Wildlife As A Wingman

Two recent incidents in the United States have gained widespread attention–in public opinion circles, and local news, if not nationally–and while each incident encapsulates very different tones, both represent one of the greatest challenges faced by wildlife advocates: the vast majority of humans see animals ad nothing more than wingmen to their main character. Whether it’s beloved domestic pets comforting us when we’re sad, providing us comic relief when we’re upset, or wildlife being used to validate us as ‘adventurers’ or ‘special people with special skills’, animals do not feature in their own stories. Rather they are only valued for the commodity they can provide to us.

The first case, which actually took place in late February, and only came to public light in early April involved a man named Cody Roberts, and took place in Wyoming. Roberts has since been described by various locals as just a normal guy. One letter to the editor opened with a dramatic statement painting Roberts as ‘a decent hard-working family man. He was absolutely heroic in saving the life of his wife, who was in a horrific snowmobile accident.’ The opening to the letter went on to say ‘she flipped and almost tore her leg off. Somehow he was able to control the bleeding and haul her back to the pickup by himself and then to the hospital.’

This referenced scene of attributed heroism is brimming with painful irony considering that in February 2024, Cody Roberts used a snow machine to intention chase down and repeatedly run over a female juvenile gray wolf, mangling it so badly it could not even fight back. Roberts then duct taped the wolf’s mouth shut, loaded it onto his snow machine, and hauled it back to town–just as one of his defenders states he had done in such ‘heroic’ actions with his wife. Only instead of seeking aid for the grievously injured young wolf. Roberts took the animal to a local bar where, for hours, he tortured it, posing with it for photos, putting a collar on it, kissing it for videos, offering others to take photos with it. When not being used as a prop for photos and videos, the young wolf was left lying in a corner, bleeding and slowing dying of internal injuries. There have been some reports that a shock collar was used on the animal, but those remain unsubstantiated. That a collar was put on it is evident in photos and videos but the type of collar is not clear. Eventually, after hours, Roberts dragged the juvenile wolf out behind the bar and either bludgeoned it to death or shot it, accounts vary on how it met it’s final end.

Perhaps the only thing more stomach-churning than the torture and abuse itself is the reaction of those who witnessed it, the reactions of the town, and the reactions of the state of Wyoming. They range from statements that are fully, aggressively supportive, stating all wolves should be killed Roberts did nothing wrong, to supportive of only Roberts while grudgingly admitting it wasn’t a great idea to bring the wolf to the bar and torture it, to virtual indifference that it happened at all. Official Wyoming state reaction ended up being an indifferent sort of shrug, fine of $250 USD with a sense of annoyed ‘What more do you want? We followed the laws about this’ to their few public issuances regarding the case.

And state officials did follow the laws.

The problem is, there literally are virtually no laws in the state of Wyoming in regard to protecting wolves or other predators. Although Wyoming’s Yellowstone area enjoys raking in around $35million dollars annually from wolf-related tourism, the state itself doesn’t care enough about the wolves themselves to put even basic abuse protection laws in place. As broken down in this article from Outside Online, the Republican led Wyoming Statehouse passed a bill in 2021 calling for the extermination of 90 percent of Wyoming’s wolf population–despite that it brings them $35million dollars annually. The bill passed was formulated on lies and misinformation designed to intentionally mislead voters, pushing the mythology of the ‘big bad wolf’ which most places of the world evolved past decades ago. Wyoming’s wolf laws differ from any other of any state inasmuch that they actually encourage cruelty towards wolves, rather than protecting them.

A thin rime of land around the perimeter of Yellowstone is the only area in which there is any regulation about killing wolves–not protecting from killing, merely regulation in how they’re killed. The rest of Wyoming in its entirety is a ‘predator zone’ where wolves can be killed in any manner, without reason, or justification. Multiple other Wyoming species fall into this category as well. As stated by Amaroq Weiss, Senior Wolf Advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, “You could pull a wolf apart with horses in 85 percent of the state” and this would not be considered animal cruelty.

Repeat that slowly.

In Wyoming, it is not considered animal cruelty to capture a wolf, tie each leg to a horse, and tear it apart alive, and that is not considered animal cruelty by Wyoming state laws. In fact, running wolves down, then over with snow machines as Roberts did is considered a fun sport in Wyoming. It’s called ‘wolf whacking’. And it’s been going on for decades. Even in the aftermath of this recent incident, the very government agencies who you would expect to protect wildlife from such gross abuses can only offer up shrugs and insistence that it’s not their problem, and they cannot stop it.

For Wyoming, wolves are a disposable wing man. They make the state look amazing, they draw crowds int he millions to Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park. They gather millions of online followers who eagerly track the movements of famous Yellowstone pack members. They also bring huge sums of money to things like The Yellowstone Wolf Project which funds studies on the wolves, as well as providing money to the park itself, a park which provides Wyoming with roughly $653millions dollars in economic benefits and 7,000 jobs annually.

And in research articles, after articles after articles, scientific study has shown that the existence of wolves in Wyoming has stabilized the entire ecosystem of Yellowstone park, allowed for the recovery of entire forests, and recovery of historical ecosystems which had been systemically damaged by elk overpopulation, and that wolves have actually strengthened the health of the elk populations, and increased their resilience to disease. Wolf tourism actually brings in about four times more in revenue annually than elk hunters, and has allowed venues which feared the arrival of wolves since they relied on elk hunters to make ends meet actually increase their operations. Where when they relied only on seasonal elk hunters in the past, they can now keep their establishments open year round for wolf-watchers.

And for all the fears about how wolves would ‘destroy’ the elk population if they were reintroduced to Yellowstone, the fact that without wolves, elk over populated and died off by the thousands in lean years, or in some cases were mass culled by humans preemptively. With the reintroduction of wolves, these mass starvation events stopped, as did the need for human management. Almost as if… wolves belonged there where they had been for millennia prior to humans eradicating them…

Yet for all of this, Wyoming does not care about wolves as living things, Wyoming does not care about wolves in regard to their value to the ecosystem, Wyoming does not care about wolves at all beyond their existence of a disposable wingman to the state. Since the repugnant actions of Cody Roberts a number of posts by Wyoming residents have protested that he doesn’t represent the state in its entirety, that Cody Roberts isn’t a an accurate representation of all Wyoming residents. But their protests ring hollow because actions speak louder than words, and those in power in the government of Wyoming, those who could enact laws protecting wolves from cruelty and abuse, laws that respected them for the unspeakable value they have in our world, were elected by the public of Wyoming. And Wyoming residents elected people into power who think it’s perfectly reasonable to allow thing like dismembering wolves alive. The reality is, residents of Wyoming don’t care what happens to wolves until they’re getting bad press about it. (In the case of this last linked article, CWW does not condone threatening establishments or residents do not do that, ever)

As of yet, it’s unclear what, if any, greater actions might be taken against Cody Roberts. In some respects, it is surprising that Roberts was even burdened with a fine by wildlife officials, considering he was not only known by the Wyoming Fish and Game Commission, but also employed by them, along with the Department Of Transportation, for various contracts. It seems impossible to believe they were not aware that he enjoyed engaging in ‘wolf whacking’ in his free time.

The second incident we will address had not so much to do with intentional cruelty as with an utter disconnect with the natural world, and complete indifference to the lasting damage that can be caused by a momentary choice. In North Carolina, a group of people noticed several small black bear cubs in a tree outside their apartment complex. It is 100% normal for female black bears to leave their cubs in trees, or other locations for hours at a time while they forage for food. What is not normal, are the actions the onlookers took, which was to physically rip one of the small cubs out of the tree (they tried valiantly to get both, but the second cub was in a better position to resist) then hoist the cub up in the air, squealing and jumping up and down with excitement and posing for photos. A word of warning, the video is disturbing, as evidenced by the horror of those filming the incident who recognized the abuse for what it was.

After managing to get multiple photos, the young woman holding the cub either throws, or drops it, apparently after having been bitten, though no mention of a bit was has been made. It is possible she was simply done with it, and tossed it to the ground. As the small cub had been pulled over a chainlink fence when it was forcibly dragged from the hiding spot where its mother had left it, it was unable to climb back over and escape. It was later captured by animal control and is being housed at a wildlife facility where it will hopefully survive and eventually be released. While early articles lamented the behavior, even national publications covered it, while some offered ‘bear etiquette’ information, there was no mention of what the repercussions for these actions might be.

Just days after the initial reports, we find out why possible charges or repercussions had not been mentioned initially. It is because due to North Carolina laws, there would not be any repercussions. At all. Subsequent articles specified that while wildlife officials investigated they would not be charging the people responsible for ripping a black bear cub away from its family, and nature. They did, articles specify, give the group a stern finger wag, though. So comforting for the terrorized bear cub…

Just as with Cody Roberts, the issue is that abusing animals in the way this group abused the bear cub, isn’t an issue at all, in the eyes of the current laws. North Carolina laws. As broken down with some wry wit in the first section an article by this publication’s ‘answer man’ the incident took place on private property, not publicly protected spaces, and per North Carolina law it’s only illegal to ‘capture and possess’ wildlife like black bears. But what defines ‘possess’ the term of confinement, etc. is not specified by law. A few minutes? A few hours? A few days? Generally it is only applied to cases where animals are being kept as pets, or held for purposes of trafficking and/or selling.

In this incident, the cub was only held for a few minutes, it was not removed from the area, it was ‘released’. So, no charges. North Carolina does have animal cruelty laws, both misdemeanor and felony. However, those laws require proof of ‘intent to harm’ and in this situation, the wildlife investigators state that they did not feel there was any ‘intent’ to harm the bear cubs. The statutes on animal cruelty do not address emotional distress or intent to separate the wildlife from its environment, or lasting impact, such as the orphaning of the cub in this case. The intent to physically rip a small bear cub from its natural environment, prevent it from getting back to nature, and force it to be a prop to serve human indulgence does not qualify for abuse, despite that the same small bear cub was also then thrown/dropped from standing height of a human, resulting in a limp upon capture.

Because using wildlife as our wingman, to make us look good, to make us money, to bring us attention and prestige is not illegal, or even frowned upon in the greater overview. Seeing animals as disposable commodities is not vilified, but rather excused, for any number of reasons. They were ignorant. They didn’t mean any harm. They thought it would be okay. The list goes on. Sometimes, even if the person causes great harm, as with the bear cubs in North Carolina, because they didn’t intentionally try to harm the animal by striking it, or handling it in an abusive way, it doesn’t count as abuse. Other times, even if the person intentionally tortures the wildlife, as with Cody Roberts in Wyoming, there literally are not any laws agains torturing animals. Either way, the result is the same. Wildlife is, by and large, nothing more than a disposable wing man to humans.

And until that changes, nothing else will change either.

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.

Why Do Big Name Celebrities Constantly Get Big Passes?

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

Kim Kardashian is in the news.

Again.

For engaging in exploitive animal abuse with elephants.

Again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We did full research before going.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance at MEPL

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

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

One. Hour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Exotic in times past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Johnson

Johnson’s teacher, Doc Antle.

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

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

Idealistic Communes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaguars might spend days at a time up in the canopy

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

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

A Sumatran tiger caught on a study camera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

Today’s Foolishness Is Tomorrow’s Tour Tickets.

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

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

Demi Lovato at Black Jaguar White Tiger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

Edorsments Do Not An Expert Make

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

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

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

But here’s where the disconnect comes in.

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

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

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

Which brings us back to celebrity endorsements.

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

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