Mexico’s Harbinger of Stewardship, LIBERO Santuario Silvestre

In my last article, I discussed the disturbing trend within Mexico of “self styled” foundations which utilize social media, flashy photos, and carefully structured facades of scientific importance in order to create a false presence in circles of conservation. These groups, when one looks deeper than their social media personas and self-serving rhetoric, often have little real life experience in the fields in which they claim to be leading authorities. This is something that is usually, and to the detriment of the animals in their care, overlooked or misunderstood by devoted followers and by the public in general. It’s also a driving factor behind the actuality that these well known foundations are simply new age versions of the same old exploitation that’s existed in Mexico (as well as other places throughout the world) for thousands of years.

Part of what the I.C.A.R.U.S. Foundation does is to develop a global network of conservation organizations working together to protect and care for animals, through the creation of new international laws, as well as the enforcement of existing laws. A functioning network of institutes and sanctuaries who can rely on each other for support and the spread of awareness is vital in order to have a beneficial impact on animals and the environment worldwide. Thus, institutions which by design focus entirely on what they do, and the animals they possess and/or take in, and how popular they are, and which imply that they know more, and are better at handling situations than any other organization in existence, (some of which have been around for decades) do not, in fact, benefit animals or the environment beyond the limited scope of their own walls.

Only by working together, toward the same collective goals, rather than toward personal gain and popularity, can sanctuaries and foundations worldwide succeed in giving back at least a small portion of the planet to the animals which are being systematically eradicated from its surface. So what a foundation or sanctuary does outside the gaze of the public eye is just as important as what they do when people are watching. If you are willing to cut corners, endanger both humans and animals, threaten other groups, verbally abuse other humans, lie, and so on and so forth when everyone can witness it, then what are you willing to do to the voiceless animals behind the scenes when no one is watching?

One of my favorite quotes, which is extremely relevant to the current trends of shady foundations and exploitation of captive wild animals in Mexico, comes from Thomas Babington Macaulay.

“The measure of a man’s real character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out.”

In this case, the character in question happens to be a woman.

Her name is Maria Garcia Dominguez, and she is the founder of LIBERO Santuario Silvestre.

CMYvukDVEAAGfbX
Truly the first of its kind, LIBERO is a foundation that, when distilled down to its most fundamental constructs, is a sanctuary in every sense of the term. LIBERO is a an institute that will always do what’s right for the animals, even if no other human is there to witness their actions.

Numerous social media-based groups–like Black Jaguar White Tiger–gratuitously tout the word “sanctuary” without understanding the profoundly hallowed etymology behind it, and without grasping the restraint and sacrifices required to embody that which it represents. In contrast to ubiquitous “social-media foundations”, you will not see LIBERO posting a plethora of vapid updates on their website, Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook page multiple times a day, every day of the week. You will not see LIBERO showcasing photographs of cubs being cuddled and played with or celebrity guests bottle feeding them incorrectly, or of foundation workers running around being chased by captive big cats. In fact, you might not have even heard of LIBERO until reading about them in this article.

This is because LIBERO is focused on saving animals, caring for animals, protecting animals, studying them, and rehabilitating them.

They are dedicated to the animals not to social media attention and public popularity.

LIBERO does not participate in conservation in order to gain any sort of recognition. They’re not in it for any sort of admiration. They’re not even in it with a presumption of ever receiving simple gratitude.

LIBERO acts solely in the best interests of and on behalf of the animals they aid.

They have done so, in an individual manner, through the prior works of those who now comprise the human skeleton of the sanctuary since before they ever came together under the guidance of Maria and subsequently formed LIBERO. And they continue to work for, care for, protect, defend, heal, nurture, and exist entirely for the animals with whom they come into contact.

For LIBERO, social media is a tool for education and outreach, not a platform on which to build a celebrity status or cult following.

And that is exactly how a sanctuary should function.

I first discovered LIBERO through my research into sanctuaries within Mexico, or, more accurately, my research into the lack of sanctuaries and the lack of legal outlines and standards for sanctuaries within Mexico. After suffering more than one disappointment and false lead, I feared the worst when I first clicked on the link leading to the LIBERO website. You can check it out here. Maria has even made sure there’s an English option for those of us who aren’t fluent in Spanish. A margin of my wariness faded at just the mere sight of LIBERO’s homepage. Understated and elegant, lacking any pretension or declarations of being the best thing since sliced bread, or other ridiculous claims of intelligence so superior to anyone else that people who don’t agree with them are just too stupid to “get them” and their ideologies.

LIBERO’s site is easy to navigate (not every page is translated, but Google Chrome can do it for you) informative and detailed, captivating for those who already have an in-depth understanding of conservational issues, but also extremely accessible and educational for those who are just learning about conservation. That accessibility and assemblage of information is intentional. Education is something which Maria and her team believe is vital to changing the way in which residents of Mexico (and the world) perceive captive wild animals, and the environmental and conservational issues relating to them.

LIBERO subscribes to the principles of “One Health” which is a concept that dates from the mid 1800s and was far ahead of its time when it was first outlined and described by its creator, Rudolf Virchow. Of his own beliefs Virchow said:

“Between animal and human medicine there is no dividing line–nor should there be. The object is different but the experience obtained constitutes the basis of all medicine.”

I want to stress that the principle of One Health is not the belief that animals should be treated as if they were humans wearing fur, much like Eduardo Serio of Black Jaguar White Tiger treats his big cats, or, as he calls them, his “kids”. Followers of the One Health principles believe that animals are equal to humans in importance, emotional depth, and intelligence, but they do not support the anthropomorphizing of animals. Rather, One Health is the concept that the health of animals, the health of humans, and the viability of ecosystems are inextricably linked. This means keeping animals in their wild habitats, as active participants within the ecosystem, rather than living in peoples’ homes as pets.

Along with a sound system of principles, LIBERO has a dedicated team of professionals and specialists including doctors, engineers, lawyers, and more. You can read their individuate biographies here. Unlike the unseen, or vaguely referenced “experts” of other foundations, LIBERO’s team is forthright with their names, credentials and backgrounds. Likewise, LIBERO is dedicated honesty and transparency in all matters. You can research their financial information on their transparency page, here.

Maria herself has a career within conservation that spans more than a decade. She has worked with groups like The Humane Society International (HSI) World Animal Protection (WAP) and has collaborated on specific cases with Animal Defenders International (ADI) and In Defense of Animals (IDA), among other things. Up until 2013, Maria was a representative in Mexico for The Wild Animal Sanctuary, and was the national coordinators of rescues.

LIBERO is poised to be the harbinger of conservation stewardship in a country where captive wild or exotic animals can be more easily attained than clean drinking water. But unlike fallacious, media-driven institutes such as BJWT and the newly formed JITW, LIBERO does not yet have a fan base of millions to support them. Their refusal to exploit animals via attention grabbing videos, or for heartrending pleas for monetary support means that LIBERO cannot simply start slapping up “cutesy” incentives for people to give them money. They do not have the funds to offer “rewards” for donating to them, or, to start their own clothing line, or to offer, as with some of the foundations I’ve mentioned, “visitation rights” to those who donate larger sums of money. And as LIBERO embodies the very opposite of the exploitation so readily embraced by these well-known foundations, they cannot rely on any support from those institutes. Rather, they face competition from them, for if LIBERO is successful in changing the face of conservation, as they plan to, LIBERO will, in effect, make such exploitive foundations entirely obsolete.

CMIx4wxVEAAH_-a

I have been in contact with Maria, and will be doing an interview article with her at a later date, and I look forward to writing other articles about LIBERO in the future.

As of the writing of this article, Maria was exploring the possibilities of seeking a stipend or other funding from the Mexican government. Supporting LIBERO would be an immense opportunity for current government factions like SEMARNAT and PROFEPA to both acknowledge the deep-seated problems occurring within their country, and to take a step toward the reform so desperately needed in order to begin assuaging the plight of captive wild animals all across Mexico. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, one of the greatest difficulties in seizing and/or rescuing captive wild animals from abuse, neglect, or exploitation in Mexico is the lack of appropriate institutes in which PROFEPA or SEMARNAT can then place animals that were removed from dysfunctional situations. LIBERO can, with monetary aid from government, expand and become the depository for confiscated animals, assuring that they will not be placed in yet another situation of exploitation, like the animals given over to BJWT.

To rescue an animal from one situation of exploitation, and place it directly into another situation of exploitation does not actually address the fact that the animal is being exploited, nor does it do anything to change the public mindset that having cubs run around a private home is somehow beneficial to the cubs and supportive of conservation. Maria and her staff understand that you cannot teach people that exploitation is damaging is by using exploitation as the basis for the lesson.

To this end, LIBERO intends to develop a facility where rescued animals will be housed within the freedom of individual habitats, liberated from human influence, and studied unobtrusively in order to better understand the complications for captive animal husbandry. Any animals which are deemed viable for rehabilitation and release will be appropriately cared for with the most minimal human involvement as possible, and their release will subsequently be orchestrated. Knowledge gained from such rehabilitations and releases will be funneled directly back into LIBERO and used within their educational outreach, furthering the cause of changing minds and perspectives.

Government funding could go a long way in getting LIBERO completely off the ground and flying. Now, more than ever before, Mexico needs a genuine sanctuary. Mexico’s animals need a genuine sanctuary. The question is, do SEMARNAT and PROFEPA–the very agencies charged with overseeing the welfare of wild, and captive wild animals within the country of Mexico–understand just how desperately those animals need a sanctuary like LIBERO? And even more importantly, will SEMARNAT and PROFEPA admit, by helping LIBERO to secure government aid, that it’s finally time for a change in how captive wild animals are perceived and treated in Mexico?

Only time will tell. But for now, I implore you. Follow the links within this article, or posted below, and discover Maria’s LIBERO Santuario Silvestre for yourself. Then share the information and encourage others to share and follow them. Mexico needs a true wild animal sanctuary, and LIBERO needs you to support them so that they can be the wild animal sanctuary that the animals of Mexico need.

CLs1R5QUkAAjUG7

LIBERO Santuario Silvestre

LIBERO Instagram

LIBERO Facebook

LIBERO Twitter

Author: Artemis Grey

Advertisements

Cubs Cubs Everywhere, And With Them Oh The Funds We’ll Snare

There have been some exciting things going on over at Black Jaguar White Tiger. Exciting, that is, if you’re a BJWT fan/follower, or, as I’ve come to refer to them, an “Eddieite”.

Eddieite
Ed-ee-ite
One utterly devoted to the preachings of Eduardo Serio; incapable of seeing the fact that BJWT has contributed nothing to the conservation of big cats but motherless cubs, a plethora of hand reared animals, and numerous videos of its founder and his “special guests” playing with his own big cats. Eddieites react violently to any question posed against their adored leader, even in the face of scientific facts, and will often degenerate into sputtering curses and antiquated invocations of plagues, and poxes on naysayers of the “Blue Energy” religion of the BJWT Nation: They’re an Eddieite, they’ll believe anything Eddie says, unfailingly and without question. Synonyms: BJWT follower, celebrity conservationist, pseudo-conservationist, willfully ignorant lover of exploitive animal videos and pictures.
Origin: 2013-2016; Observations of an active animal cult.

But enough of the modern slang dictionary. We have more important things to discuss.

It’s Cub Season at Black Jaguar White Tiger!

Thus far we’re up to five “mystery boxes” the first four of which have contained one or more big cat cubs. In a June 25th “Pillow Talk” Serio stated that box 5 contained “monkey and a (unintelligible)” but we did not actually see these animals so I have no idea if those were the species, or names, or what. Then in another “Pillow Talk” on June 29th, we got this 2-frame glimpse into an otherwise ignored box in the “cub room”.

Screen Shot 2016-07-01 at 12.24.06 PM

All the other cubs were present and accounted for, but that’s no monkey lying there. The Eddieites following the feed certainly seemed to think it wasn’t a monkey, and offered up comments like:

“I saw box #5… its something black”
“Ohhhhhh I saw the black jag”
“There’s something black in box #5”
“What was black in the box?!?!”
“Saw something black, what did we see?”
“#isawnothingblack”
“Baby black jag????”
“A baby black jaguar (heart emogis)”

Excitement excitement! But we’ll just have to live off the thrill of not knowing, until Serio offers an official reveal.

There has been a small setback in the annual unveiling of Cubtopia, as one cub is already dead. (pesky inbreeding!) But it’s okay. Serio made up for the one cub dying by dubbing the surviving cubs the “Shakira Pride” after another jaguar who recently died (in a tragic Africanized bee attack) at Jaguars Into The Wild. So we’re good. Blue Energy all around, and no one’s getting dragged down emotionally over that little dead guy. Onward and upward!

For anyone who’s “sarcasm deaf” I’m dripping sarcasm at this point. It’s hard not to with daily videos of tiny, screeching big cat cubs trapped in cardboard boxes.

If you’re a regular reader of I.C.A.R.U.S. articles, you’ll recall that in other articles I’ve mentioned the fact that BJWT has a cycle as predictable as the tides of the ocean. A group of cubs arrive at BJWT with variations of the same three or four stories: Mom rejected them. The Mexican government confiscated them. Serio “saved” them from a “bad home”. Or they were taken from a zoo or circus. Recently, Serio has also started saying he’s “rescuing” cubs from canned hunting, something very peculiar, as there are an extremely low number of “trophies” exported from Mexico every year. But we’ll come back to that canned hunting thing later.

For now, the important thing to remember, is that every time a “pride” gets too big, they sort of just fade into the background, and new babies arrive, most of them so young that umbilical stumps are still raw. They are subsequently divided and put together in new “prides” and plastered all over social media for several months. Just in this year, we’ve had the Steve Jobs Pride, the Starving Union, Gustavo’s Pride, Tommy’s Pride, and most recently Shakira’s Pride.

In the three years since BJWT was founded, there have been three distinct sets of prides, some of which are now full blown adults, like The Big Pride, others which are 3/4 grown, like Cheyenne and the Super Pride, others which are half grown, like Lewis and Nicole, and then we’ve got the new babies. In all, tens of animals which all started out has bottle babies or young animals which were specifically hand reared.

Full disclosure, I might have left out some prides, and I might have accidentally named one pride by two names. It’s impossible to track each group when names are sometimes changed and there are no firm records.

Should any outsider ask where these cubs come from, Eddieites will immediately leap to the defense, insisting that Serio “rescues” the cubs and brings them to his “sanctuary” from places where they aren’t wanted like zoos and circuses, often while telling them to do “a little research” before asking stupid questions or saying stupid things. Those of us with questions find this instruction particularly amusing when there is no documentation to research, and those who ask questions are systematically blocked and called haters, something for which Serio is inordinately proud:

IMG_3705

The “rescue” proclamations of Eddieites are followed by avid claims that the cubs can never be released into the wild “because they were born in captivity” so Serio’s giving them the best life possible at his “sanctuary”. Or, in some cases, supporters claim that eventually BJWT will “repopulate the world” with their cats (despite that they supposedly don’t breed them).

As usual there are potholes in these claims that are large enough to blow the tires on a tractor trailer rig.

  1. Zoos, in particular, value cubs more than they do adults, it’s laughable to think that the dozens of cubs that have appeared at BJWT over the last three years were all cast out by their entertainment owners, when those same groups might well have made tens of thousands of dollars off of the cubs, had they retained them. The only way they’d let go of the cubs is if the government seized them.
  2. Felid wild reintroduction is in its infancy. There have been a very few genuine success stories. However, for there to be any hope of pursuing reintroduction, the cubs must be raised with as little human contact as possible and raised in an environment that properly mimics their natural habitat. If you keep them in cardboard boxes in your closet, handle them constantly, and consistently reinforce a personal and intimate relationship with humans, then you guarantee that they can never be reintroduced into the wild.
  3. According to I.C.A.R.U.S. contacts who are familiar with laws south of the border, there is no registry for big cat sanctuaries in Mexico. There aren’t even any outlines for sanctuaries in that country. The only two ways in which you can register the ownership of exotic big cats, is as either a zoo, or a private collection.

What does all of this mean?

It means that while Serio claims to be a sanctuary and obsessively refers to BJWT as a sanctuary (though this is a recent development that has occurred in the past months, after articles criticizing BJWT began to appear. Before that, he called BJWT a “foundation”) it’s only a word in the name of his registered zoo. Serio stomps around threatening to sue people who suggest BJWT is not an accredited sanctuary, and he uses the term “sanctuary” gratuitously in an effort to garner sympathy and legitimize the foundation.

But the title listed on zoo registration papers does not actually make BJWT an accredited sanctuary. It just means that BJWT is a zoo registered with the word “sanctuary” in its name. This is where commercialism comes in. You can name a company anything you want, but you can’t register it as an institute which is not recognized by the government with which you’re registering it.

BJWT literally cannot be a registered sanctuary under Mexican law, because there are no outlines, bylaws, or terminology to define and regulate sanctuaries within the existing Mexican environmental laws. There is, according to the Mexican government itself, no existing sanctuaries for exotic animals in the country. There are only PIMVS institutes or privately owned collections.

This is one reason that Mexico desperately needs to update, refurbish, and create laws that will clearly define the difference between a zoo, a private collection, and a sanctuary. Serio adamantly (as evidenced by recent legal attacks) defends BJWT as a “sanctuary” insisting that he’s met all the requirements outlined in order for it to be so. The problem is, he’s leaving out the fact that Mexico doesn’t actually have guidelines for sanctuaries for him to meet. They only have guidelines for zoos and private collections. And we don’t doubt that BJWT meets all the standards required of it by Mexican law in order to retain it’s operating permit as a PIMVS. That doesn’t mean it qualifies as a sanctuary as defined by GFAS.

On BJWT’s own FAQ page:

Screen Shot 2016-07-01 at 3.37.34 PM
Nowhere does it say “YES we are are registered sanctuary” because they ARE NOT a registered sanctuary, they are a registered zoo.

But back to the cubs and to the trillion dollar question: Where do all of these babies come from?

We know that at least several in “Shakira’s Pride” actually came from a zoo bought and owned by one of Serio’s friends, because Serio himself has said it on social media sites. That’s after he spun a tale about how he “didn’t have space to save the moms from the zoo, so he took the cubs to save them” leading the public to believe that it was a case of saving the animals from imminent death. Then he later admitted that his friend had bought the zoo, and all of its animals, which means that there was no need to remove those cubs from their mothers.

But moving on. That only accounts for a few of the new cubs, and the others remain a mystery, just like most of the cubs BJWT hosts. He says that the Mexican government confiscates them and gives them to BJWT, so it’s likely that some come from the government. We know that Mexico’s current system is grossly overburdened with animals, and there’s nowhere to put ones that are seized, so BJWT being the biggest name around, it’s perfectly likely they get the majority of cubs that are seized. And do at least some of them come from situations of abuse? More than likely, considering how many have arrived. But we also have videos wherein Serio admits that some of the cubs come from “private zoos” and “important people” who apparently own scads of big cats. It also bears pointing out that in the early days Serio referred to the cubs as “being adopted” but slowly began saying “rescued” later on.

Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 7.24.34 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 7.51.35 PM

The fact that Serio recently began claiming that he was saving cubs from the canned hunting industry struck those of us who keep tabs on such things as very odd, considering the low numbers of trophies exported from Mexico, so I decided to dig a little. What I discovered was an underbelly of the exotic animal trade unlike anything I’ve experienced so far. As we know from articles like this one that owning big cats is considered a grand pastime for drug lords and wealthy individuals with too much time on their hands. And the very government groups like PROFEPA whom Serio proudly posts photos of himself buddying up to

Screen Shot 2016-07-01 at 5.07.29 PM

regularly turn a blind eye to all of this trafficking, so it makes one wonder how “valid” their regulation of groups like BJWT can be. But we know about this corruption, it’s documented regularly.

What I didn’t know, until very recently, is that the breeders who supply these sellers and private owners with animals often also run what amounts to Rent-A-Cub programs. For a one time fee, someone can “adopt” a cub, and take it home. Once the cub gets too big to handle, or starts causing problems, they can then bring the cubs back to the breeder, and return them in exchange for much younger and smaller cubs, and start all over again. Really, it’s the perfect scheme. You get all the cuteness, and none of the issues.

Now, Eddieites will vehemently defend BJWT and Serio, insisting that all of his “Angels” are still at BJWT, but we have very little proof of that, at least by way of social media. The cats might all be there in cages, or maybe they’re not. We see cubs, and then we don’t see them until they’ve grown considerably, so it’s often impossible to recognize them even if they’re shown again later. We just don’t know. We do know, however, that to start with, Serio always referred to cubs as having “been adopted” from people, often people his own cousin had contact with.

The same cousin who seemed to be the one selling the first cat Serio ever “adopted”.

Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 7.09.25 PM

Of course, the story of Cielo has changed numerous times, each evolution making Serio’s procurement of her more and more heroic. This is one of the many issues with the lack of transparency associated with BJWT. In addition to the fact that the origins of the cubs is never properly and objectively documented, we have their use by Serio as a constant draw for support. Despite his own haughty (and often childishly tantrum-like) attacks on those who claim that he exploits his animals for the purpose of making money, he continues to put the animals front and center and use their likeness to sell BJWT merchandise.

Eddieites angrily defend Serio’s use of his cats for “advertising” claiming that BJWT needs funds in order to survive. Some even point out the need to fundraise so that “Stage 3” can be built. Never mind that Serio has been claiming that “Stage 3” is going to be completed “in a year” for the last three years.

Apparently, no Eddieites have ever been taught how to use a calculator, and think independently.

Here’s a little breakdown of things that BJWT followers clearly haven’t considered. Everything is in USD, as that’s how prices are listed on Boycott Circus.

Two weeks ago, BJWT posted new ball caps on their Instagram page (they were pretty fly, we admit) There are seven styles. Within two hours, at least one style was completely sold out. Now, we don’t know precisely how many hats BJWT had in stock, but let’s presume they started with 1,000. After all, they’ve got over 5 million followers on Instagram, it’s safe to think they’d stock new products in increments of at least 1,000 for something that only comes in one size like a hat.

The hats sell for $33.00-$36.00. So going with the less expensive hat, and presuming they had at least 1k to start, BJWT made $33,000 dollars free and clear in just two hours.

But paying for all of the “Angels” is expensive! Supporters say.

Okay, that’s true.

If just 50,000 supporters (out of 5.4 million) donate $100 dollars over the course of 1 year, BJWT makes $5,000,000.00

If just 10,000 (out of 5.4 million) supporters buy 1 $68.00 sweatshirt, BJWT makes $680,000.00

If just 100,000 out of 5.4 million) buy 1 $25.00 T-shirt, BJWT makes $2,500,000.00

If every Instagram follower buys just 1 T-shirt over the course of 1 year, BJWT makes $135,000,000.00

Ignoring that last number, and just going off the others, we’re up to $8,213,000.00 in one year.

Basic food, medical, maintenance costs for one big cat averages about $8,000 a year. Multiply that by 220, and you’re looking at $1,760,000.00 (and that’s paying for the food, while Serio has posted on Instagram boasting about how he gets the best deals from the biggest meat processors in Mexico) which is, admittedly, a lot of money.

But out of our theoretical merchandise money we’ve still got $6,453,000.00 leftover.

Then there’s staff and expenditures, etc. The fact that they’re building Stage 2B, 3B, etc. or what have you. But if, donations are coming in, it shouldn’t be a problem. Again, we don’t know because there’s no running tab posted anywhere.

Remember, I’m just throwing numbers around. I’m saying that it’s possible to make this much on merchandise and donations. I mean, come on, with 5.4 million followers, you just need them to donate $1.00 a year in order to make $5.4 million dollars. What I’ve listed here is just one possible donation, and just THREE products out of the available 69 products on BJWT’s swag site, which is devoted solely to selling products for them. And 100% of the proceeds rendered from sales on Boycott Circus go to BJWT.

And none of this includes any funding BJWT might receive from the government for taking animals if he has, as he’s said he has. It doesn’t include any donations, aside from the one reference.

And those donations do occur far more often that Eddieites seem to think. For example, last year, Hublot held a benefit brunch for BJWT that cost people between $500.00 and $1000.000 just to walk in the door.

Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 4.30.30 PM

BJWT made $200,000.00 during the event.

Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 4.31.08 PM.png

Then Ronda Rousey, whom Serio still talks about, made $23,000.00 for them by auctioning off items online.

With Eddie just posing with a new $4,000.00 “gift” from Hublot founder a few weeks ago, it’s safe to assume that the majority of the companies who donate to BJWT do so more than once. You can’t post photos of all of these supporters, and not have people expect them to be, well, supporting you. But without any financial transparency, the public has no way of knowing where any of that money goes. Eddieites presume–and insist–that it goes to the cats, and a portion of it surely does. But where does the rest go?

We don’t know. Not entirely.

But at least some of the funds raised by BJWT’s considerable efforts at selling merchandise and kickbacks from all the social media advertising (remember, people get paid for social media, too) seem to go to some pretty strange places. Like animal cloning companies who work with Korean firms to clone dead pets.

FullSizeRender-6

PerPETuate’s founder, Ron Gillespie says that cloning will be the future of “building” the perfect animal, and that instead of accepting the death of an animal as part of the cycle of life, he can “offer hope” to people by using science to “bring these animals back”. It does put Serio’s mantra of “Karmis Forever” into a whole new light. Never mind the fact that in this blurb, Karma is described as a pure African lion, and this version of Cielo’s story has Serio saving her from certain death after her mother perished in childbirth, none of which has ever been mentioned elsewhere.

But back to the mind boggling issue of BJWT having stored Karma’s DNA for cloning. The cloning process is not cheap. Cloning averages around $100,000.00. And that’s after the preliminary costs of having the DNA stored and cultured, and the annual costs of keeping it banked. It should also be noted that on the website, it says that the best time to harvest cells for banking is while the animal is alive and healthy, as harvesting after death would allow for cell deterioration. So that suggests that at least a little planning went into this.

IMG_3870

Now, we have no way of knowing how any of this cockamamie stuff was paid for, because Serio has never mentioned the fact that he ever did it at all. For a guy who takes his Facebook live feeds to the bathroom with him when he has to pee, it seems a little shocking that he’d choose not to let his adoring fans know that “Hey, Karmis Forever is legit literal, we can bring her back whenever we want to.”

But in complete and utter fairness, maybe Serio paid for all of this out of pocket just because he loved Karma. I mean, he is pretty fast to say that he’s got “unlimited money” with which to sue people, and he claims to pay for most of the foundation himself, despite all of those merch sales and donations from supporters. It’s totally possible. Stranger things have happened, I mean. Okay, saving DNA to clone an inbred lion you “rescued” from a crappy breeder is pretty strange. But Serio could have paid for it without using BJWT donations, is all I’m saying.

And frankly, here’s something incredibly important to note, which I’m sure will go entirely unregistered by Eddieites, in favor of hating us for the article in general, but which I’m going to say anyhow.

WE DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BJWT MAKING MILLIONS A YEAR.

What we have a problem with, is a nonprofit 501(c)3 bringing in large amounts of undocumented donations and income, when by United States 501(c)3 regulations, nonprofits must document and make public EVERY donation they receive, as well as where that money is spent (not just photos of something with the word “fiscal” in it, but no breakdown of money coming in and going out) Now, BJWT’s 501(c)3 document (so angrily posted by Serio on social media) is dated January 18th of 2016, so a full year hasn’t passed yet, and I’m not clear on precisely when they need to post their financials. Different companies end and begin their fiscal year at different times. It’s possible that BJWT is not required to post their financials until the end of this year. Which is fine, as long as they’re complying with the law.

However, Serio very publicly attacked and led a campaign against a conservation writer (whose name I will not post here because she has no personal stake in this article) who stated in a January 2nd 2016 article that BJWT was not a registered 501(c)3 company. Serio called this writer a liar, stated that he would sue her, and through various threats eventually forced her to remove the article in question.

But here’s the thing, the article stating that BJWT was not a 501(c)3 company predates the officiation of BJWT as a 501(c)3 by more than two months.

So the writer was correct, and BJWT was not a 501k company at the time of the article’s publication. The 501(c)3 document posted after the fact by Serio is dated as having been received for consideration on January 18, 2016, two weeks after the article was published. And it took another two months for BJWT to officially receive 501(c)3 status. On their website, BJWT claims to be a 501(c)3 since January 11th, 2016, which doesn’t coincide with stamp clearly visible on the documents posted on Instagram. However, even being lenient, and going with the 11th as the official recognition of their status, it still means that at the time that the article in question was published, BJWT was not yet a recognized 501(c)3 company. And furthermore, the author couldn’t have possible known that BJWT was even in the process of attaining a 501(c)3 status.

Companies change and evolve. That’s fine. What’s true about a foundation one month, might not be true the next month. But the fact that BJWT is now a 501(c)3 company does not make it acceptable for Serio to have threatened and publicly attacked someone who correctly stated that BJWT was not yet a 501(c)3 company at the time that she wrote an article about them.

Serio’s hyper aggressive actions toward anyone who questions him raise serious questions about his honesty in regard to the running of the foundation. He uses his followers as an army of rage, unleashing them on anyone who questions BJWT, and often using violent outbursts and threats as a distraction to allow him leeway and time in which to alter either BJWT’s website (so he can later claim people are lying about BJWT, as was the case when BJWT had personal visits listed in exchange for monetary donations) or change the way in which something is referred to. He also has a history of lying about what’s been said about BJWT, misquoting whomever it was that said, or suggested, something he didn’t approve of, and instead of gathering information independently, Eddieites simply repeat whatever Serio says, and then proceed with attacking whomever has questioned him. It’s all a carefully orchestrated system of misinformation.

Which leaves all of us wondering where the cubs come from, where the money goes, and if we’ll ever get an answer that’s not shrouded in hateful vitriol, rageful threats and condemnation for having asked questions in the first place.

* Addendum. 5 hours after this article was published, Serio has revealed “Box 6” which holds yet another tiny lion cub.

 

The Greatest Griefs Are Those We Cause Ourselves

The titles of today’s post is taken from Sophocles, a common translation of a passage within Oedipus Rex. It is a passage that I can still remember being forced to dissect and expound upon in an entire essay back in high school.

In the days since the horrendous execution of Harambe the above quote has rung in my head repeatedly. Experts are taking sides. The public is divided, and divided again. The zookeepers should have used tranquilizer, the parent should have been watching the child, the zoo should have had higher fencing, a better protocol, the parents should be held accountable and sued. Some radicals (whose comments have been removed from the I.C.A.R.U.S. Facebook page, but I’ve seen the same suggestions elsewhere) suggest that the child should have been shot, rather than Harambe.

But the zoo isn’t responsible for Harambre’s death. Neither are the zookeepers, the parents, or the people who built the enclosure.

I am responsible for Harambre’s death.

So is my sister.

So are my parents.

So is anyone reading this who has ever paid to gain entry into a zoo wherein animals are put on display.

The fact that we as a species believe it is our right to enslave other creatures purely for our amusement is responsible for Harambre’s death.

The concept of zoos didn’t even begin with animals. The very first zoos were often private collections belonging to emperors, kings, tzars, sultanas and the like, and they were often comprised of human slaves captured in far off lands, and then brought to live in cages for the amusement of the wealthy.

humanzoo_story

These “human zoos” have long been documented, and photographic evidence remains since photography was first invented. Different cultures, races, and those with deformities or strange medical conditions were all fair game for first human zoos, and later sideshows. Many times, the inhabitants of these zoos and sideshows were kidnapped and forced to perform, such as in the case of the Muse Brothers of Roanoke Virginia, a case in which Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey actively participated in the exploitation of the kidnapped and imprisoned brothers.

musebrothers

Eventually, we moved on from exploiting other humans, to exclusively exploiting animals. Decades later, zoos remain extremely popular, even more so due to their own huge public relation campaigns which portray zoos to be the only way in which we can maintain animal species.

Zoos have systematically conditioned the pubic to believe that the only way in which wild animals can exist is under our care, safely protected inside the walls of zoos, and that the only way in which we can teach the public about them is through display of them, and “outreach” wherein the public is allowed to get “up close and personal” with them.

In short, they’ve created the myth that wild animals need us, and cannot be trusted to survive without our direct intervention in their lives.

It is this very reasoning that pseudo-sanctuaries like Black Jaguar White Tiger use in order to justify their actions. They are “rescuing” (though that sometimes means needlessly removing cubs from their mothers) the animals, thus giving them a “better” life than they would have had else wise, and they are “educating the public” (about what, is never very clear, nor does it seem to matter) by handling, playing with, taking photos with, and generally treating the animals as pets, so doing these things are deemed acceptable.

And tragically, despite articles and studies showing that zoos do not, in fact help wild animals, despite situations like the recent killing of two lions in Chile, despite situations like the ongoing disaster at the Yumka Zoo, despite the brutal killing of Harambe at the Cincinnati Zoo, the public keeps paying to go “visit” the animals.

Until the whole of the world embraces the idea that wild animals do not belong in captivity nothing is going to change, and there will eventually be more Harambes.

We are the ones causing all of these deaths. But all we need do in order to assure that there is never another Harambe, is to deny the belief that wild animals are better off “safe” in a captive setting. Any captive setting. This is why the I.C.A.R.U.S. team is so set against any direct interaction. Simply moving animals from a “zoo” setting into a “sanctuary” setting is not necessarily better, either. Not when there is so little oversight, and so few GFAS accredited sanctuaries out there. It is still a form of captivity.

Our goal is to create a future wherein there are no captive wild animals of any kind.

The fact is, that it is only by removing the human factor that we can truly protect wild animals. By keeping them wild, and protecting their habitat, we can save them. Not by breeding and inbreeding them within the walls of zoos or organizations which directly profit from hosting them, and exploiting them.

Harambe’s death was devastating to his species, which is critically endangered. But it wouldn’t have happened if he was not living in a zoo for the amusement of humans. That single factor is what killed him. If Harambe was not in a zoo, he would not be dead, as simple as that. If everyone who is now demanding justice for his death, or accusing those involved of mishandling the situation, simply chose to forever boycott zoos, they could effectively stop future tragedies from ever occurring.

No, animals currently living in zoos can’t just be “set free” into the wild, and yes, research is invaluable to conservation and the preservation of certain species. That does not mean, however, that zoos–as they currently exist–need to remain exactly as they currently exist. Breeding for the sake of pulling in tourists, does not help research, and does create a surplus of animals, many of which quietly disappear, sold into canned hunting, or private ownership. And losing animals due to incidents like the Harambe case does nothing to help sustain critically endangered wild populations.

The public must make a conscientious choice to support accredited sanctuaries, and research groups which do not exploit animals during their endeavors, in order to change the way the process works. It’s all up to the public which is currently so enraged over Harambe’s recent death.

The killing of Cecil the lion launched a huge movement of awareness about the canned hunting industry, and trophy hunting. The killing of Harambe can do the same thing for the travesty of zoos, roadside animal attractions, and pseudo-sanctuaries which condone cub-petting and direct human/animal interactions.

But only if the public decides to do something with their anger and desire for justice.

Your Logic Is Illogical: Why There Will Never Be A Valid Excuse For Cub-Petting

Bonus points if you get the Spock reference in that title. If not, you can check out Start Trek on Netflix later. Right now keep reading because I want to further discuss something that the I.C.A.R.U.S. team has taken a position on right from the off.

If you’ve been following us for a while, or have read through older blog posts, you’ll know that we are firmly hands-off conservation. Unless a wild animal is receiving medical attention or rehab, we believe that they should not be handled by humans. Ever. Part of the reason we take this stance is that wild animals belong in the wild. But the biggest part of why we take this stance is because:

Conservationists must set an example for the public to follow.

Let’s say you’re a geologist, and your life’s work is protecting places like Monument National Park. You abhor careless tourists, and those who deface the stones of the monuments either by marking on them, moving them, or climbing and damaging them. You’ve joined groups who have petitioned to ban climbers from scaling the stone monuments because having people climb the stone structures damages them, and creates a draw for others to climb them, too.

Then a guy videos himself climbing Delicate Arch. He uploads that video onto social media and in his caption he uses hashtags like #protectourparks #notaplayground #stayoffthestones #saverocks #conservation. He starts making more videos of himself climbing every major stone monument in every park across the country–many of which are banned to climbers–and posts the videos on social media sites for his growing fan base. He starts getting donations to fund his climbing exploits. All the while, he claims to be climbing these fragile stone monuments in order to conserve the stone monuments, and to show people that you should never climb them.

All of his followers agree that no one should ever climb protected stone monuments. Except for Mr. Climber, because he’s an “expert” and “doing it to conserve the monuments, so it’s okay”. And if he takes guests climbing on the monuments with him, that’s okay, too. His followers would all like to climb them, but they know they can’t, unless they’re with Mr. Climber, because he’s doing for a good cause, so if they do it while they’re with him, then they’re doing it for a good cause, too. I mean, he’s got to garner support for his cause, right? And besides, he’s hash tagging everything #notaplayground and #stayoffthestones, so everyone watching knows that “normal” people shouldn’t climb the monuments like he does.

Anyone who speaks out against Mr. Climber, or who questions why he’s damaging stone monuments by climbing them, and then claiming that he’s doing it to protect them, is given death threats, publicly threatened with lawsuits for defamation, and called jealous haters.

Never mind that they’ve been working to protect stone monuments from people climbing them for years before Mr. Climber showed up and started climbing them and damaging them “in the name of conservation”.

If this sounds completely irrational, congratulations, it is completely irrational, and you have a modicum of commonsense. However, if you supplant “climbing stone monuments” with “handling and playing with big cats” you have the precise situation in which groups like I.C.A.R.U.S. and PACH have now found themselves.

Playing with captive wildlife has become the new thing to be seen doing. Every celebrity who is any celebrity, it seems, has joined in on the game. Photos of supposed animals rights defenders cooing over tiger cubs no larger than a deli sub, or lounging on blankets while older cubs use them for warm-blooded furniture is becoming the new normal. In some cases, the celebrities revisit these pseudo-sanctuaries (establishments not GFAS accredited) repeatedly, following the growth of cubs specifically named after them. They tout these “sanctuaries” as being the best there is in conservation. And the actors and actresses often say that they are devoted to animals conservation, which is why they’re playing with cubs at these pseudo-sanctuaries.

The problem is, these pseudo sanctuaries–even ones who manage to legally bear the status of “sanctuary” via shoddy laws and enforcement–are not impacting genuine conservation positively. They’re impacting it negatively.

The rock climber climbing rocks to spread awareness of how people shouldn’t climb rocks is just one analogy of what’s currently going on in conservation circles, but the logic can be applied to literally anything. People don’t rob stores in order to teach others that robbing stores is bad. Men don’t rape women to teach their sons that raping women is bad. No one binge drinks to show the dangers of alcohol, or drives drunk in order to show that drunk driving is bad. People don’t marry child brides in oder to publicize the damaging affects of being a child bride.

There is no facet of society that I could find in researching this article wherein it is acceptable to commit the very acts against which one is speaking. No one takes a child from a situation of abuse, and then abuses them in order to spread awareness about child abuse. No reputable animal rescue takes an animal from a situation of abuse or exploitation, and then abuses or exploits them in order to raise awareness about animals abuse and exploitation.

Yet some of the highest profile pseudo-sanctuaries who are beloved by social media anti-intellectuals do just that.

Any self-proclaimed sanctuary (or foundation which gained non-GFAS accredited sanctuary status under lenient or unenforced laws) who directly handles their animals, allows the public to handle their animals, and/or posts pictures and videos of themselves, or others handling and playing with those animals is not, in fact, helping conservation efforts. They are, instead, actively participating in the exploitation of those animals.

Recently one of these pseudo-sanctuaries publicly admitted on social media that it had removed cubs from mothers–which were being good mothers–because they “did not also have room to house the mothers”. But at the same time, that pseudo-sanctuary also openly admitted that the zoo housing all the animals had been purchased by a friend, and the animals were “safe”. Followers of this pseudo-sanctuary cheered it on as another situation in which the owner was a “hero for saving those poor animals”.

Those of us who think on a more intellectual, rather than “Aaaaaw, good feelings!” level are left with a slew of unanswered questions, the most basic of which is: If the entire zoo was purchased by a rescuer, and the animals therein were safe and secure, why were cubs forcibly removed from their mothers in order to be hand raised by an institute which built its empire on allowing people to play with cubs?

Of course, questions like that go unanswered. The only responses received by anyone inquiring about such things are threats, and hate-speech.

The fact remains, however, that the very logic of publicly doing what you’re supposedly against in order to raise awareness about how no one should do it, is illogical. Aside from the fact that it’s actually completely laughable, it’s also incredibly insulting to people who are trying to stop such widespread behavior, and help animals from being put into those situations.

Which brings to mind another important question: Why are millions of people still supporting these pseudo-sanctuaries? At least part of the answer is the fact that the public–even those who don’t agree with the way the animals are being treated–turn a blind eye on the behavior and simply do nothing. Many do not have the fortitude to raise questions and speak out when they know that it will illicit threats of lawsuits, or actual lawsuits, or character assassination online. Some speak up or ask questions only to be blocked, savagely attacked and cursed and are so shocked by the outrageous response to simple questions that they just move on, making a mental note never to mention the topic again. As for why the supporters of these numerous pseudo-sanctuaries, and non-GFAS establishments continue to defend them, even in the face of rational facts and scientific argument, we just couldn’t tell you.

What I.C.A.R.U.S. can tell you, is that for the sake of the animals, both those remaining in the wild, and those in captivity, we are going to continue doing our jobs and speaking out for them. We’re going to continue battling the illogical with the logical, and eventually reason will win out. That’s how evolution functions.

Why The Word Sanctuary is Just a Word

The I.C.A.R.U.S. team has posted about the “sloth sanctuary of America” in Oregon and their questionable behavior and pseudo-sanctuary status. Now, it’s the Sloth Sanctuary of Costa Rica’s turn to be put under the spotlight. It isn’t the first time that the Sloth Sanctuary has had questions raised, but it is the first time that two doctors of veterinary medicine have stepped forward to professionally denounce the “sanctuary” and its deplorable “behind the scenes” treatment of the sloths in its care.

Hopefully this exposure will help set changes in motion, though first it’s likely that any of us who dare to post the article or question the “sanctuary” will suffer attacks. After all, this is the first time the “sanctuary” or any of it’s associates (who are also not strangers to questionable behavior) have ever been publicly confronted with their failures and misrepresentation.

You can read the article on the Dodo here.

Wildlife in Crisis: An International Think Tank

The ICARUS crew is absolutely thrilled to announce that we will be hosting an International summit in 2016 titled Wildlife in Crisis: An International Think Tank. It is our goal for this summit to bring together some of the greatest and most influential minds in the world of conservation today, and to develop strategies for further conservation efforts in the future.

The only thing the members of ICARUS want it to protect the animals and world we live in, and to educate those around us about the challenges involved with world wide conservation. When you choose to donate to ICARUS through this page, or our Facebook page, you aren’t paying us.

Your money goes directly to helping fund animal conservation through rescues, rehabilitation, and things like our 2016 International summit. The members of ICARUS are volunteer only, so all of our articles, and information is gathered and produced around full time jobs and late night hours devoted only to the conservation of the animals.

This is one reason that we took such a hard and forthright stance against hugely popular establishments such as the Black Jaguar White Tiger foundation, and Eduardo Serio 5 months ago when we first opened our WordPress account.

As a group devoted to hands off conversation, the ICARUS team does not condone the unnecessary handling or interaction with any wild animal. Sometimes during the rehabilitation process, handling is required, and as the members of our group have all been involved with wild animal rehabilitation, we understand this.

However, when one posts photographs on social media, or use social media to build themselves into a Celebrity Conservationist who is famous for no other reason than the fact that they post photographs and videos of themselves playing with big cat cubs, or adult big cats, they are not rehabilitating those animals, they are actively participating in their exploitation.

This Social Media Conservation, which so often highlights pseudo conservation is only one of the many global conservation issues that will be addressed at the 2016 International Summit which the ICARUS group will be hosting. Wildlife in Crisis: An International Think Tank will bring together conservationists from all over the world with the goal of addressing such issues as captive big cat ownership, wildlife crime, pseudo conservation groups and sanctuaries, rehabilitation ethics , legislation, and similarly the laws that govern exactly what foundation can describe themselves as rescue group or sanctuaries without actually obtaining the accreditation associated with being a sanctuary or rescue. Only through education can the public learn to see the difference between conserving wild animals in the wild, and exploitation of them by Celebrity Conservationists.

Author: Artemis Grey

Sloths & The Pet Trade in America

6360289637_4dff19c33f_b

In the Middle East there are plenty of instagram accounts where the Middle Eastern rich have a crazy array of pets. But they are not alone in this, it’s certainly easy over there but in the US it is just as simple (state dependent). In fact you can also get pretty much any pet that you wish for in the good ole Westernised USA too.

article-2509151-197a3bb900000578-785_470x423

Last year I visited Big Cat Rescue in Florida with my good friend and now co-worker Jessica James of ICARUS. If you get a chance to go you should, they are really doing conservation and animal care the right way. One thing I was shocked to learn on my visit there that there are more tigers living in people’s backyards in Florida than in the wild. How is that even a thing?? If your tiger escapes you don’t even have to notify your neighbours!! People have literally woken up with a stray tiger in their back yards. This is just an example of the craziness of the pet trade in America. A tiger…as a pet…

sloth-sanctuary (1)

So clearly you can have anything from a tiger to a kangeroo to a sloth as a pet. Nearly all of these will have been stolen from the wild for the pet trade (or for Zoo’s – this still happens!) or they come from dubious ‘breeding programs’. I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that this is not ok. Either these animals are taken directly from the wild for immediate sale or they are implemented in a breeding program straight off the ship. These places are akin to puppy mills where their young will be taken and sold off at the youngest age possible and then bred again. With Sloth babies you can earn a cool $2000-$5000 per Sloth. Looking at you Oregon “sloth sanctuary” by the way. This delightful place has been researching Sloths for 20 years and yet doesn’t have a single scientific paper to it’s name. Suspicious already. Not only that but they have over FOUR HUNDRED Sloths in their care and allow their guests to have Sloth SLEEPOVERS. Sloths are classed as dangerous mammals in zoos and having worked with both wild and captive Sloths for years I can categorically say that this is not a good idea, not just for the animals but also the people who are paying to do it. The ‘sanctuary’ owner is well known for selling Sloths on forums and considering Sloths are not native to Oregon, guess where they get their Sloths from. Yep, the wild. Most of the animals won’t survive the journey and some will die once they reach the shores of the USA. It amazes me that this country was once seen as a land of freedom, but for these animals it will be a new prison from their old jungle homes. This kind of makes my blood boil, especially as this place is perpetuating itself to be a conservation center.

grid-cell-5692-1416922679-21

I also find it confusing that people calling themselves “conservationists” can have a sloth as a pet as well (or other exotic animals). Last year I saw some articles and a Buzzfeed list on these guys. First I was annoyed that my friends baby, Daisy, would not be the first baby to meet a Sloth, but then I thought about it and realised that they have a Sloth… as a pet. They are apparently Sloth conservationists by the way but, again, have a pet Sloth. They also seem to like dressing it up in human clothes and making it wear flower hair clips, super natural right? This one makes me sad more than angry, as lovers of Sloths in the wild they should know better. Unless conservation is actually now about taking animals from their natural habitat? As much as I would love to have a Sloth as a snuggle buddy they would a) hate it b) be miserable and c) THEY’RE WILD ANIMALS NOT A TOY! Most of the people who seem to be writing about having a Sloth as a pet and giving people advice, even more worrying, also seem to have no idea about Sloths in the slightest. I came across this beauty earlier who suggests that Sloths love to play peek-a-boo and have parasites. I just…can’t.

nycticebus_tooth_removal_01

Like Slow Loris’s who have their teeth removed for the pet trade often causing infection and death, Sloths also suffer a similar fate. Usually their claws are removed so they don’t hurt their new owners. SLOTH FACT: Sloth claws are actually BONE. They are basically having their fingers removed so they will make cuddly pets. Remember I mentioned that most of the animals will die when transported from the wild so it’s best to ship more? That death rate is around a 80-90% chance of not making it, all so you can have a cool pet.

1d3e6bd2df588d9abeb26cab02edf9536109a2091aa33ac9bb43c015ef7c459a

Please remember that even if you are buying an exotic animal from a breeder that the original ones will ALWAYS have come from the wild. You are literally supporting animals being stolen from their natural habitat just so you can have a status symbol. Spend your dollars on visiting them where they live and seeing them in the wild and not taking them for your own selfish enjoyment and pride. They may be very cute but that doesn’t give you the right to make them an effective prisoner.

Sarah