AFTER THE GATES CLOSE
The Barry R. Kirshner Wildlife Foundation
Where Kirshner’s animals went—and why the transfers face legal scrutiny
The closure of an animal facility should begin a safer chapter for its residents. Whether that happens depends on where they go, who assumes responsibility and what care follows.
ㅤ
On October 9, 2026, PETA issued a 60-day notice of intent to sue six individuals who received or possessed federally protected animals previously held by the Barry R. Kirshner Wildlife Foundation in Oroville, California. PETA intends to add them to its existing Endangered Species Act lawsuit against the foundation and its operators. The notice presents allegations; it is not a court finding that the recipients violated federal law.
ㅤ
According to PETA, California wildlife officials declined to renew Kirshner’s Restricted Species Permit in 2025 amid an investigation into suspected neglect and abuse. The organization alleges that animals at the facility experienced inadequate veterinary care, nutrition, housing, sanitation and opportunities for natural behavior.
ㅤ
Who is named in the notice?
ㅤ
PETA identifies six individuals and their associated operations. Its notice describes the following transfers and possession:
ㅤ
• Jacob Markow / Wildlife Companions — five tigers
• Jackie Johnston / Johnston Family Farms Carriages and Trees — a ring-tailed lemur named Lulu
• Dale Anderson / Project Survival Cat Haven — two leopards named Royal and Amur
• Hayden Rosenaur / Serengeti Ranch Co LLC — a clouded leopard named Bow and a cheetah named Mema
• Steve Martin / Steve Martin’s Working Wildlife — two leopards, four lions and two lion–tiger hybrids
• Rhea Gardner / Spirit of Animals — subsequent possession of those eight cats at Martin’s former Frazier Park property, operated as Born to Be Free – A Wildlife Sanctuary
ㅤ
The notice alleges that Johnston, Anderson and Rosenaur continue to possess animals covered by its claims. Other animals described in the notice have already been relocated. The six recipients should therefore not be presented as all currently holding the animals they received.
ㅤ
Why moving an animal can raise a separate legal question
ㅤ
The Endangered Species Act does more than prohibit certain harmful treatment of protected wildlife. Subject to statutory exceptions, Section 9 also prohibits possessing or transporting endangered animals previously taken in violation of the Act.
ㅤ
PETA argues that animals were unlawfully harmed or harassed at Kirshner and that their subsequent transportation or possession created separate violations. That argument does not mean every recipient is accused of personally inflicting the original mistreatment. Whether the alleged prior violations and subsequent transfers establish liability remains a question for litigation or settlement.
ㅤ
A separate state enforcement outcome is already documented
ㅤ
The history involving Born to Be Free includes a resolved California permit case.
ㅤ
On December 1, 2025, the Ventura County District Attorney announced a stipulated judgment against Born to Be Free, Inc. for possessing restricted species without the required permits. The judgment imposed a permanent injunction, a $10,000 civil penalty, $40,000 in reimbursement to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a $435 court filing fee.
ㅤ
According to the district attorney’s release, Gardner told investigators she believed she could possess the animals under the former permittee’s authorization. California Restricted Species Permits are not transferable.
ㅤ
Authorities removed the animals on May 21–22, 2025, and relocated them to licensed and accredited sanctuaries, including facilities accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS). This documented state enforcement outcome is separate from PETA’s proposed federal claims.
ㅤ
The tigers’ outcomes underscore the importance of individual care
ㅤ
Oakland Zoo’s July 9, 2026, account independently describes the outcomes for five transferred tigers. Sitara became a permanent resident of the zoo. One tiger was placed at Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge and two at the Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS). Both sanctuaries are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS).
ㅤ
A fifth tiger arrived with end-stage arthritis and spinal disease. Despite intensive treatment, her condition did not improve sufficiently, and the zoo’s veterinary and animal care teams determined that humane euthanasia was necessary. That account documents her medical condition and outcome; it does not, by itself, establish who legally caused them.
ㅤ
Accountability must follow the animals
ㅤ
A closed gate is an administrative milestone. The meaningful welfare outcome is an animal receiving appropriate housing, veterinary treatment, opportunities for natural behavior and dependable lifelong care.
ㅤ
Every closure warrants practical questions: Where did each animal go? Was the transfer authorized? Can the receiving facility meet that individual’s needs? Who verifies the care afterward?
ㅤ
Closure should end a harmful situation. It should also begin a documented, accountable plan for every animal left behind.
Related Reading:
Monkeys R Us / Sugar Gliders R Us — USDA Animal Welfare Violations
Documented USDA inspection findings involving veterinary care and sanitation raise broader questions about the oversight of captive wildlife facilities. Like the Barry R. Kirshner Wildlife Foundation case, this investigation underscores the importance of regulatory accountability and meaningful enforcement of animal welfare standards.
Evidence • Education • Accountability
How You Can Help:
Awareness is the first step toward meaningful change. Help advance evidence-based education, transparency and accountability by sharing this article with others.
Together, we can encourage a more informed conversation about the treatment and protection of wildlife.
