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.