him. The two friends set out on an incredible journey across the South African savanna in search of another land where Charlie can live out his life in freedom.”

From Cineuropa:

“Distraught by the thought that Charlie could be in harm, Mia decides to run away leaving the farm and her family behind. The two set off on an epic adventure across the wild African savanna in search for another land where Charlie can live out his life safe and free.”

From Unifrance:

“Distraught by the thought that Charlie could be in harm, Mia decides to run away leaving the farm and her family behind. The two set off on an epic adventure across the wild African savanna in search for another land where Charlie can live out his life safe and free.”

From the official trailer on Youtube released by Galatee Films:

“Distraught by the thought that Charlie could be in harm, Mia decides to run away leaving the farm and her family behind. The two set off on an epic adventure across the wild African savanna in search for another land where Charlie can live out his life safe and free.”

The same synopsis again, and again, each ending with the romanticized–and completely untrue–suggestion that all Mia needs to do to save her pet lion is to run away then release him into the wild.

This is but one of the grossly problematic lies on which Mia And The White Lion is based, lies which could have, and should have, been sharply and immediately addressed by reputable conservation entities who are concerned with trying to save wild lions. We must already combat the naive ideas that captive animals can be turned loose into the wild. We must already combat the idea that breeding lions in captivity can somehow save wild lions. We must already combat the idea that having special bonds with captive wild animals makes it okay to interact with them.

Screenshot taken from one of the many articles touting Mia And The White Lion (link below) Note the statement at the top that Charlie, a captive bred lion can be "returned" to the wild. Meanwhile, the accompanying movie still show that Charlie is, in fact, a pet, and is raised like one, in the house, on the table, and playing with the children.

And Richardson’s movie does nothing but reinforce these falsehoods we are already fighting against. Such incorrect and fictionalized ideals could have, and should have been publicly and promptly struck down in no uncertain terms, and the reality presented to the general public.

Another photo from the above linked article. Note the copyright (intentionally captured here) which lists Richardson as a holder of the copyright to this image, indicating that it was taken on the grounds of his sanctuary and is his property.

But other conservation organizations have said nothing to counter Richardson’s farcical “anti-canned hunting” movie. So on December 26th, thousands of children are going to view a movie that tells them the way to save captive lions is to release them from their cages and enclosures and let them run free. And they’re likely going to believe that it’s already been done in real life, since many recent articles and blurbs have begun stating that the movie is based on “real events” or inspired by “true events” implying that at some point there was a lion who loved a girl, and a girl who returned that lion to the wild.

This is, of course a complete lie.

There was never a girl living on a lion farm who ran away with her lion to set it free. What there was only a director who happily walked with lions in Africa and then realized after the fact that he’d been duped by lion breeders.

Photo of de Maistre originally posted on the movie website, which has now been deleted.

Now-deleted photo of de Maistre with lions.

Another photo from de Maistre's lion walking, which he stated inspired the making of Mia And The White Lion

After realizing that he’d been lied to (he never actually explains how he learned the truth) de Maistre decided to make a movie (based on a screenplay written by his wife) about a young girl raising a lion as her pet, and then running away with it to return it to the wild. Because somehow that, he decided, would solve the issue of captive breeding, canned hunting, and cub petting.

Richardson has also persisted in stating that he, himself, is responsible for opening the eyes of the public to the grotesque realities of cub petting and canned lion hunting. Richardson, who still claims that he remained ignorant of the truth for more than a decade while he was employed by Lion Park, which bred lions like rabbits for the public to play with and hold, and then sold older animals to hunting lots. Richardson has been widely quoted from a 2014 interview with 60 Minutes when in reference to the claim that Lion Park and others have stated that their older lions go to “good homes”, Richardson replied:

“Well, the question I have is where are these good homes? Because I'd like to visit a few of those good homes myself, and maybe even some of my cats could go to these good homes. The reality is there aren't any.”

Well, the question CWW has is if that’s the response Richardson gave for such claims, then where, for ten entire years, did Richardson think those good homes were? Because nearly a decade after the fact he’s still claiming that he had no idea Lion Park was selling lions to canned hunts, so just where did Richardson think the hundreds of cubs he’d help breed over his years at the Park were going?

Richardson has participated in cub petting, and supporting canned hunting literally since his career began, using his interactions with his own lions–and the cubs of some of those lions–to garner attention and headlines.

One of the interactions which gained Richardson considerable attention, when he went in with a lioness and her cubs. However, that lioness had been removed from her own mother by Richardson while he was working at Lion Park, and then once grown, she was bred repeatedly to produce more cubs, cubs which Richardson handled and used to gain notoriety.

Interview advertisement showcasing Richardson playing with lion cubs at Lion Park. Cubs which probably ended up sold to other breeding facilities or canned hunts, unless these two happen to be some of the select few Richardson took with him when he left.

Although he's known as the Lion Whisperer, Richardson has also readily handled other big cat cubs.

Yet Richardson has built his same career atop the idea that he doesn’t support cub petting. Meanwhile Richardson both overtly, and subversively states that such respected entities as Blood Lions (who do not condone any sort of hands-on interactions with captive big cats) do nothing to counter canned hunting, and have been entirely ineffectual in spreading any awareness and education about the issue. Publicly, in interviews, Richardson’s dismissal of Blood Lions and other groups is apparent in his repeated statements that his own activities, and ventures like Mia And The White Lion provide information to the public which otherwise would not be available or conveyed. According to Richardson, he and his actions and activities, are the only reason the public knows anything about canned hunting, cub petting, or the plight of lions.

In private, out of the public eye, and between individual members of conservation organizations, Richardson’s lack of respect for Blood Lions is more bluntly put, and widely known. In the circles of “shop talk” everyone knows that Richardson considers Blood Lions to be pointless, and not nearly as important as his own figure when it comes to lion conservation. He makes no attempt to hide such opinions because he knows that he will not be outed for stating them because, as mentioned, these organizations refuse to publicly criticize him and what he does, even when they acknowledge that he’s in the wrong.

For example, Richardson allows the propagation of claims that the children making Mia And The White Lion were never in danger from the lions they were working with. One article states “Wild cats only “tame” themselves after a long process of habituation, Richardson explained.” in reference to the logistics of making a movie where a real lion interacts with real children.

The problem is, captive wild animals are never tame. They are captive wild animals. The very definition of “tame” is domesticated. This is evidenced with exquisite savagery by the fact that while Richardson was coaching the child stars of Mia And The White Lion to work with “tamed” lions, one of his own “tamed” lions mauled a young woman to death right on his own sanctuary grounds.

The now deleted website which was flush with information about the film (then called Charlie The White Lion, and deleted after CWW began questioning the endeavor) contained a clear declaration that all filming would be stopped if Richardson sensed any danger at all for the children.

Disclaimer from the now deleted website regarding filming lions with children.

Yet our contacts in Africa confirmed that Daniah de Villiers was not only badly bitten by one of the lions used to make Mia And The White Lion, requiring hospitalization and numerous stitches, but that she was so afraid to work with the lions afterward that filming had to be paused. Not stopped, mind you, the show must go on, after all.

There is no truly safe way for children and lions to interact, despite all of Richardson’s claims of otherwise. Richardson himself has repeatedly over the years misjudged his own lions and been bitten and harmed by them. In most cases, those lions are not, conveniently, still in his care. Instead, he has “rescued” and kept only lions he could easily interact with.

Likewise, there is no truly ethical way to make a movie with live lions purchased from a lion farm. This fact is something Richardson has undoubtedly admitted to others in private, but one which he continues to deny in public, again and again claiming that making an “ethical” movie was the entire point.

One article quotes director de Maistre as saying “the whole principle was first to making an ethical shoot, we've got lions from hunting farms, lions have been respected as actors, they've never been trained, but tamed,”

Again, lions cannot be tamed, and if they behave the way you want them to through positive reinforcement, they have, in fact been trained. But those facts aside, here is yet another acknowledgment that the lions used to make this movie were purchased from Ukutula lion farm, which breeds lions exclusively to be used for cub petting, and lion walking, with older animals being sold, in all likelihood, to canned hunting. This is yet more evidence of Richardson’s derisive disrespect for Blood Lions–who bought canned hunting to the forefront of the world theatre while Richardson was busy buying lions from the farms they were exposing–since Blood Lions named Ukutula in their documentary, confirming it’s support of canned hunting.

And yet, Blood Lions maintains a silent front when it comes to Richardson’s actions in buying lions from one of the farms they actually outed as a participant in canned lion hunts. We cannot know why Blood Lions refuses to call Richardson out, but we do know that their lack of gumption in doing so has provided Richardson with a free rein to lie and misrepresent the truth to hundreds of thousands of fans, even more with the production of Mia And The White Lion.

But perhaps Blood Lions is simply afraid of Royalty. After all, His Serene Highness Albert II Sovereign Prince of Monaco himself actually bought the lions from Ukutula, and subsequently supported cub petting and canned lion hunting by doing so. According to this article, the entire production of Mia And The White Lion “benefitted from generous financial support of the Foundation Prince Albert II de Monaco and the Princely Government” And we know from statements made by the director Gilles de Maistre that the perpetual care of the lions had been set up by investors before the animals were even purchased. Investors who then facilitated in the purchase of the lion cubs from Ukutula. Considering the financial cost of purchasing white lions (worth far more to canned hunters than tawny lions) and then the cost of care for multiple lions for the duration of their lives, it seems likely that HSH Albert II of Monaco probably had a hand in providing the trust which obtained and will now provide support for those lions, support which will be carried out by Richardson’s own sanctuary.

Gobsmackingly, in this article by Reader’s Digest from July of 2018, Richardson presents himself as being steadfastly against taking any more lions into his care.

“The last thing he wants, however, is to end up with more lions in his sanctuary, a big reason his females are on contraception. His aim is for the captive population to plummet; he supports a nationwide moratorium on breeding.”

But by the time that article was published, Richardson had quietly already brought all the lions used in the making of Mia And The White Lion to his sanctuary. Lions which were bred in captivity, even though he also claimed in the recent article to support a nationwide moratorium on breeding.

Well, gosh darn, that’s convenient of him to support a ban on the captive breeding of lions, and to declare that he doesn’t want any more lions on his sanctuary after he’s already helped buy captive bred lions for his own use, and after he’s already brought those lions to live at his sanctuary.

It seems that for Kevin Richardson, the “truth” is an ephemeral thing, ever-changing to suit his own needs and purposes. Handling lions is acceptable if he says it is, supporting canned hunting by handing money over to it is acceptable if he deems it so, teaching children that captive lions can simply be set free in the wild is realistically possible if he says it is, and training lions for use in the film industry isn’t exploitation if he’s the one doing it.

Unfortunately, until truly ethical conservation groups and organizations like Blood Lions “grow a set” and publicly speak out to permanently, decisively emasculate and banish the lies and misnomers provided by Kevin Richardson and those like him, fairytales and falsehoods are going to continue to be spun for public consumption. With less than 48 hrs to go until Mia And The White Lion is released in France, all we can do is wait and see just how hungry the public is for utterly fake, romanticized stories about girls and their pet lions.

And then we’ll get to the business of publicly, pointedly, correcting the fake facts propagated by Richardson with his pet projects. Because what good is the gift of education, if you don’t have the courage to use it to protect the things you love?

*** While no established conservation group has spoken out against Kevin Richardson’s practices and projects like Mia And The White Lion, nor his claims of leading the charge in the anti-canned hunting and anti-cub petting movements, Blood Lions was specifically named in this article because we consider them to be the first and foremost authority in the matter of anti-canned lion hunting education. That said, LionAid, Panthera, nor any of the other well known lion conservation groups have publicly addressed Richardson’s actions. We invite any of these groups to contact us if they wish to make a statement on the matter.

Mia And The White Lion Premiers In Monaco

Its Acclaim Highlights The Viability of Commodifying Captive Lions For Profit

It was a big weekend for “Lion Whisperer” Kevin Richardson. The movie for which he helped purchase and train several captive bred white lion cubs, Mia And The White Lion, enjoyed a premier screening first at the Grimaldi Forum of Monaco, then in Paris. In attendance at the Monaco screening were members of the cast, including the children Richardson trained to work with the lions used in filming, as well as Richardson himself and director, Gilles de Maistre. Even His Serene Highness Albert II, Prince of Monaco participated in the event, posing for photos with Richardson and the teen stars of the ill-conceived film.

Richardson’s social media pages posted photos, and even a short video clip from what seemed to be a question and answer session. In the clip, Richardson states that lions ending up in the canned hunting industry is a big reason behind why he became involved in making Mia And The White Lion. He goes on to state that his foundation “fights against” the canned hunting industry, and that it’s his hope that the movie Mia And The White Lion does well, and gives a “voice to lions” and brings world-wide attention to the issues of captive lions, and the canned hunting industry which is continually fed by the captive lion breeding industry.

But there are several profoundly troubling quandaries associated with Richardson’s claims, and with his attempts to justify both the movie, and his participation in making it.

The most glaringly blatant of these problems is the fact that if your foundation truly–and ethically–fights against an abusive industry, you do not participate in that industry.

Period.

Not for the sake of saving a few animals, not for the sake of spreading awareness, not for any reason at all.

If your foundation is willing to compromise itself, and be complicit to the very abuse it claims to stand against in order to achieve its own goals, then the ethics of your foundation are for sale. The only question is how much it will cost for someone to buy them.

In the case of Mia And The White Lion, that price is, at least in part, quite obvious: Richardson receives worldwide fame for his participation (plus whatever he was paid and will receive in revenue from sales) as well as the several young, soon-to-be-worldwide-famous magnificent white lions used in the making of the movie, who will be in Richardson’s care for the rest of their lives. Richardson has already used one of these lions for the creation of high-end art photography (although since this young lion was named Thor, after the white lion Richardson previously owned, many fans didn’t realize that this lion was actually a new addition to Richardson’s sanctuary) and we can presume that since Richardson believes that his lions benefit emotionally from interacting with them, and the lions used to make MTWL were hand raised from birth, and trained to interact with humans, Richardson is not going to abstain from continuing to interact with them in the future.

One of the fine art photos of the new Thor, already for sale.

Fans of the “Lion Whisperer” have already publicly in various comment threads made it clear that they’re willing to overlook the fact that Kevin Richardson participated in buying lion cubs from Ukutula, South Africa’s most notorious lion farm, which has repeatedly been connected to the canned hunting industry, because “at least these lions are safe now”. Yes, a few, special, white lion cubs will not grow up being handled by children and then get shot. Instead, they already grew up being handled by children, and now they’ll spend their entire lives being handled by Richardson. But what about the some 3,000 other, not-special, tawny lion cubs which were born in captivity in the years since Richardson helped buy the handful to make MTWL? The 3,000 other captive bred lions which either have already been killed within the canned hunting industry, or which will eventually meet that fate? How many more lion cubs were born due to the thousands of dollars that were put into the canned hunting industry by Richardson and those funding the purchase of lions for use in MTWL?

We’ve also already seen fans argue that Richardson “rescued” the lion cubs used in MTWL, and that whatever money was spent to buy them is negligible compared to what canned hunters spend. But that simply isn’t true.

White lions have been worth four or five times as much as tawny lions in the canned hunting industry for decades. Heck, the recent, and ongoing saga of Mufasa the white lion, who is being touted as so valuable that the government would rather auction him to hunters than sell him to those who would save him is based solely on the extreme value of male white lions within the canned hunting industry. So it’s simply not plausible that Richardson could secure the purchase of multiple male white lions from an established breeding farm for less than the fair market value of the same number of adult male white lions. Therefore the purchase of those cubs by Richardson is no less a participation in the canned hunting industry than hunters purchasing them for sport.

And honestly you could even argue that hunters would only exploit the lions once, when they bought and killed them. Richardson not only helped buy them, and use them in a feature length film, but he’ll be using them to “raise awareness” by interacting with them for the rest of their lives, over and over again.

There are distinct differences between “raising awareness” about an issue, and capitalizing off that issue for your own gain, but these differences are something Richardson has carefully endeavored to blur for his fans.

The fact is, canned hunting has been in the public eye since Richardson first started working for Lion Park, who was, at the time that Richardson worked for them (and continues to) participate in selling lions to canned hunting contacts.

The widely watched investigative program, “The Crook Report” which was known for undercover documentaries first exposed the true horrors of canned hunting to the worldwide public in 1997. In its segment on the matter (coverage begins at 11:30 in this video, but be warned, it is graphic) undercover reporters involved with The Cook Report’s investigation presented horrific video evidence, such as the killing of the Dark Lioness, who had been separated from her adolescent cubs only hours before the hunters who purchased her arrived. She was then butchered just feet from her watching cubs, shot twice by a paying hunter who sat comfortably inside a vehicle. Such was the documented atrocities of The Cook Report. (the canned lion hunting segment begins at 11:30 but again, it is GRAPHIC)

But the video evidence pertaining to canned lion hunting almost didn’t make it off the lion farms where it was filmed. The investigative reporters were locked behind the gates of one such farm, and trapped there by the angry owners who suspected that they’d been duped into allowing the wrong people to see their dirty secrets. Only quick thinking, and good luck allowed The Cook Report investigators to escape with their stomach churning evidence. Evidence which was then aired on international television, to dramatic effect.

Within days of The Cook Report’s release on television, 55,000 signatures had been gathered to protest the sport of canned hunting, and you must remember that in 1997 at the time The Cook Report aired, the internet was not the ubiquitous force it is today. Petitions were largely products of paper, and their creation something that required people to go out and actually participate in real life, rather than simply typing on their personal computers. It is clear that The Cook Report put the atrocities of canned lion hunting (as well as that of other animals) front and center for the world wide public to grasp and loathe.

But while The Cook Report was prompting hundreds of thousands of viewers to cringe and writhe upon viewing its documentation of canned lion hunting, Kevin Richardson was hiring on to work for a lion farm which actually participated in the industry that The Cook Report was working to expose. Over a decade later, in 2009, Richardson was still working for Lion Park, and even today professes to have been completely ignorant to the fact that Lion Park’s constant conveyor belt of captive-bred lions were handled by the public and then fed directly into the canned hunting industry. No one is born knowing everything. However, it boggles the mind to consider that a grown man who built his entire career working with lions within the confines of a lion farm, and within the world of the captive lion breeding industry, claims that he did so without actually understanding how lion farms, or captive breeding worked.

Those claims of ignorance become even more absurd when you take into the account that Richardson was at the center of many of Lion Park’s exploitive commercial endeavors. By his own account, Richardson took part in the filming of multiple for-profit ads, commercials, and staged ‘documentaries’ using the lions of Lion Park. In the case of White Lion, which began planning and production in 2005, Richardson was not only the producer, but also the head lion wrangler. It was Richardson who was charged with selecting and securing the over sixty (60) lions, ranging in age from small cubs to adults, which were used to make the movie. When it was decided to change the lions from regular tawny animals, to white lions, which would allow capitalization on the rise in interest of rare white lions, it was Richardson who had to come up with white lions to replace the tawny lions he’d already cast.

Since Lion Park only had one adult white lion, Letsatsi, and two younger white males, Thor, and Gandalf, Richardson was forced to “source” a pair of teenage white male lions from elsewhere. It’s never been specified where those lions came from, nor is it ever revealed what happened to them. We do know, however, that part of White Lion was filmed on the Entabeni Game Reserve. This is important because filming on White Lion was finished in late 2008, part of that filming of which took place at Entabeni Game Reserve, located in Limpopo Province, which is renown as the premier location for lion hunting.

In 2009, in Limpopo Province white lions fetched, on average, a price of $18,691 USD at auction, nearly five times the average price of $4,021 USD for a standard tawny lion. Just as the marketability of white lions to the larger public made them ideal for use in Richardson’s movie, White Lion, it also made them in high demand for canned hunters, driving up their auction price. To suggest that Richardson–who was smart enough to know that white lions would (and still do) sell to the public better than plain tawny lions, and smart enough to work with multiple lion farms which focused on the captive breeding of white lions, within a Province where white lions carried five times the market value of tawny lions as trophy animals–was not smart enough to understand that these same farms and Lion Park were participating in the canned hunting industry, is preposterous.

Likewise, the persistent claim that Richardson “saved” what lions he could from Lion Park when he left there, remains laughable. Aside from the fact that over the years since his supposed split with Rodney Fuhr, Lion Park’s owner in 2011, Richardson has alternately stated that he bought the lions, then stated that he had not been able to buy them until 2016, there is the question of which lions Richardson chose to take with him. Over 60 lions were used to film White Lion, but of those 60, the current location of only a small handful can be confirmed. Notably, Thor, and Gandalf, both white males, were saved/bought/adopted however you choose to frame it, by Richardson. Along with them, were several other lions whom Richardson had hand-raised from birth and/or had intimate, and useful relationships with.

In sharp contrast to Thor and Gandalf, the fate of Bruce and Bravo, the two teenage white lions used in White Lion, remains unknown. Letsatsi, though originally personally groomed by Richardson for months before filming so that he could be the proud star of the movie, was quickly discarded from the “Richardson pride” after he refused to perform on cue. Richardson had known Letsatsi for five full years before the filming of White Lion began, and knew that the lion was not ideal for what he was trying to force him to do.

Nevertheless, with the opportunity to promote the film at the Cannes Film Festival in France, Richardson needed a promotional clip, which included “the majestic Letsatsi, our star, striding through a wide-open expanse” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 202).

Photo from Richardson's autobiography.

According to Richardson’s own words:

“Letsatsi wasn’t a filming lion” something that Richardson had recognized early on, and which had been previously discussed. “Letsatsi had never enjoyed being loaded and driven around on trucks” but “he was our only adult white lion at the time and we just had to hope it would work out.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 204)

So under Richardson’s direction, Letsatsi was loaded onto a truck, driven to a private filming location–where local media, photographers, and press had also been called so as to promote the movie–and then unloaded so that he could be forced to perform. Letsatsi, however, did what Richardson already feared he would do. He refused to perform. Instead, he walked off. The “majestic” white lion proceeded to “stride through a wide open expanse” for about five hours, refusing to acknowledge Richardson, or obey his commands. Eventually the lion was shot with a dart gun, sedated, and physically hauled home.

In Richardson’s words:

“I loved him to bits, but our relationship took a big strain that day, when all of a sudden he wanted to roam free. In fact, my five year relationship with him went down the toilet at that point.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 204)

Richardson literally blamed a lion whom he already knew hated being driven around on trucks and forced to perform, for destroying their five year relationship. Later, Richardson admitted to having pushed Letsatsi, “harder and harder in the weeks leading up to his spectacular walkout” but blamed his position as producer for that pressure, claiming that if he’d only been responsible for wrangling the lions, and not getting the best shot, he wouldn’t have tried to force Letsatsi to perform.

The fact remains, however, that Richardson was, in fact, the head lion wrangler on White Lion, and Richardson did, in fact, choose to try and force Letsatsi to perform when he knew the lion was not comfortable, and had been overworked in the weeks prior. And once Richardson’s own actions had destroyed the five year relationship he had with the lion Letsatsi, he discarded that lion like the useless offal he was. After their break, Richardson could not work with Letsatsi, could not film with him, and thus could not market him. When Richardson parted ways with Rodney Fuhr, and left Lion Park behind, he also left Letsatsi. Although Richardson has always professed that his lions are his “family” and that he would never leave them behind, that commitment clearly only pertains to the “family” he can manipulate for filming and photos. Since Letsatsi could not be used in such a fashion, Richardson left him at Lion Park, where he has lived for the last ten years, siring litter after litter of cubs to be used for cub petting, and later, canned hunting.

Screenshot of Letsatsi taken this year at Lion Park.

This video from October of 2018 shows Letsatsi (housed with the two white lionesses supposedly responsible for a mauling, though it’s not clear what mauling, since the keeper simply refers to “the old park”)

Meanwhile, Thor (who ended up being the star of White Lion) and Gandalf, who were both much more amendable to Richardson’s control and influence, were “rescued” and taken to Richardson’s current sanctuary.

Taken from Richardson's autobiography. Thor was one of Richardson's most popular lions, and was featured in numerous photos and videos until his untimely death by lightning strike.

At the time that White Lion was released, Richardson claimed to hope that the movie would “give people second thoughts about participating in” canned hunts, saying that, “Canned hunting, in my opinion, is likened to fishing with dynamite in a pond and then calling yourself a fisherman.”

While making such statements in interviews pertaining to his movie, Richardson took a very different position in his own autobiography, saying “I don’t have a problem with people such as Dirk, the professional lion farmer, and hunter, breeding lions for hunting.” And “I don’t begrudge an ethical lion farmer making money out of lions, any more than I would think it wrong for a fair cattle farmer to sell his animals for slaughter.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Pages 133-134).

Richardson’s only complaint was in facilities that offered cub-petting and then sold older animals into canned hunting (which is, perversely, something Lion Park has done for decades) because “That’s an example of where a lion hunting farm starts to come into my territory, and I don’t like it.” (Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Page 133)

In 2016, Richardson quietly edited these statements, and many more, from his autobiography, carefully reshaping his position to be firmly anti-lion farming, anti-cub petting, and anti-canned hunting. This revision of his autobiography coincides with the filming of Richardson’s current movie, Mia And The White Lion, which is being heavily advertised as yet another attempt to “raise awareness” about canned hunting.

But the 2018 release of Mia And The White Lion marks twenty years that Kevin Richardson has been working in the captive lion industry, using lions to film commercials, and make ad campaigns, and film movies, and talk an awful lot about how bad canned hunting is. And yet, Richardson is still willing to participate in the very industry he continues to insist he, and his Foundation, “fight against”.

In the last two decades, huge strides have been made in raising awareness about the captive lion breeding, cub-petting, and canned hunting industries. From investigative reporting like that carried out by The Cook Report, to the next breakthrough documentary Blood Lions, to the more questionable, but very effective recently dramatized plight of Mufasa the white lion, media outlets have, for the past two decades, embraced the understanding the canned hunting is deplorable, and breeding lions in captivity is not going to solve the problems of wild lions. There are now watch lists that those who wish to volunteer in South Africa can reference in order to assure they apply to reputable foundations which do not participate in the canned hunting industry.

Yet Kevin Richardson has not evolved along with this growing understanding of the exploitation of captive lions. Although he has spoken (for years) about the need to raise awareness about canned hunting, and the desire to ban canned hunting, Richardson has not made any move to push legislation on a governmental level, which would help stymie the massive reservoir from whence canned hunting draws its seemingly endless supply of lions, both tawny and white. A ban on cub petting and lion-walking has been discussed at length, but Richardson did not add his voice to the matter. Interactions were even briefly banned at Lion Park, but then quickly resumed. Captive breeding to supply the cubs needed for cub petting is another area of possible regulation on which Richardson has never spoken. Of course, Richardson’s silence regarding a ban on captive breeding, and cub-petting of lions, might well be one borne of self-preservation. After all, if it were to become illegal for Richardson to interact with his lions, if such were to be viewed as bad form, then where would Richardson end up? He is famous for little more than his own lion interactions, and his constant rhetoric about “raising awareness” about canned hunting. And if there were a ban on the captive breeding of lions, where would Richardson secure his next batch of lions, to make his next movie?

When viewed objectively, Richardson as “the face of lion conservation and the anti-canned hunting movement” is a mirage which cannot be sustained. And one which is an unconscionable slight to those who have genuinely carried lion conservation and the anti-canned hunting movement forward.

While groups like The Cook Report were going undercover to expose the horrors of canned lion hunting, and people like Ian Michler, of Blood Lions were penning articles which addressed conservation, and the issues facing lions in South Africa during the late 1990s and early 2000s, Kevin Richardson was embedding himself in a commercial lion farm, staging “documentaries” using captive bred and hand raised lions, and putting out Go-Pro videos of himself interacting with captive, hand raised and trained lions.

In the mid 2000s to 2010, while National Parks like Kruger, and other conservation organizations were covering the move to ban canned hunting in Africa, and publishing articles which warned against interacting with captive lions and encouraged the public to take responsibility and action, Richardson was conspiring to undertake, and then proceeding to engage in filming a feature length movie which capitalized on the rarity and mystic of white lions, using some 60 captive bred lions, with Lion Park who participated in the canned hunting that everyone else was trying to get banned. Richardson also wrote and publish his autobiography, which covered his life spent interacting with captive bred lions, at Lion Park, which actively supported the cub petting and canned hunting industries.

In the wake of his own autobiography’s success, and amidst a growing fan base, and a growing stable of sponsors, Richardson attempted to open his own lion park, Kingdom Of the White Lion, with Rodney Fuhr (although Richardson claimed to have cut ties with Fuhr in 2011) The venture was short-lived, and by 2013, Richardson was in court fighting with his new partner, Alan Friedland (some accounts state that Richardson left Fuhr, and opened Kingdom Of the White Lion with Friedland, but since part of White Lion was filmed at the KOWL location, and that movie was funded by Fuhr, this seems unlikely) As recently as 2015, at least one article claimed that Richardson was “petrified” that he was going to be thrown in jail after he claimed that he had no money to pay the debts he accrued in his failed venture and court fight with Friedland.

Despite such legal woes, by 2015, while such acclaimed documentaries as Blood Lions were hitting the airways, exposing the canned hunting industry with new resolve to end it (and directly linking both Lion Park where Richardson had worked for over a decade, and Ukutula lion farm to the canned hunting industry) Richardson was already engaged in yet another feature length movie endeavor. Having been approached by director Gilles de Maistre with the scheme of making singular movie that would contain real white lions, interacting with real children, Richardson happily signed on to the project. By the time Blood Lions was released, Richardson had already helped de Maistre hold casting calls for children at Ukutula Lodge lion farm (breeders of “rare” white lions) where the child actors were allowed to play with cubs and interact with them. Based on the children’s behavior, Richardson helped select the human stars of the movie. Richardson and de Maistre then revisited Ukutula lion farm in order to secure a number of male white lion cubs which would be used in the making of the movie, which at the time, was being called Charlie The White Lion (though readers will note that on some pages of the now deleted website, the movie name was changed to Mia And The White Lion before the website was deleted).

After the release of Blood Lions, and the public outrage over the killing of Cecil the lion, and with himself involved in the production of a movie that was framed to be anti-lion farming, and anti-canned hunting, Richardson revisited his autobiography, and removed large portions of it. Removed passages include addressment of lion farms which Richardson states he does not have a problem with them (cited above) as well as passages that criticized those who question his own interactions, and lion captivity in general.

“Some people say I shouldn’t be domesticating my lions, but I say that is rubbish. I enrich their lives”

“What angers me about the debate over animals in captivity is that it’s been hijacked by a small number of people at the extreme end of the spectrum. The die-hard greenies want to end any form of captivity,”

“Lions exist in captivity for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is education. Even if I stopped working in television I would want to bring school groups to see my animals,”

“Lions are kept in captivity at facilities such as the Lion Park for tourism purposes.”

I see no problem with any of the above reasons for keeping lions in captivity as long as the lions are well cared for and happy.”

(Richardson, Kevin, and Tony Park. Part of the Pride: My Life Among the Big Cats of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009. First Edition, Print. Pages 107-109).

In addition to the entire removal of passages like those from which the above quotes were taken, Richardson also removed all capitalization of the Lion Park in reference to his place of work, allowing readers to question whether or not he is referring to the Lion Park owned by Rodney Fuhr featured in the movie Blood Lions as a participant of canned hunting. After the redactions and editing of his autobiography (which has never been publicly declared, and which is mentioned only in one single sentence within the Introduction of the book) Richardson and his PR folks began promoting his biography again, with Richardson once more making the circuit of public speaking engagements, his presentations now carefully anti-cub petting, anti-lion farming, anti-captivity.

This reconstruction of his position came at a fortunate time, as it was shortly after the release of his edited autobiography that groups like CWW began questioning the ethics of the movie Charlie the White Lion, questioning the ethics of Richardson to participate in making the movie, questioning the ethics of purchasing lions cubs to be raised by hand, by children for the making of the movie.

To date, neither Richardson nor de Maistre have ever responded to any of the articles CWW published discussing Charlie the White Lion. However, after we published several articles about it, the entire website, which had detailed the production of the movie, was deleted. The website can now only be accessed via the Way Back Machine, where one can enter the original address www.charliethewhitelion.com and be taken to the cached pages. While photos are gone, all the text remains. On social media, Charlie the White Lion ceased to exist until de Maistre began using the hashtag #Miaandthewhitelion. No new website for the movie was ever made, nor has any information regarding the production of the movie, now renamed Mia And The White Lion, been made public since CWW first began questioning the ethics of the movie.

Richardson continued his promotions against canned hunting, and cub petting on his own social media pages. He also continued producing his YouTube videos of himself interacting with his personal lions. Many of these videos were filmed not on Richardson’s sanctuary, but out on the expanses of the Dinokeng Reserve–which means that wild lions who live on the reserve were forced out of the area so that Richardson’s captive lions could be filmed there instead. Such activity ended abruptly, in early 2018, however, when one of Richardson’s captive lions left the open area of the Dinokeng, and entered an area of Richardson’s sanctuary which was supposedly safe, and once there, fatally mauled a young woman visiting the sanctuary with a friend who was interviewing the camp manager.

The only public statement Richardson ever made regarding it placed the woman “outside the car”, while assuring that he had properly notified everyone that lions would be out of their enclosures on the (Dinokeng) Reserve, and specified the he and his colleague had “assessed the landscape for other big 5 animals”. Outside of the direct quote from Richardson, the statement made on his social media pages went on to claim that before leaving the reserve the two visitors had stopped to take photographs.

The legally precise, and carefully worded statement made by Richardson's social media pages.

This careful press release concisely placed full responsibility for the fatality on the dead girl herself, for being out of her vehicle on a game reserve, and resulted in a massive online response wherein literally thousands of commenters asserted that the dead young woman actually deserved to be killed and that Richardson was completely absolved of responsibility, despite that it was his own lion who had committed the fatal mauling, and despite that just weeks prior, during an “Ask Meg” video segment, Richardson had stated that if one his lions were to encounter a stranger they would probably attack them.

With the fatal mauling as minimized in the public eye as possible (investigations by authorities are still ongoing) Richardson went on to announce the creation of the Kevin Richardson Foundation (though the foundation has actually been registered for a number of years) and then proceeded to unveil various “projects” throughout the year, each carefully structured to present a firm stance toward conserving, for the first time ever, wild lions. With his LandForLions campaign (though this first fundraiser is actually to buy his own sanctuary, where his captive lions live) Richardson has done what he does best, con the public in to believing that he’s interested in saving whatever it is they want him to be interested in saving.

The fine print of the #landforlions Thundafund stating that the money will actually be used to buy the land where his sanctuary is located. The Thundafund notably advertises the camp where one of Richardson's lion fatally mauled a young woman as a reward for donations of $14,400 USD and up, which contradict's Richardson's public statement insinuating that the girl's death occurred outside his sanctuary.

Richardson’s ability to evade responsibility, or accountability remains his most astounding feature.

Now Richardson–who began his career at a lion farm that supports captive breeding, cub petting, and canned hunting, and who has for two decades interacted with captive bred lions for profit–is enjoying the company of Royals, during the Monaco premier of Mia And The White Lion, a commercial movie made, using captive bred white lions, bought from a known lion farm that supports captive breeding of lions, cub petting, and canned hunting, and for which Richardson trained children to interact with captive lions.

And Richardson still has the gall to say the only reason he made this movie is to “bring awareness to canned hunting, and cub petting”.

Mia and The White Lion has all the earmarks of becoming an instant classic, at least amongst the white lion-craving public. But considering that the entire thing has been made in collusion with the very industries it’s supposed to deride, we hold no hope that it will convey anything more than the romanticized story of a beautiful girl, and her gorgeous, noble beast friend. A real live beauty and the beast. No resulting message can erase the hypocrisy of how the movie was made.

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

Oh, oops, pardon, that’s what Richardson was quoted as saying about White Lion, before it’s release back in 2009.

But hey, why change a good thing? Captive white lions sold like hotcakes back then, they’ve sold in the years since then, and they’re only going to sell better now. Especially with the edition of an attractive young girl, and the message of saving lions everywhere attached to it.

Yes indeed, captive lions are more valuable than ever before. Thank you for showcasing that fact, Mr. Richardson.

***************** ADDENDUM***************

Which looks extremely similar to the set up of Richardson’s sanctuary:

left a comment suggesting that people should question where Richardson obtained the white lion cubs that were used in the making of Mia And The White Lion. She pointed out that they’d been bought from a breeding facility which is renown for selling to canned hunting. When asked by another commenter if she had any evidence to back up her statement, she replied, stating that she had already posted a link to evidence, but that it had been deleted. She went on to say that originally, it was KR’s own PR person who had named the farm (Ukutula). In response to this comment by the question-raiser, the Kevin Richardson Facebook Page actually directly addressed her, declaring that “It’s no secret the lions were purchased from a cub petting facility” and then went on to attempt to justify the purchase by insisting that they’d been saved, and “will live our their lives at our sanctuary.”

The comments of the question-raiser have since been deleted from the comment feed.

The reason this is important, is because just a few days ago, Paula Kahumbu, of Wildlife Direct posted about attending the world premier of Mia And The White Lion. Although Ms. Kahumbu pointed out that the movie “portrays a romantic image of Africa that simply does into exist” inasmuch as its romanticism of Africa (true) she also suggested that others “watch this film and tell me what you are going to do”. about the problem of canned hunting. Quickly, comments appeared, expressing surprise that Kahumbu would support a film which used lions that had been purchased from within the very industry the movie supposedly derides. Kahumba replied thoughtfully, and we’ve put a screenshot of that reply below, underlining the most important part for easy viewing.

A sanctuary in Timbavati? Though Kahumu doesn’t specify who, exactly, made this claim, she did clearly indicate that she spoke to both Kevin Richardson and Gilles de Maistre, and that she was told that the lions were in Timbavati. Yet in the same time as the comments on Kahumu’s FB page, Richardson’s page posted the above photo of the human and lion stars of Mia And The White Lion at a location that closely resembles Richardson’s sanctuary. And then under that photo the Richardson Page commented, confirming both that the lions had been bought from Ukutula lion farm, and that they would live out their entire lives on Richardson’s sanctuary. Likewise, this screenshot from one of the star’s Instagram page clearly indicates that the cub she’s shown holding is now an adult and living with Richardson.

And within the same time that this Instagram photo was posted by one of the actresses involved, the Richardson FB page also commented on a post about the movie stating in response to a question about where the lions in the movie would live, and again state firmly that the lions will live out there lives at Richardson’s sanctuary.

This, of course, directly contradicts the answer given at the premier of the movie, where it was stated that the lions were living on a reserve in Timbavati, which is famed for hosting a population of white lions. So which is the true story?

Ukutula

Conning The Public With Conservation Claims

It was recently brought to the attention of CWW that Ukutula Conservation Center & Biobank (the fancy new face of Ukutula Game Reserve and Lodge) will be hosting a “One Day Professional Conference” on November 16th, 2018, and after some considerable research, we have questions. Very, serious questions. Namely questions about how multiple professionals (some of them with exquisite records) have been conned into speaking at a conference hosted by one of South Africa’s most notorious for-profit lion farms.

Some of the connections are obvious. For example, many of the guest speakers presenting at Ukutula’s “conference” are associated in some way to local universities, such as the University of Pretoria, North-West University, etc. Ukutula has carefully cultivated its connections with local universities as a way of attempting to validate itself. It’s not difficult to look at Professors or students committing research for their thesis papers or schoolwork, and understand why it would be advantageous to work with Ukutula in order to have access to the animals they want to study. In fact, one of the “Advisory Committee” members of UCC Dr. Imke Lüders has stated point blank that she utilized Ukutula for research trips on multiple occasions because the lions at Ukutula are habituated to humans, and used to being handled and therefore very easy to work with.

It’s reasonable then, to speculate that the majority of the academic “professionals” who engage with UCC do so out of convenience and self-interest. This statement is not made in judgement of those research professionals, so much in acknowledgment that very often in the name of science, sacrifices of ethics are made in order to obtain research and information.

The announcement of the live birth of the two AI cubs in early September, 2018 was made with great pride and fanfare, as those involved touted it as the potential baseline for the conservation of other endangered large wild felids. These claims, however, directly conflict with the statement of criticism levied against UCC and the University of Pretoria, by no small number of conservation experts.

According to these groups which all signed a letter of concern addressed to the University of Pretoria, the captive breeding of lions, whether assisted or not, does not contribute to biodiversity conservation or address the main threats to wild lion conservation. The group letter goes on to detail how the captive lion breeding industry in South Africa is associated with the exploitation of lions through interaction activities, canned hunting, and the lion bone trade.

Nonplussed by the letter, despite the considerable expertise of those who signed it, both UCC and UP have continued to tout their achievements as “world-firsts” and UCC continues to bill itself as a leader in lion conservation.

Ukutula Conservation Center’s website is full of eye-catching graphics, but one only needs to watch a few videos for the gaps in facts, and misinformation provided to be blatantly clear.

For example, this video, featuring Ukutula Lodge owner Willi Jacobs, opens with Jacobs declaring that “Ukutula Lodge and Ukutula Conservation Center both contribute very meaningfully to conservation. The Lodge,” Jacobs says, “Hosts “ecotourism” and the ecotourism pays for conservation that the Conservation Center and Biobank are involved in.”

What Jacobs does not specify is that this “ecotourism” as he spins it, is nothing more than cub-petting and lion-walking ventures which are perpetuated by the constant breeding of captive lions in order to produce cubs to be used first for cub-petting, and later for lion-walking.

Cubs are a constant presence at Ukutula.

As the cubs grow they become part of the lion-walking tours.

Once those cubs age out of lion-walking, it is not known where they go, but Ukutula has been linked to intermediaries who are known to buy and sell lions for and to canned hunting outfits. UCC claims to participate in two animal-tracing databases, but these databases are not accessible to the general public, and are simply a way for owners to track their own animals, so they offer no traceability the way UCC suggest they do.

In another video which focuses on the value of research at Ukutula Jacobs, again narrating, opens with declaration that with the recent success of research carried out by the Ukutula Conservation Center, and the University of Pretoria (regarding the AI cubs) there, “seems to be a misunderstanding” within the media and among certain individuals “with regard to the value of this research.” Jacobs goes on to claim that while lions have been used almost exclusively in the research at UCC, they are not actually the main focus of that research. Rather, according to Jacobs, all the research done on lions bred by Ukutula is simply to help other endangered large felids. Jacobs admits that lions have no real trouble breeding either in the wild, or in captivity, but reiterates that the study of lion reproductive physiology can be used to help other endangered species in the future. It should be noted, however, that more than one study carried out at Ukutula involved researching the gene responsible for white lions, so that the ongoing breeding of white lions could continue.

Jacobs lists the Black-footed cat, the Scottish wildcat and the Asiatic golden cat as examples, stating that “these techniques” (referencing the techniques supposedly pioneered at Ukutula) have already been applied with great success in the aforementioned felids. These assertions create a conundrum, however, when one considers the timelines of conservation efforts for these other cat species, which largely took place some years ago, which means that the research done at Ukutula in the last year, resulting in the successful AI breeding and birth just two months ago couldn’t have been used. Never mind that in the first part of his narration, Jacobs stated that the studies done at Ukutula would help save wild cats in the future, and then he immediately states that the studies already have, past tense, helped wild cats.

Jacobs then says that the success with AI really “marks a stepping stone towards meaningful conservation initiatives which can be applied to critically endangered cat species.” Which again contradicts the prior statement that the research has, past tense, helped.

Circling his narration back toward the criticism that UCC has received, Jacobs continues, “It is very clear that there is a wrong perception among the public and some media that Ukutula is a commercial breeding facility. We’d just like to categorically state that this is not the case. Ukutula does have a breeding program which is a controlled veterinary-supervised project so as to be able to host various research projects.”

Please take a moment to carefully consider exactly what Jacobs has stated about Ukutula Conservation Center. “Ukutula does have a breeding program which is a controlled veterinary-supervised project so as to be able to host various research projects.”

Lions at Ukutula are bred by veterinarians in order to fulfill the needs of research projects. Not for conservation. For research. Like rats, mice, rabbits and other laboratory research animals. The founder of UCC has stated point blank that Ukutula’s breeding program is designed to produce lions for use in scientific research.

Let that sink in.

Now, note as per their own website that Ukutula is registered as a:

Wildlife Breeding Facility

Wildlife Trading Facility

Animal Exhibition Facility

UCC is also listed as a rhino orphanage, and animal rescue center but we have been unable to find any references to rhinos, or animal rescue linked with Ukutula independent of Ukutula’s own claims on their website.

Back to this video, Jacobs moves on to defend UCC despite the fact that he just stated the facility breeds lions to be used for scientific research, “For years Ukutula has been criticized for the research done here and one wonders what the motives are of these critics that keep pointing a finger at Ukutula.” We have been unable to find any article that criticizes research done at Ukutula. Rather, they all criticize the lack of useful and meaningful research, along with criticizing the fact that Ukutula continually breeds lions and allows human and lion interactions.

Jacobs goes on to question the motives of Ukutula’s critics, suggesting that they are simply jealous because Ukutula has “taken the rug out from under” them by “proving that research is important and that they are now not able to use the emotion and sensation of the very important subject of conservation so that they can collect funds and receive donations from people who are ill-informed, or mis-informed by them.”

Thus is the gist of the videos available on the Ukutula Conservation Center website. Since the first two videos we checked out were clearly defensive responses to the deserved criticism and questions posed by those who do not support the continual captive breeding of lions, we tried a few more videos, to no avail.

Links to so-called research projects contain only more videos, filled with simplistic, and un-educational fluff such as images of an unconcious cheetah with the text “Sedating male cheetah” images of medical personal holding a thermometer in the cheetah’s rectum accompanied by the text “Wildlife veterinarian monitors temperature” the cheetah is then pictured on an exam table with the text “General health check by veterinarian” similar images appear with the text “Professional biodata recording”. The same video containing the above listed images also includes completely incorrect descriptions, such as showing the process of intubation for anesthesia but describing the scene as ”Examination of the mouth and throat” Placing an Intubation tube and securing the airway for anesthesia in a big cat for a surgical procedure, and carrying out an oral exam are two vastly difference procedures. To mistake one for the other is both laughable, and tragically revealing in regard to the ignorance involved.

If one can disregard the self-serving (and in the case of Jacob’s admittance that Ukutula breeds lions for use in scientific research like lab rats, horrific videos) we have to admit that UCC’s website is shiny, and attractive, if not terribly functional. Although it’s superficially stacked with interesting teases of supposed research projects, and successes, there are few links to any in-depth information. Instead, we’re left with only videos containing little information and flashy powerpoint diagrams which contain even less information of any value.

When one checks out the “experts” who comprise the UCC Wildlife Research & Conservation Education Advisory Committee, the ethical oversight of UCC goes right out the window. Ignoring the fact that Willi Jacobs, who founded UCC is a member of his own Advisory Committee, three of the other four committee members are either employed by the University of Pretoria, and/or graduated from UP. This includes Dr. MJ Grundlingh, who also happens to be the founder of the Wildlife Education Foundation. That last is important because UCC offers a myriad of “predator education courses” which upon completion offers the attendees “official WEF & ACC accredited certificates” to verify their level of education. Grundlingh’s books are also peddled on the Ukutula website under educational products.

In case you still don’t follow, UCC basically offers “educational courses” for “wildlife & conservation enthusiasts, educators & students, wildlife volunteers and nature enthusiasts” promising them a certificate of accreditation once they’ve completed the course. But in reality, there is no accreditation, nor is there any formal certificate to be gained. UCC runs the courses it offers, and then UCC hands over the certificates of accreditation, but UCC has no actual authority to issue any certificate of accreditation of education to a civilian. On top of that, the Wildlife Education Foundation which co-signs these “accreditation certificates” is owned and run by a member of UCC’s own Advisory Board.

And the conflict of interests doesn’t stop there. Another member of UCC’s Advisory Committee, Claudia Dinkelman, described as a “Qualified, award-winning Veterinary Technologist” who is a full time associate with the UCC & Biobank, is listed on Zoominfo (as of November 2, 2018) as also being currently employed by Deltamune Ltd.

Deltamune Ltd just happens to be “a world class South African-based biotechnology company, with a focus on veterinary and public health”, which strives to “be a vaccine partner who is committed to finding solutions to our African diseases and conditions” as well as offering a “comprehensive laboratory solution to the animal health and food industry in South Africa.”

So now we have Ukutula Conservation Center breeding lions for scientific research, with an Advisory Committee full of persons attached to the very Universities that use UCC for their staff and students in research, persons who are also possibly employed by a biotechnology company involved in researching and laboratory testing of vaccines and pharmaceuticals. A biotechnology company which also just happens to list North-West University as one of its associates, and surprise, North-West University also uses UCC for its scientific research projects. With literally every facet of Ukutula and all the “experts” and Universities both directly and indirectly attached to UCC and each other, it’s impossible to maintain an objective oversight of ethics and standards. Everyone has something to lose if anyone tries to blow the proverbial whistle over a problem, so no one is likely to say anything. The reputation of prestigious Universities have been inexorably bound to the reputation of UCC, as have the reputations of all the individuals who have carried out their own research at UCC. This conflict of interests even carries on into some of the guest presenters at UCC’s upcoming “professional conference”. Professor Ché Weldon is an Associate Professor with North-West University, which as just listed, both uses UCC for research, and is an associate to Deltamune Ltd.

With all of these grotesque facts laid out like wastrel possibilities abandoned in favor of easy and convenient research, it’s unconscionable to see figures like Dr. Johan Marais and Dr. Zoe Glyphis of Saving The Survivors sign on to present at UCC’s farcical “Wildlife Research & Its Contribution to Conservation” conference in November. Ukutula has struggled valiantly to sweep it’s dirty cub-petting and lion-walking business out of sight under the proverbial rug, replacing that reputation with the facade of a reputable center. By engaging with UCC, genuine conservationist only help blur the public’s understanding of the damage that groups like UCC cause.

UCC continues to pour money into sculpting a new image for itself, repeatedly posting on their pages that UCC supports “the IUCN’s one-plan-approach (OPA) to species conservation and animal breeding principles, where animal breeding is considered an important part of conservation management as stipulated in terms of the convention of biodiversity held in 1994.”

This disclaimer appears in multiple places throughout the UCC website.

But UCC is not actually a member of the IUCN, and while they claim to “support” the OPA their statement regarding it takes an immensely complex concept and narrows it down to one ideal–that captive breeding is an important part of conservation management–while ignoring the overreaching scopes of the OPA. And for good reason. If one actually takes the time to understand the OPA, they will find that UCC does not meet the requirements laid out by the IUCN, nor does the IUCN support captive breeding cavalierly the way UCC presents.

OPA was originally written as a failsafe in order to include even captive populations (ex situ) of animals within the scope of longterm planning for conservation. Because any captive population is ex situ, but only ex situ populations which meet strict specifications to qualify as part of OPA, the IUCN guidelines are specifically intended for situations in which individuals (or live bio- samples) of any species (or other taxonomic unit) are present ex situ for any period of time for a clearly defined conservation purpose.

The IUCN guidelines go one to clarify that:

Only ex situ populations with clearly defined conservation goals and objectives that contribute to the viability of the species as a component of its overall conservation strategy. While many different types of ex situ populations exist, with many different and sometimes overlapping roles and contexts, ex situ management for conservation only applies to those ex situ populations that have conservation as their primary aim. The ex situ activities must benefit a population, the species, or the ecosystem it occupies and the primary benefit should be at a higher level of organisation than the individual. The conservation goals and objectives can be diverse and may include not only providing individuals for reintroduction or other conservation translocations, for genetic rescue or as insurance against extinction, but also for allowing tailored conservation education, conservation research and training that targets the reduction of threats or the accruement of conservation benefits for the species.

Again, and again, the IUCN guidelines specify that any and all breeding or captive management of a particular species be maintained solely for the purpose of conservation, with any and all research focused solely on the conservation of the species in question. Meanwhile, Ukutula commercially breeds, sells, and trades, lions for scientific research purposes which–in Ukutula’s own words–are not designed to benefit lions at all.

UCC’s obsessively repeated claim that the IUCN considers captive breeding an important part of conservation management is simply one more intentional mistruth in their bid to con the public with their conservation claims. It’s just a new spin on an old lie, that lie being that the continued breeding of captive lions will somehow aid in the conservation of wild lions. And as long as scientists and universities are willing to turn a blind eye to the abuse of cub petting and lion walking in favor of getting in some research, Ukutula will continue putting new spins on its old lies. As long as genuine conservationists are willing to overlook the constant breeding, and missing older lions in favor of “not rocking the boat” Ukutula will continue to farm lions like potatoes in the field. And as long as idolized figures like Kevin Richardson are willing to buy into the scheme by purchasing farmed lions from Ukutula (as he did for his upcoming movie, Mia And The White Lion) there will always be an open market of people willing to buy farmed lions.

Guest at Ukutula participating in cub-petting with a white lion cub.

Scene from Mia And The White Lion featuring white lion cubs purchased from Ukutula, supposedly this represents conservation.

Another Ukutula guest participating in cub-petting with a white lion cub.

Another still from Mia And The White Lion using white lion cubs purchased from Ukutula, supposedly offering a message of conservation.

Every engagement professionals participate in with Ukutula–no matter the goal–supports the systemic breeding and abuse of captive lions and other animals for research and profit. And every time the conservation community allows such participation to slip aside without rebuke, we are endorsing that support of systemic breeding and abuse of captive lions and other animals for research and profit.

Don’t be conned by new spins on old lies. Don’t stand aside and allow lion farms like Ukutula to quietly redress their shabby exploitive realities with fancy conservation window dressings. Speak up, speak out. If we don’t do so today, our chance will be gone by tomorrow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Exotic in times past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Johnson

Johnson’s teacher, Doc Antle.

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

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

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

You Only Peddle What You Can Sell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by an adolescent boy

• Lion is rare, boy is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Lion and boy must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

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

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

Filming White Lion

Mia And The White Lion

• Stars a white lion

• Features myths of the Shangaan

• Lion must travel to land of the Shangaan

• Lion protected by adolescent girl

• Lion is rare, girl is special

• Hunter is seeking white lion because of his coloring

• Girl and lion must face down/evade evil hunter

• Multiple lions used to portray white lion

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

• Movie acclaimed for using real lions

• Movie acclaimed for long filming timeline

• Movie acclaimed for actors interacting with real lions

• Movie acclaimed for supposedly promoting lion conservation

• Richardson in charge of procuring all lions used

• Richardson in charge of all lions and interactions

• Richardson subsequently keeps some lions for his own use

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

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

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

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

From White Lion’s About page:

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

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

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

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

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

From Mia And The White Lion’s Pages:

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

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

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

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

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

To Recap:

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

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

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

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

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

Hard Choices, Which Only You Can Make

Hard Choices, Which Only You Can Make

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s really what this is all about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But one must also then say that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Conservation Is Just Another Way To Spell Exploitation

When Conservation Is Just Another Way To Spell Exploitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Gilles' website.

From Gilles' website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profit.

Profit is why Ukutula breeds lions in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which will you choose?

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

Justice For Captive Wildlife Worldwide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“she died because of her own transgression”

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

And here are some of the reactions toward Hodges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit Andrew Van Ginkel

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

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

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

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

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

Exploitation.

The Truth Hurts

The Truth Hurts

Captive Wildlife Watchdog is devoted to the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Idealistic Communes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaguars might spend days at a time up in the canopy

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

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

A Sumatran tiger caught on a study camera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

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

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

Demi Lovato at Black Jaguar White Tiger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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