We highly recommend checking out NatGeo’s article “Suffering unseen: The dark truth behind wildlife tourism”. It is a fairly well rounded amalgamation of the multiple facets of the captive wild animal tourist industry, explaining why that “dream trip to go visit elephants, pet lion cubs, pose with adult big cats, or swim with dolphins will cost tourist money, but costs the animals involved far, far more.
The exposé style article covers, at length, the elephant tourist industry, as well as others who promote interactions with captive wild animals, and the few remaining circuses. It goes a step farther, however, than many articles, in that it discusses not only common tourist attractions, but also less mainstream–though highly visible–activities like elephants painting pictures.
A feature that many readers might not know about, or fully understand, is using captive wild animals as photo props in the creation of fantasy (many times) imagery. Elegant photographs of willow-thin models bedecked and bedazzled in sumptuous gowns and adornments, reclining against a bear, or wandering through the trees with an owl their shoulder or a wolf padding alongside have become ubiquitous. They saturate Facebook feeds, and Instagram. Although such images are extremely popular, little, if any, information about the animals being used is ever offered to viewers. The fact that they’re being held in captivity and forced to perform and pose for photographs should be the first read flag. The public, however, seems to presume that the animals have been rescued, or that they’ve been saved from some horrible threat. Photographers encourage this presumption, and many also frame the activity as “putting money into conservation”. Pay to pose with a bear, and the money helps save bears everywhere is an excellent “selling point” for photographers.
Author Natasha Daly spins out thorough timelines and flow charts created by words in order to explicitly draw lines throughout the exploitive industry in a way which is informative to the public, a huge percentage of which are ignorant to the actuality of selfies, and “helping care for elephants” activities.
But despite it’s length and breadth of content, there is at least one point tidily ignored. Whether this exclusion is intentional, or if the author simply doesn’t consider the the subjects to be an example of exploitation isn’t clear.
The fact that the author addresses the use of captive wild animals in fine art photography is an excellent step in the right direction, and not something that most conservation groups take the initiative to condemn, or discuss. With the insufferable amount of triaging that’s done within conservation, calling one person an exploiter for doing something with captive wild animals, but commending another for doing the same thing because of a perceived difference in intent, it’s all too easy to overlook or ignore the use of captive wild animals in photography by supposed conservationists as a form of exploitation. And this is what the article doesn’t venture to address.
In recent years, the use of captive wild animals in photography has only been criticized in-depth within the perimeters of forcing animals to pose, or even fixing them in a position by means of bondage, in order to take contrived “amazing” photos. Several renown photographers have had their careers curbed after it was revealed that they used captive wild animals to fabricate photos that seemed to portray wild animals in wild places. The criticism, however, as been grossly uneven. For example, David Yarrow, whom CWW has discussed multiple times, has become famous world wide for his “wildlife” photography. In many cases, however, Yarrow’s photos are created using captive wild animals in controlled situations, and then are billed as showing wild animals. Because Yarrow is supported by the Tusk Fund, and enjoys a number of big name connections (like the English Royals) he’s able to produce fabricated photographs of “wild” animals using captive ones virtually with impunity as far as large conservation orgs go. No one, it seems, wants to point out that the photographer favored by the Crown is faking wildlife photos, at least in some cases.
But if the public is going to be encouraged to condemn the use of captive wild animals for the purpose of fine art photography, then that ethical standard must be applied fully, and without showing favoritism. Photographer Barantseva and captive wild animal owners the Panteleenkos are paid to create fantastical imagery using captive wild animals. Yarrow pays Kevin Richardson for the same thing. Barantseva captures fairytale like settings using Panteleenko’s animals, Yarrow captures moving statement images using Richardson’s lions.
The duplicity of warning tourists away from interacting with captive wildlife, but then celebrating others like Richardson for interacting with the same sets the public up to fail in understanding that the handling of captive wild animals in its entirety is exploitive. If there’s one exception to a rule, there’s never only one exception. There’s always room for another exception. And if you believe that handling captive wild animals can help conservation, than any carefully constructed explanation of why it’s happening can be inserted to defend those who are doing it.
While this article criticizes Barantseva, it says nothing about Richardson, or the dozens of others who use “ambassador” animals to create fine art in the name of conservation. Barantseva’s work is condemned, but the photographer describes her own works as showing harmony between animals and humans, an idea she wants to convey is possible to achieve. That is a goal which is validated 100% by Kevin Richardson’s interactions with his lions, which he explains he does in hopes of showing the public that lions are capable of love an affection with humans. So which is true? If Barantseva using captive wild animals to create photographs showing that there can be harmony between humans and animals is exploitive and abusive, how can Richardson doing the exact same thing be anything less?
This double-talk is visible in an even more overt fashion within the article in association to the photograph taken at Samut Crocodile Farm and Zoo. In it, a man is shown putting a diaper on a chimpanzee, while a tiger lies chained to the wall in the background. Samut Crocodile Farm and Zoo is the facility to which Doc Antle has sold multiple tigers. It’s listed on the Rare Species Fund website as being one of the many so called “conservation projects” that is supported by customers who pay Antle for the privilege of playing with big cat cubs at his US facilities, something which Antle tells them directly supports big cat conservation.
Again, this causes a confusing and problematic duplicity which ignorant tourists and members of the public are being expected to navigate. Doc Antle explains–very persuasively, and with all the informed and attractive expertise of someone who “knows their stuff”–that by holding and playing with cubs visitors are supporting the protection and conservation of the cubs’ wild counterparts. Richardson helped make a feature length film that shows a young girl hand raising a lion cub, and playing with it, to “raise awareness” about, and conserve wild lions. One is exploitation, and the other, according to some, is actually conservation. But which is which? Again, it’s important to look at this from the perspective of someone who does not have any background, or pre-established platform of understanding in regard to these activities.
Both Richardson and Antle are charismatic and likeable. Both have decades of experience with big cats. Both started out “on the wrong foot” and then “changed their ways” and are now “working to conserve wild big cats”. From the perspective of someone who is ignorant, Richardson and Antle are interchangeable.
That notion is preposterous to fans and supporters of Richardson, who cannot objectively view the situation from a blind angle, devoid of any real understanding of either man. But as long as the conservation sector embraces entities like Richardson, and promotes them and what they do, entities like Antle are going to continue thriving, because fundamentally when it comes to the ethics and intent behind their actions Richardson and Antle are indistinguishable in the public eye.