The Enduringly Ephemeral Nature of Social Media and Captive Wildlife Exploitation

So much of our world is ephemeral that we’ve become accustomed to impermanence, even reliant on it. Poor choices, sad memories, awkward interactions, the discomfort of all are lessened by time, or distance. If we make a mistake today, we can try again tomorrow. If we say something we shouldn’t have, time gives us the chance to look back and learn. There’s always next time.

Exceedingly few things are capable of creating a mythically enduring generalized impact on the public, while simultaneously fading from existence in any specific detail within their minds.

Social media is one thing that can.

As the saying goes, the internet never forgets, but at the same time, it’s very poor at recalling the particulars. A video goes viral and everyone will remember what it showed, but not the context surrounding the video’s origin, why it took place or what the reality behind the imagery is. The exact details become a blur of hearsay and rumor, sometimes much debated, even when evidence of the genuine facts can be presented. This allows those with the intention of misleading the public much latitude in their actions, and even in how they coverup less desirable truths about their actions and intentions. One need only wait and bide their time before reposting their media with a new narrative. When they do so, chances are good that three things will happen:

1. Whatever indelible draw the media presented to the public originally will have the same attraction to a new audience.

1. The vast majority, if not the entirety, of the subsequent audience will have no idea that the media is not actually new, and that the true story behind it is not what is being presented to them now.

And

1. Those experiencing the media and story for the first time, caught up in its viral attraction, will not be easily dissuaded from whatever gut reaction they’ve had towards what’s been presented to them. Whether their response is positive or negative, they will be disinclined to alter their position regardless of the verified facts presented to them.

Thus, trying to counter the influence of popular CON-servation players on the internet is an uphill battle, at best, and even firmly anchored positions can be lost if one stands still too long. The efforts require constant attention, often taking an immense toll on the mental, physical, and familial ties of those doing the work. CWW has been on hiatus for months now, due to these factors as our members turned their focus on ill family members, and other daily-life issues that required our devotion and attention. It is our intention to now resume our efforts to counteract the lies, misinformation and false facades used by CON-servation players who would have the internet and public worship them as heroes.

Several major players have already been successfully unmasked for the criminals they are:

Eduardo Serio remains in hiding, the few surviving animals of his Black Jaguar White Tiger empire in various zoos and facilities.

Doc Bhagavan Antle of T.I.G.E.R.S. and Myrtle Beach Safari has been convicted of four separate felonies, including wildlife trafficking and intent to traffic, and he is currently awaiting sentencing on these charges.

Jeff Lowe of the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park (which he swindled away from Joseph Maldonado the ‘Tiger King’) has been permanently forbidden from taking possession of, delivering, carrying or transporting any ESA-protected animals that have been unlawfully taken or exhibiting such animals to the public.

Joseph Maldonado the ‘Tiger King’ himself remains in jail for a myriad of crimes both against animals and humans.

It should be noted that none of the above mentioned people were covered by mainstream media to any extent before their arrest and convictions. Only after it became profitable to report on their profiting on the abuse and exploitation of animals did mainstream media bother with them.

And will the above mentioned men ever serve jail time specifically for the harm they caused to the animals in their care? It’s extremely unlikely.

Eduardo Serio has yet to ever be arrested, and even if he were, he has citizenship in the United States, but his animal abuse took place in Mexico. Those factors, coupled with his celebrity connections makes it almost a sure thing that he will never see jail time for his abuse of the animals in his care.

Although arrested and charged with felony wildlife trafficking, conspiracy to wildlife traffic, conspiracy to violate state laws protecting endangered species, Bhagavan Antle was acquitted of five counts of animal cruelty, and another four charges of the same were subsequently dropped by the judge in his case. He was only convicted on trafficking and conspiracy to traffic.

Jeff Lowe has been arrested multiple times for various things, but while his animals have been confiscated, and he’s been permanently banned from owning and exhibiting them, no jail time for his abuse against them is visible in the future.

Joseph Maldonado, the famed ‘Tiger King’ currently resides in jail for his participation in a murder-for-hire plot against Carole Baskin. Although Maldonado was also convicted of killing five tigers, selling tiger cubs and falsifying wildlife records, his sentence when broken down amounts to roughly two years for those killings, with another twelve years going to the illegal trafficking of animals, and the remainder addressing the murder for hire issue. Two years is hardly justice for the hundreds of animals who suffered and died under his care.

But our work is not about justice in the sense of jail time. It never has been and it never will be. Our version of justice is being able to pull back the veils of public persona from these abusers and show that beneath those carefully constructed images, all of them possess the same self-serving nihilistic arrogance and self-possession.

Every single one of the exploiters CWW calls out share several irrefutable facts:

1. They receive money for their public interactions with the captive wild animals in their care. Intention is both subjective, and moot. They publicly handle captive wild animals for profit.

1. They have purchased captive bred wild animals for the purpose of interacting with them for public spectacle and profit.

1. They have used the guise of supporting, or promoting conservation as the justification for their actions when in reality much of the profits, if not all, that they derive from their activities goes directly back into their own foundations and businesses.

There are no exceptions. Everyone CWW discusses share these facts in common.

And often times these exploiters have dedicated employees who sole purpose is to churn out social media content supporting them, while attempting to deflecting anyone who questions them and their actions. Anything they cannot explain away they can simply ignore for a few months, especially if those questioning them aren’t around to relentlessly continue questioning them, and keep those questions square in the public eye. CWW has no employees, or funding, so its contributors must work around their 9-5 jobs and lives, which is why we have been forced at times to pause in our social media presence. Moving forward we will be posting our articles on our new blog, and sharing them to Facebook. The blog is now live, but the current content is from several years ago, as we chose to focus on our Facebook presence rather than the blog. We will be adding older articles to the blog in order to catalog them, along with fresh content addressing current and ongoing issues. We hope you’ll join us for the journey!

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.

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.

Marketing The Mythical White Lion

Marketing the Mythical White Lion

We couldn’t help but notice that Mufasa the white lion is all over the internet.

Again.

Apparently, Mufasa the white lion is in desperate need of rescue from being auctioned off to canned hunting.

Again.

Because, apparently, even though “a sanctuary” has offered to take Mufasa the white lion, along with his “mate” Suraya (or Soraya) and give them a forever home, “the government” has refused this offer and would rather sell him to canned hunters.

Again.

We aren’t being facetious, or heartless. We’re simply pointing out that for over two years now, Mufasa the white lion has been in dire straights, but suspiciously, Mufasa has never been saved, nor has he ever been auctioned to the ubiquitously insidious canned hunters, who are, according to every fluff-piece article currently circulating, waiting within the shadows of evil to swoop in and buy a “rare” white lion. Because nothing sells like the timeless, yet modern-made, myth of the mystical White Lion.

Our caustic position is not directed at the lion, Mufasa, but rather at the media hysteria so easily induced, so easily spread, and so poorly informed. The tipping point for us, which brought on the addressment of the Mufasa situation, was when even dear old #PapaBear of #BlackJaguarWhiteTiger, himself, Eduardo Serio decided to grab some of the current “white lion mania”.

Over on the #BJWT Instagram page, Eddie shared one of the dozens of headliner articles currently circulating about Mufasa the white lion, and took the opportunity to ramble into a tirade about how corrupt Africa is (laughable, coming from a guy in Mexico who’s personally just as corrupt) and rail against trophy hunters before winding up by misquoting Einstein and then suggesting that the best way to save planet earth is to stop reproducing.

(For the record, #PapaBear the correct quote from Einstein is “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” So, even though you butchered the quote, you’re sort of right, because energy can be directed for either good or evil.)

Honestly, though, the “real” story of Mufasa the white lion doesn’t make anymore sense than Serio’s disjointed, misquotes and suggested doomsday-fixes

Here are the facts we can 100% verify regarding Mufasa the white lion:

1. There is a white lion named Mufasa who is living somewhere in Africa.

2. Mufasa was confiscated from a private owner.

3. Another cub named Suraya (also spelled Soraya) was confiscated around the same time, and the two are now a bonded pair.

And… well, and that’s all we know for sure.

Back in February of 2016, a white lion cub named Mufasa, accompanied by the backstory of having been confiscated by North West Nature Conservation and introduced to a cub named Suraya, or Soraya, and being involved in an “ongoing court case” first appeared on the Captured In Africa Foundation’s website. CIA still lists Mufasa and Soraya under their “Past Projects” with the description of “duration ongoing” in the write up which accompanies Mufasa, who is pictured as a 4 month old cub shortly after confiscation.

Mufasa's profile under the "Past Projects" section of the Captured In Africa Foundation website.

Fast forward three years to the present, and while Mufasa is still listed on the Captured In Africa Foundation’s “past projects” page, his story has been recirculated over and over again for the last year, with each manifestation of it repeating the same vague and undefined facts, that “the government” has refused to allow the white lion and his companion to be moved to “a sanctuary”, and instead wants to “auction” the white lion off to canned hunters. But while the trail of Mufasa begins with the listing on the Captured In Africa Foundation website (CIAF has never, that we know of, shared any media links decrying Mufasa’s dire situation, or attempting to garner support for him, or the cause of rescuing him, even though they have him listed as a rescue they are involved with) it quickly fades away into a world-wide internet game of “telephone” with hundreds of articles being shared, all repeating much deteriorated “facts” which are neither cited to source, nor independently verified. Most of them actually link directly to the GivenGain fundraiser being held by Wild For Life, where Mufasa is being housed. Because that’s not like the fox guarding the henhouse, or anything.

Although “a sanctuary” is referenced repeatedly, only one article we found actually named a sanctuary, the validity of which we cannot confirm. Though the same sanctuary has been named in speculation amongst private fb groups, that sanctuary has never publicly posted about Mufasa on any of their social media pages, or their website, nor have they indicated they are attempting to rescue the white lion.

Multiple government agencies have been referenced as being responsible for refusing to allow Mufasa to be taken to “a sanctuary” but none of those agencies have ever made a public statement about the white lion or his companion, aside from denying accusations, nor can we find any specific person or official named in association with the refusal of “the government” and its supposed actions.

No specific reason aside from “recouping money” has ever been listed as to why auctioning Mufasa off would be preferable to allowing him to be sent to a sanctuary. If money is the issue one wonders why the “government agencies” wouldn’t just offer to sell Mufasa to the public at large? After all, the latest update on the “Save Mufasa” fundraising page states that “The Department” has declined “our offer” to write off costs in exchange for the lion (virtually every article about Mufasa addresses only him, but the lioness he lives with is interchangeably ignored, or presumptively lumped in with him) the update goes on to say that “court costs” will be pushed over R100000. That fundraiser, however, has already gathered some R142000 (about $10k USD) So if that much money can be raised to defend Mufasa in court, surely more could be raised to simply buy his safety. Never mind that the same article which did speculate about specific sanctuaries also noted that “the department” responsible for refusing to let Mufasa go to that sanctuary was offered some R300,000 (about $21,000 USD) which they refused. That same article then posited that “the department” wanted to sell Mufasa into the canned hunting industry for $50,000 USD. The article did not, however, offer any evidence to back up this claim.

White lions are not rare. Not in captivity.

They’re just not.

Sorry to destroy the mythos, but white lions are bred constantly because–brace yourself for this shocker–the public is fixated with white lions, and the white lion mythos.

Yes, in the wild, white lions are rare. But in captivity, they are THE THING to have. And since the first lions possessing the recessive trait that causes the coloration were identified, they’ve been consistently, constantly bred in captivity, while their mythology has be built up to epic proportions, and entire foundations have been created with the supposed goal of preserving them as a species. Even though the truth is that the captive white lions of today have been created and maintained to feed an idealistic mythology contrived to sell a romanticized fiction to the public. This is also why Mufasa was given a vasectomy. Because he was bred in captivity, from a captive population. We do no need more captive white lions created to perpetuate a largely fictionalized mythos, nor do we need average tawny lions being bred in captivity. Therefore Mufasa was given a vasectomy, as he should have been. However, the fact that he cannot sire more captive offspring is now being falsely vilified–when it was the appropriate thing to do. Those pushing this effort to “save” Mufasa are now implying that because he’s received a vasectomy, he’s “worthless” to everyone except canned hunters. However, the only value Mufasa would have as a stud producing cubs, would be measured in how many captive-bred cubs he could sire in his lifetime. Cubs which would be bred only for the purpose of being , exploited within the captive lion industry.

Any common captive bred male white lion, can, theoretically, be sold for $30,000+ USD to the canned hunting world.

So why would “government departments” in SA spend two years or more battling in court, spending money on the effort, to get their hands on Mufasa specifically, just so they can turn around and “auction him off to canned hunters” to “make back the money spent on his care” when there are hundreds of other captive white lions in existence at any given time? The numbers just don’t add up.

Well, not when you look at the possible monetary profit to be gained by putting Mufasa up for auction. Now, if you’re talking numbers as they relate to website hits, shares, and the attention of the public, then you’re on to something. Because if there’s one thing that sells, it’s a mythical white lion in crisis. Just Google Mufasa the white lion. Hundreds, and hundreds of hits, articles that give no actual information, or give incorrect facts stating how “rare” white lions like Mufasa are, linking to questionable statistics provided by foundations built on the fictions of the white lion mythology, rather than science. The internet is currently awash with all things Mufasa The Mythical White Lion.

Now, with the public whipped into a frenzy over Mufasa’s imminent demise at the hands of canned hunters, with the mythical, “rare” white lion front and center it the public eye, and with celebrities like Ricky Gervais and Russel Crowe vowing to take on the entire African canned hunting industry in order to “save Mufasa the white lion” the Mufasa the White Lion FB page (which didn’t seem to even exist before July 12, 2018) has suddenly changed their story.

Although the top-pinned post on their feed discusses the imminent removal of Mufasa, under a court order (dated from early September) pleading for public support:

Post pinned to the top of the Mufasa FB page as of the publishing of this article

Lower, more recent posts, from just the past two days, announce that the campaign for legal costs has now been closed, saying:

“I have closed the campaign for legal costs for the court case for Mufasa and Soraya. Following the generous offer by our lawyer Carel Zietsman and other members of the legal team to donate the money towards the lion's immediate needs, it is only fair not to take any more donations for that campaign.”

Much more recent post, only visible if you scroll down the page, stating that the original legal-fee fundraiser is closed, but that the money raised will not, in fact, go to legal costs, but rather be used, in part, for the current care of Mufasa.

Wait, after months of circulating this story, and raising money for court costs so as to allow the rehab center where Mufasa and Suraya are living to fight for their lives, the lawyers have decided to donate all that money for the immediate needs of Mufasa and Soraya?

The post goes on to state that:

“We have therefore decided to use some of that money to create a safety zone around the area where they are kept. This will increase our ability to react quicker in case of intrusions and especially before anyone can get to our lions. This will be in addition to the double fencing, cameras and other security measures already in place.”

Buuut what about the court order demanding that Mufasa be turned over to Natcon?

What about the legal fight to have Mufasa sent to “a sanctuary”?

Now money donated for the legal battle to save Mufasa and get him moved to “a sanctuary” is being used to “create a safety zone” around the area where he’s currently living? A place where he’s not going to stay?

And how does the announcement that the lawyer and her legal team have decided to donate the money raised for them, to the care of Mufasa even make sense? That first campaign for legal funds said point blank:

“Although our lawyer is working pro bono, court cost in this case will come to approximately R50 000”

This number was then raised to R100 000 in the most recent update, saying:

“The case will now be heard in High court in Mmabatho, which pushes up our court costs to R100 000. We tried to stay in regional court to prevent the escalation, but the department has now forced our hand, hence the increase in fundraising effort.”

If the court case is ongoing, then court costs still exist. Lawyers don’t get to just waive them, and choose to donate the money designed to cover them to some other area.

And in another post (both posts are from 11/17/2018, put up within about 20 minutes of each other) the Mufasa FB page says:

“our legal team are hard at work in trying to secure Mufasa and Soraya a safe, lifecare agreement at a reputable sanctuary”

Another post, even farther down, stating that a new fundraiser is being started, even though the fight is "not over", also naming Drew Abrahamson for "handling this" apparently referencing Mufasa's saga.

This post continues to say:

“I am hereby posting our new campaign for the relocation of the lions when approved including veterinary care, relocation of lions and humans as needed when the time arrives.”

Okay, now just hold on.

In two separate posts from the same day the Mufasa FB page announced that it was closing the campaign to raise money for court costs, and instead, was going to use that money, which was raised for legal fees (legal fees they had just increased on the fundraising page) to “create a safety zone” around the Mufasa’s current location at Wild For Life. The Mufasa FB page then turned around and announced that it was opening a NEW campaign to raise money in order to pay to relocate Mufasa and his companion, vet care, and humans (?) “when the time arrives”.

The link accompanying this post takes the viewer to a totally new fundraiser that has an even more confusing write up stating:

“We are in the middle of the legal fight to get Mufasa and Soraya to a sanctuary, however we have to look forward and start thinking about their future. Our legal team has identified a preferred sanctuary and a letter of confirmation to confirm their future care is in our hands. The building of a totally new enclosure has been sponsored by an anonymous sponsor. We are still working on getting sponsorships for certain aspects. This campaign focusses to raise funds to relocate the two lions from their current location to their future home including veterinary care-darting, vets accompanying lions, relocation of lions as well as travel and overnight costs for humans involved in the relocation.”

So, the fundraiser to support legal fees has been closed, and now that money isn’t going to legal fees, it’s going to be used for the lions current care, without any explanation as to why the (ongoing) court costs magically do not need to be paid, even though the group actually increased the sum needed to cover court costs in that fundraiser’s last update. There’s a court order to relinquish Mufasa, and he’s apparently still on the verge of being auctioned off to canned hunters, but the Mufasa FB page is now running a new fundraiser to pay for the transport of two lions they don’t yet legally have a right to transport anywhere but which they eventually intend to transport to a sanctuary where a “totally new enclosure has been sponsored by an anonymous sponsor.” and where work is still being done toward “getting sponsorships for certain aspects.”

Screenshot of the "new" fundraising campaign created for Mufasa

Are you confused yet? Because we sure are.

This second post also gives a special “thank you” to Drew Abrahamson “for handling this”. Abrahamson is the founder/owner of the Captured In Africa Foundation. You know, the one who claimed to be in charge of “saving” Mufasa back in 2016.

And in case you doubt our assertions, here’s Drew Abrahamson, of the Captured In Africa Foundation enjoying a little playtime with Mufasa shortly after he arrived at Wild For Life (but apparently available for cuddles, if you know the right folks).

Wait, what?

Is, or is Mufasa not in any real danger?

Is, or is Mufasa not about to be auctioned to canned hunters?

Is, or is Mufasa not safe in his current location?

Is, or is Mufasa not the center of a legal conflict?

Is, or is Mufasa not in need of monetary support at all?

Just which sanctuary has been anonymously funded to house Mufasa?

If “other sponsorships” are being secured, why is there a new fundraiser to cover costs associated with relocation that isn’t guaranteed to happen?

If the court battle is ongoing, and it’s “not over” as the Mufasa FB page says, why is the money that was raised to support the legal battle not being used to fight the legal battle that’s still ongoing? And where did those court costs disappear to, since they apparently don’t need to be paid now?

If only part of the money which was originally raised for court costs which have now disappeared, is being spent on improvements to where Mufasa is currently living, but where he won’t be staying forever, where is the rest of the money going to go?

If the same person (Drew Abrahamson) who stated that her Foundation was directly involved with saving Mufasa as a 4 month old cub back in February of 2016, who was apparently able to visit him, and interact with him whenever she wanted, and who also stated back in 2016 that “Both cubs will be relocated to a sanctuary in due course.” is the person who is “handling everything” now, in 2018, and has been directly involved start to finish with Mufasa, why are articles claiming that Mufasa is about to be auctioned off to evil canned hunters at any moment being circulated and recirculated around the internet? And why isn’t Abrahamson, or her Foundation, Captured In Africa making any effort to publicly clarify the facts surrounding Mufasa, since she is apparently the one “handling everything” associated with him?

The answer to everything above, is:

We don’t know.

But we do have a few ideas.

The mythos of white lions has been something marketed and capitalized on for years now. Exceedingly few white lions have ever existed in the wild, yet an ever-growing captive population of white lions persists, and there are more than one group and/or foundation who seek to use them as figureheads. Richardson used white lions in his movie White Lion (then continued to use those white lions for his own purposes). Many books touting the myths of the sacred white lion can be found through a simple Google search, and many of them urge readers to help “preserve” this fictionalized species of lion. Now Richardson has endeavored to make a second feature length film, Mia And The White Lion, showcasing another mythical white lion–and the white lions used in that production are already living at his sanctuary where he’s already using their images to sell products and raise money.

Similarly, Drew Abrahamson of the Captured In Africa Foundation, has quite a lot to gain from the media attention and world-wide focus being enjoyed by a white lion she has, by her own words, known since he was a young cub. After all, Abrahamson describes herself as “being involved with various initiatives and organizations” including “fundraising for Sanwild Wildlife Sanctuary”. Huh, imagine that. Sanwild Wildlife Sanctuary is the very sanctuary who has been mentioned only once via a public article, as being the probable future home of Mufasa the white lion. The same white lion lion Drew has been involved with since he was a cub in 2016. Well, that’s awful convenient, isn’t it? And rumors are going around that Abrahamson would like to expand her largely self-promoted reputation outside of South Africa. Single-handedly facilitating the “rescue” of the now-world famous Mufasa The White Lion would be quite the feather in her cap wouldn’t it? Organizations in countries other than SA would probably line up to hire Abrahamson to talk about herself then, wouldn’t they? No conflict of interest there...

Whoever winds up with Mufasa the mythical white lion (and make no mistake, if Mufasa ever was in any real danger, he most certainly is well clear of that now, what with literally millions of internet users sharing his story tens of thousands of times and growing) is going to have the equivalent of a public relations’ wet dream. A gorgeous, mythical male white lion, snatched from the proverbial jaws of the canned hunting industry by an adoring public who chose to stand up against the darkness in a show of solidarity against those who would decimate the dwindling numbers of magical white lions in the name of greed and profit.

Oh, the drama of it all!

Too bad none of the people involved, from the internet masses, to those like Drew who have been involved the entire time, and have just remained mum about their involvement, to the passionate, but largely ignorant celebrities like Gervais, and Crowe (so eager to tweet and retweet, but not taking the time to ask important questions first) don’t feel the same way about plain old boring tawny lions. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If boring old tawny lions were treasured even half so much as largely captive-created mythical white lions are, we wouldn’t be sitting here speculating on what Foundation, or movement is going to wind up using Mufasa’s noble white lion visage as the face for their project, or cause, or coalition, or whatever they decide to call it. We wouldn’t be waiting to see who ends up using Mufasa the white lion as a figurehead for their efforts or causes, using his name and story as leverage to further their own ends by drawing in the public’s adoration and fanatical devotion.

We don’t know who will eventually benefit from being able to say they hold guardianship over the world famous, mythical Mufasa The White Lion.

We don’t know who will step forward to hoist Mufasa The White Lion up as a figurehead, leveraging his internet stardom to bolster their own agendas.

We don’t know exactly how the melodrama of the mystical Mufasa The White Lion will eventually play out.

But what we do know, is that white lions and the carefully cultivated mythos surrounding them sells. The only question is who’s going to end up selling Mufasa’s image for their own use?

And with November now packed with White Lion Drama pertaining to the valiant “rescue” of Mufasa the White Lion from the clutches of Canned Hunters, it’s setting up the December release of the feature length film Mia And The White Lion which just happens to be about a White Lion at risk of falling into the clutches of Canned Hunters, to bring in a tidy sum of profits. Because, you know, the entire internet world is going to be pumped and primed with save the mythical White Lion fever just in time to go drop a dime watching the heart-wrenching theatrical drama of a girl trying to save her mythical White Lion friend from being killed by canned hunters, just like the real-life Mufasa was saved from canned hunters.

Whether or not this is a coincidence of mythically convenient proportions (see what we did there?) we don’t know.

But what we do know, is that mythical white lions sure do sell. And someone in South Africa, some group, or Foundation, or cause, is about to cash in huge, where Mufasa The White Lion is concerned.

*** ADDENDUM***

Because of the controversy this article has inspired, CWW has chosen to add this update in order to make our position on several points regarding Mufasa explicitly clear. This article was not written in any attempt (as has been suggested in some cases) to prevent Mufasa from being rescued from auction. Whether or not Mufasa is sent to auction, or allowed to be moved to a sanctuary is a LEGAL MATTER which will be decided by the courts in South Africa. This is not something CWW has any influence over. If we did, we would be influencing those courts to pass legislation which bans canned hunting and the breeding of lions in captivity.

The purpose of this article was to raise questions as to how the case of Mufasa is being handled by those who wish to secure his safety, because right now there remain many unanswered questions which needed to be asked. As of the addition of this addendum, Carel Zietsman, who has named himself as the lawyer working on Mufasa’s case, and as the person in charge of putting him in the public spotlight, has not formally engaged with CWW. He did, however, post a lengthy explanation of the “timeline” regarding Mufasa, in a public Mufasa Facebook group. This post was made after his attempted to get us to sign off on a joint statement with him via an individual he believed to be one of our members, that effort having been made outside professional channels and having been declined by us. In his explanation in the Mufasa Facebook group, Zietsman still failed to answer the questions we posed in this article, but he did highlight one of the main concerns CWW has which provoked the writing of the article to begin with.

After recapping the death of Cecil the lion, in his post, Zietsman went on to say:

“I decided that there was no way that we were going to read about a white lion named Mufasa being hunted and then we have this post mortem Facebook outcry. I was going to make him famous. After I was done with him, he would be such a household name that no trophy hunter in his right mind would come closer than a country width from him.”

There are several glaring issues with taking this approach the rescue of an animal. Firstly, it should be noted that there would not have been any sort of “Facebook outcry” in response to Mufasa’s death before now because until Carel chose to make Mufasa a household name, no one knew he existed, whereas Cecil was already a famous fixture in Hwange National Park at the time of his killing. Mufasa, known or not, does not deserve to be killed as a trophy (neither do the hundreds of tawny lions killed each year) However, the fact remains that Mufasa’s death would not have created an uproar before Carel chose to “make him famous” and turn him into “a household name”. Secondly, and this is the more poignant issue, the argument that making Mufasa a famous household name would indelibly protect him from trophy hunters is patently flawed.

Cecil (lion) Xanda (lion, Cecil’s son) Skye (lion) Wolf 527 (wolf) O-Six (wolf 832F) White Alpha (wolf) Big Brown (wolf 778M) Scarface (No. 211, grizzly) Pedals (black bear) Albin (moose) Ferdinand (moose) Bullwinkle (elk) Spirit Moose of the Mi’kmaq (moose) Emperor of the Exmoor (red stag)

All of these animals were famous. All of these animals were celebrities, and some of them were known worldwide. And that celebrity status did nothing to prevent them from being killed, legally, or illegally. Carel himself went on to acknowledge that by creating this media frenzy, he was also endangering Mufasa.

“But I created a problem as well.” Carel admitted in his post, explaining why the proposed sanctuary where Mufasa will (hopefully) be sent must remain secret. After pointing out the problem of paparazzis trying to take photos of the lion if they’re lucky, he went on to add that “If we are unlucky some stupid with a shotgun may want to rid the earth of the scourge of man eaters.”

These conflicting statements underscore one of the issues CWW has with the way that Mufasa is being presented and his situation handled. Carel first states that he wanted to make Mufasa so famous that no hunter would come near him, but then just a few sentences later, Carel states that because Mufasa is famous, his location must remain secret as someone may try to shoot him due to his notoriety.

And that brings us to another ethical issue CWW has with all of this. If you create a market for celebrity animals by sensationalizing them and their rescue, you are still turning them into a commodity. Those supporting the attention Mufasa is getting maintain that by making him famous, they can bring awareness about canned hunting to the world. They’re giving Mufasa value as a celebrity figure, and thus commodifying him. It pays to be famous.

But Blood Lions has been, and remains, the largest, most established, and greatest advocate for the anti-canned hunting movement, and they became the central voice of that anti-canned hunting movement without exploiting the animals they’re endeavoring to save.

The exploitation of an animal in the name of raising awareness about how people should stop exploiting animals is an issue CWW has covered at length. It’s the theory on which every exploiter we discuss has founded their individual existences. Kevin Richardson handles his lions to raise awareness about canned hunting. Eduardo Serio handles his animals to raise awareness about not keeping them as pets. The Real Tarzann, Doc Antle, and so on and so forth, all of these people have turned their animals into commodities used to supposedly stop animals from being turned into commodities. But the truth is that they’ve simply turned those animals into a commodity that is tastier for human consumption. It’s easy to feel good about doing something you know is wrong, if you can say you’re doing it for the right reasons. That does not, however, make whatever you’re doing less wrong.

There are numerous foundations which do not seek out headliner stories, or fame and fortune, or direct animal interaction, but who do tirelessly rescue, rehab and offer safe and lasting homes for those animals in their care. The Wild Animal Sanctuary, Drakenstein, Four Paws, Lions Rock. These and more have established themselves as entities devoted to saving animals, public education and raising awareness, without capitalizing on, or commodifying, those animals. If one is willing to exploit an animal in the name of saving it, or “raising awareness” about it, where does one then draw the line defining how much or what kind of exploitation is, or is not, acceptable?

As we said in the original article, Mufasa’s saga, and the intentionally cultivated hyper-sensationalism of it, stands to net those involved with his rescue a huge amount of press and prestige (along with security nightmares, regarding Mufasa’s safety) but the question is, did Mufasa need to become world famous in order to be rescued? Groups like TWAS and others mentioned manage to wage a savage war against animal cruelty and exploitation both in and out of court without turning the animals they’re fighting for into worldwide celebrities. There remains a sharply defined division within the conservation world, between rescue organizations and sanctuaries who strive to help animals and educate the public without seeking fame and public adoration, and those rescue organizations and sanctuaries who thrive off of news coverage, and public praise, and who use that coverage and attention just to function. The former respect the animals for what they are, preserving the agency of those animals as they work to affect changes that will protect them in the future, while the latter commodifies the animals they rescue, using them as as tools and figureheads in the pursuance of their endeavors.

That difference is key. This is why CWW was first moved to write the above article. We had fair and reasonable questions as to why Mufasa’s situation was being turned into a media blitz with few concise facts and several concerning inconsitencies. These questions remain unanswered for now. Eventually, Mufasa’s saga will play out, and when that occurs, we will then be provided a better view of the mechanisms involved with his case. Will he and Soraya be afforded the peaceful lifelong home they deserve? Or will they become simply the headliner for whatever sanctuary (be it an existing one, or a newly founded one, since there is mention of new enclosures being built) ends up taking on the role of protecting them? Only time will tell.

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.

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".”