Search this site

Myrtle Beach Safari still markets wildlife encounters after Doc Antle’s federal case. Examine the record and how visitor spending sustains demand. WHEN THE PUBLIC KEEPS PAYING Myrtle Beach Safari—and the responsibility behind the demand A wildlife encounter business needs more than animals and an operator. It needs customers willing to pay for access—and an audience willing to help make that access desirable. Myrtle Beach Safari brings that relationship into sharp focus. ㅤ Its founder, Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, pleaded guilty to federal wildlife-trafficking and money-laundering conspiracies. Yet the attraction continues to market paid encounters with wild animals. The question extends beyond what regulators and courts should do: when does the public accept responsibility for the businesses its spending sustains? ㅤ What the federal case established ㅤ On November 6, 2023, Antle pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act and conspiracy to launder money. The Justice Department described transactions involving two cheetah cubs, two lion cubs, two tigers and a juvenile chimpanzee between September 2018 and May 2020. Bulk cash, misleading paperwork and payments presented as charitable donations concealed the transactions. ㅤ In July 2025, Antle received a federal prison sentence, a $55,000 fine and three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to forfeit three chimpanzees and more than $197,000. The Justice Department documented a separate conspiracy involving more than $500,000 in cash represented to be proceeds of migrant smuggling. That wording matters: the money-laundering case concerned what Antle believed about the money’s source. ㅤ These were federal conspiracy convictions involving trafficking and financial deception. They should be described accurately, without recasting them as animal-cruelty convictions or suggesting that every animal at the facility was illegally acquired. ㅤ Two important updates to the legal history ㅤ Antle was also convicted in Virginia in 2023, but those convictions no longer stand. On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the remaining conspiracy convictions and dismissed the underlying indictments, while affirming the reversal of the purchasing convictions. The court held that the state statute at issue prohibited selling protected wildlife but did not prohibit purchasing it. That ruling concerned the Virginia prosecution; it did not overturn the separate federal convictions. ㅤ A July 17, 2026 report by wildlife journalist Rachael Bale for WIRE stated that Antle had been released from federal prison. Accordingly, describing him today as still incarcerated would be inaccurate on that reporting. The documented federal guilty pleas and sentence remain central to this history. ㅤ A different license holder does not settle the accountability question ㅤ After Antle’s 2022 arrest, plans emerged to transfer the operation to Sugriva Co. LLC, associated with China York, his longtime associate. Reporting documented the company’s acquisition of a USDA exhibitor’s license. However, The Sun News reported in January 2026 that it could not establish whether the proposed business sale had ultimately been completed. The business, its exhibitor’s license, ownership of individual animals and ownership of the land are separate matters. ㅤ In August 2026, WMBF described Sugriva as the company holding the facility’s exhibitor’s license and reported its continuing litigation over chimpanzees taken into federal custody. Sugriva asserted ownership; federal prosecutors characterized it as Antle’s alter ego. Those are opposing positions in litigation, not interchangeable findings of fact. Antle separately sought to challenge the chimpanzee forfeiture. The August reporting described those disputes as unresolved. ㅤ The public-facing question is therefore about meaningful change: who controls the operation, what has changed in its practices, and what independent evidence supports those changes? A different company name cannot answer those questions by itself. ㅤ What customers are being sold now ㅤ Myrtle Beach Safari’s website, reviewed October 16, 2026, advertises day tours starting at $389 per guest and photo encounters at $150 for a three-to-five-minute session. The photo package may involve a lemur, African cat, capuchin monkey or wolf, with no particular animal guaranteed. ㅤ The same website advertises private elephant-swimming and primate “Paint and Play” experiences starting at $7,000 for two guests. Its language centers on proximity, interaction and memorable photographs. These are advertised prices and offerings, not independently verified sales totals or proof that every listed activity occurs exactly as described. ㅤ The facility calls its animals ambassadors and presents visits as supporting conservation through the Rare Species Fund. Such claims deserve scrutiny alongside the federal record, which documented the use of purported donations to conceal wildlife transactions. A claimed conservation contribution does not, by itself, establish that a particular encounter is necessary or beneficial for the animal. ㅤ The big-cat law changed the menu—not every encounter ㅤ The Big Cat Public Safety Act, enacted December 20, 2022, prohibits exhibitors from allowing public contact with covered big cats, including cubs. Its listed species include tigers, lions and cheetahs; it does not cover every wild cat. Servals and caracals are outside that species list. ㅤ That distinction helps explain why a business historically associated with cub petting can continue marketing other animal encounters. It also matters when evaluating photographs: a recently posted tiger-cub image is not sufficient evidence of a recent encounter. Its capture date and circumstances must be established before alleging a current violation. ㅤ The public supplies more than ticket money ㅤ The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime identifies consumer demand as a central driver of wildlife trafficking. In an encounter business, customers buy access to animals rather than ownership of them. The ethical concern is the commercial incentive created when wildlife becomes a product people repeatedly pay to touch, hold or pose beside. ㅤ Antle’s federal case provides documented evidence of illegal animal acquisition connected to this operation. That does not establish that every contemporary encounter involves a trafficked animal. It does establish why customers should examine the history behind the experience being sold. ㅤ Promotion matters too. A 2011 experimental study found that photographs showing chimpanzees beside humans increased their appeal as pets and distorted perceptions of their conservation status. The study did not measure bookings at Myrtle Beach Safari, but it demonstrates why apparently affectionate imagery can communicate unintended messages about wild animals. ㅤ A smiling photograph cannot show the animal’s full day, whether participation was avoidable, or what lifelong care looks like when public attention fades. Nor can it establish what the visitors knew. The responsibility discussed here is collective and practical: spending, recommendations and celebratory posts can help sustain demand. ㅤ When concern becomes a consumer decision ㅤ Operators remain responsible for their conduct. Regulators remain responsible for enforcement. Customers also have a choice about what they finance and promote—especially once a business’s documented history is available to them. ㅤ Before booking, ask for evidence of lawful animal sourcing, independent welfare oversight, freedom for animals to withdraw from interactions, and transparent lifetime-care arrangements. Ask what measurable conservation outcome requires the visitor to touch the animal. If those questions cannot be answered convincingly, declining the encounter is a meaningful response. ㅤ On a Positive Note ㅤ The public can redirect demand toward experiences that value distance, natural behavior and habitat protection. Support for conservation and lifelong care need not depend on access to an animal’s body. ㅤ A ticket is more than admission. It is financial support for the business behind the encounter. Related Reading: Doc Antle, Four Chimpanzees--And A Fight To Get Them Back KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

Florida sideshow owner arrested after exotic and domestic animals were reportedly abandoned in a disabled truck. A closer look at animal welfare in entertainment. WHEN THE SHOW STOPS, THE DUTY OF CARE CONTINUES Exotic and Domestic Animals Reportedly Left in a Disabled Purple Pirates Circus Sideshow Truck The October 6, 2026, arrest of a Florida sideshow owner puts the care of animals behind the scenes of traveling entertainment under scrutiny. A breakdown can interrupt a journey; it cannot suspend responsibility for the animals being transported. ㅤ Police in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, reportedly discovered exotic and domestic animals—including chickens, rats, tortoises and boa constrictors—confined inside a disabled box truck on October 6. One of three rats was found dead. According to FOX 35 Orlando’s . ㅤ Officers initially heard sounds they thought could be a person calling out from the truck. FOX 35 reported that police estimated the truck had been left unattended for 10–12 hours. Officers described animals without food or water and a cargo area without climate control, ventilation, heat or lighting. Police said Welch acknowledged owning the animals and instructing employees to leave the vehicle after it broke down. The two chickens and two surviving rats went to Edgewater Animal Shelter; the two tortoises and two boa constrictors were transferred to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). FOX 35 also reported that FWC was pursuing charges against Welch, without identifying additional filed charges. ㅤ The reported circumstances invite a question that extends beyond the performance itself: who protects the animals when the show stops? Audiences see the attraction. They may never see the transport arrangements, overnight confinement or decisions made when equipment fails. Yet responsibility for animals continues throughout those less visible hours. ㅤ The presence of different species also matters. Chickens, rats, tortoises and snakes are not interchangeable cargo. Responsible care must account for the animals being transported, including their differing needs for appropriate temperatures, ventilation, secure accommodation, water and feeding. An emergency plan should identify who remains responsible, where animals can be moved and how necessary care will continue while repairs are arranged. ㅤ What Needs to Change ㅤ For event organizers considering animal attractions, questions about care should come before booking. What happens if a vehicle fails? Who monitors the animals between appearances? Is suitable alternative housing available? Who can provide veterinary assistance? A promise of an unusual show does not answer any of these questions. ㅤ Members of the public can support entertainment built around human skill and creativity and ask venues to choose acts that do not depend on displaying exotic animals. Suspected neglect should be reported promptly to the appropriate authorities, with a location and factual observations that can help responders assess the situation. ㅤ This case does not establish the conduct of every traveling show, and the available reporting does not establish why the rat died. It does, however, warrant scrutiny of the responsibilities that accompany taking animals on the road. Whatever the eventual legal outcome, the ethical principle remains: the animals’ needs continue when the performance ends—and when the vehicle stops. ㅤ Source: FOX 35 Orlando, October 7, 2026 ⁠. Police findings and statements above are attributed through this reporting. Related Reading: When You See Animal Exploitation, You Can Take Action Guidance from The Wildcat Sanctuary on recognizing and reporting suspected animal exploitation. A relevant companion to the Purple Pirates Circus Sideshow case, reinforcing the public’s role in identifying welfare concerns and taking appropriate action when animals are placed at risk. KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

CDE Exotics owner Cameron English faces animal cruelty charges in Pennsylvania as rescued birds continue recovering and receiving long-term care. WHEN ANIMALS NEED RESCUE FROM A RESCUE CDE Exotics Owner Faces Animal Cruelty Charges in Pennsylvania Animal cruelty charges against the owner of CDE Exotics in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, raise questions about care behind the rescue label—and the continuing needs of animals removed from the facility. A facility described as a rescue invites public trust. People may surrender animals believing they will receive appropriate care, while donors and volunteers contribute to what they understand to be a protective mission. That trust should be supported by evidence: qualified caregivers, appropriate housing, veterinary treatment and the resources to meet each animal’s needs. ㅤ WBRE/WYOU reported on September 30, 2026, that Cameron English, 38, owner of CDE Exotics in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, had been arrested and faced dozens of animal cruelty-related charges. Citing court records and investigators, the report described waste accumulation, contaminated water and injured birds. Authorities also alleged that English used fishing line to amputate a bird’s leg against veterinary advice. ㅤ These are allegations, not findings of guilt. English is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. This article draws on the station’s reporting; Keeping Wildlife Wild has not independently reviewed the underlying criminal complaint. ㅤ The animals’ needs continue ㅤ In a follow-up report, WBRE/WYOU described the continuing work of organizations caring for birds removed from the facility. An African grey parrot named Juju reportedly cannot walk or fly and requires ongoing assistance. Caregivers also described birds showing intense fear responses to ordinary objects or routines. The station reported that some birds may be adopted, while others with permanent disabilities will remain in rescue care for life. ㅤ That account draws attention to a responsibility that extends beyond removal. An animal may need rehabilitation, adapted housing or long-term treatment. Responsible placement requires assessing those needs and ensuring the receiving organization can meet them. Public attention should follow the animals’ welfare as well as the progress of a criminal case. ㅤ What needs to change ㅤ Before surrendering an animal, donating or promoting a facility, ask how care is provided and verified. Who oversees veterinary treatment? How are staffing and intake decisions matched to available resources? What happens when an animal requires specialized or lifelong care? Seek specific, documented answers rather than relying on a name, a mission statement or reassuring social media posts. ㅤ Anyone observing concerning conditions can help by recording accurate details and reporting them to the appropriate local authorities. Distinguish what you witnessed from what you suspect, preserve relevant evidence and allow investigators to assess it. Careful reporting strengthens accountability while avoiding unsupported accusations. ㅤ A rescue mission must be demonstrated through the care animals actually receive. Compassionate intentions matter, but animals also need competent treatment, adequate resources and continuing oversight. ㅤ Sources: WBRE/WYOU — Exotic animal rescue owner facing animal cruelty charges ⁠ WBRE/WYOU — Rescue owner facing charges, animals still recovering Related Reading: “America’s Exotic Pet Problem: When Wildlife in Public Becomes Normal” A broader examination of what happens when exotic animals are treated as ordinary pets—including the specialized care they require and the consequences when owners can no longer meet those lifelong obligations. ⁠ KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

When ambassador animals generate revenue, how is welfare protected? Research examines choice, control and welfare in zoo animal-interaction programs. “Program animal welfare: A scoping review of animal interaction programs and their welfare impact on zoo-housed animals. What happens when the guest has paid—but the animal is supposed to be able to say no? ㅤ AZA Says Welfare and Conservation Come First. What Does That Mean in Practice? ㅤ Ambassador animals appear in zoo presentations, outreach programs, private encounters and premium experiences—sometimes for an additional fee. ㅤ AZA openly acknowledges this commercial reality. In its article “Striking a Balance: Ambassador Animals and Revenue Generation,” AZA says revenue-generating programs can benefit institutions, but draws an important line: ㅤ Animal welfare and conservation should come before revenue. ㅤ So what does that mean from the animal’s perspective? ㅤ AZA emphasizes choice and control. Animals may decline participation, appearances can be changed or canceled, and programs may limit frequency and duration. These principles matter particularly when guests have paid for an experience. If choice is meaningful, an animal’s ability not to participate must remain meaningful too. ㅤ But policies describe what responsible programs are intended to look like. Welfare science asks what animals actually experience. ㅤ A 2026 scoping review in Applied Animal Behaviour Science examined 22 years of research on animal-interaction programs. Only 49 peer-reviewed articles met the researchers’ criteria. Reported welfare outcomes were 46.1% neutral, 28.1% positive and 25.8% negative. ㅤ Those numbers are not a scorecard. The researchers found an uneven evidence base, often involving small numbers of animals, with important questions about long-term effects and individual differences remaining unanswered. ㅤ One observation is particularly important: ㅤ The absence of negative welfare indicators does not necessarily demonstrate positive welfare. ㅤ There is nothing inherently wrong with zoos generating revenue, and charging for an encounter does not establish poor welfare. ㅤ But revenue introduces legitimate questions. How frequently does an animal participate? How is it transported? What behaviors are expected? How is welfare measured? And can the animal genuinely decline—even when people have paid to see it? ㅤ If conservation education is the purpose, we can also ask whether the educational message remains more important than simply providing unusual proximity to a wild animal. ㅤ None of this means ambassador programs are inherently harmful. Nor should we assume established practices are automatically benign. ㅤ AZA says welfare should come before revenue. Science tells us welfare needs to be measured. ㅤ Which leaves an important question: ㅤ When an animal becomes part of the experience being sold, how do we ensure the ambassador hasn’t gradually become the attraction? ㅤ Sources: AZA — “Striking a Balance: Ambassador Animals and Revenue Generation”; AZA Ambassador Animal Resources. ㅤ Cooper-Rogers, B., Klingner, P., Whittaker, A., Forder, R., & Fernandez, E. J. (2026). “Program animal welfare: A scoping review of animal interaction programs and their welfare impact on zoo-housed animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 297, 106919. Related Reading: AZA Accredited Cincinnati Zoo When The Animal Becomes the Add-On Ambassador Animals, Private Events and the Commercialization of the Zoo Experience KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

Examine how ambassador animal programs can blur the distinction between wildlife and pets, influencing public perceptions of exotic animal ownership and welfare. NOT A PET…UNTIL IT'S PART OF THE SHOW? Part 1 of 3 Examining whether educational messages and educational experiences always tell the same story. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), in partnership with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), encourages the public to remember an important message: ㅤ Wild and exotic animals are “Not a Pet.” ㅤ The campaign highlights concerns surrounding the trade in live wildlife, the specialized needs of exotic species, potential disease risks and the consequences that can follow when wild animals are purchased as pets. ㅤ It is an important message. ㅤ But it also raises an important question about educational consistency: ㅤ What happens when the message visitors hear and the experience they see appear to tell different stories? WHEN “NOT A PET” MEETS THE AMBASSADOR ANIMAL Across AZA-accredited institutions, visitors may also encounter wild animals presented as “ambassadors”—sometimes carried before audiences, positioned beside handlers, walked on leashes, perched on arms or featured in carefully managed close-contact presentations. ㅤ These programs are not simply informal encounters. AZA maintains an Ambassador Animal Policy, requires accredited institutions using ambassador animals to establish institutional policies, publishes guidance concerning their management and use, and provides professional resources related to ambassador-animal programming. ㅤ That distinction matters. ㅤ The issue is not whether every ambassador-animal presentation is unsafe, poorly managed or intended to encourage exotic-pet ownership. ㅤ The more difficult question is whether the experience being demonstrated consistently reinforces the message being taught. WHAT DOES THE AUDIENCE SEE? Imagine a child watching: ㅤ • a wild cat sitting calmly beside a trainer… • a sloth being carried before an audience… • an exotic bird perched on someone's arm… • a wild animal walking through a public space on a leash… ㅤ The educator may explain that the animal is not a pet. ㅤ But the audience is receiving information in more than one way. It hears the educator's words while simultaneously observing a wild animal in unusually close proximity to people. ㅤ That creates a question worth investigating: ㅤ Which lesson is most likely to be remembered—the warning or the experience? EDUCATION IS MORE THAN WHAT WE SAY People do not learn only from signs, lectures and carefully prepared talking points. ㅤ They also interpret what trusted institutions demonstrate. ㅤ An educator may explain why a serval, sloth, macaw or primate should never be kept as a household pet. Yet when a wild animal is presented as calm, approachable and comfortable in close proximity to people, some visitors may perceive qualities that resemble those associated with companion animals. ㅤ That does not establish that ambassador-animal presentations cause people to want exotic pets. ㅤ Nor does it mean that every visitor interprets these encounters in the same way. ㅤ But it does identify an important educational question: ㅤ Can the visual experience sometimes compete with the verbal message? CONSISTENCY MATTERS Wild animals remain wild animals. ㅤ Their participation in educational presentations does not change their biology, their species-specific behavioral and social needs, or the challenges associated with keeping exotic animals in private homes. ㅤ If the educational objective is to help the public understand that wild animals are not pets, then it is reasonable to examine whether every part of the visitor experience reinforces that distinction. ㅤ That isn't an argument for assuming the answer. ㅤ It is an argument for measuring it. ㅤ Because educational effectiveness should ultimately be determined by more than what an institution intended to communicate. ㅤ It should also consider what the audience actually learned. EXPLORE THE COMPLETE “NOT A PET” SERIES: Part 2 — Learning by Watching Continue with what scientific research tells us about how audiences learn from wildlife educational experiences. Part 3 — Education That Inspires Respect Without Sending Mixed Messages Explore the final part of the series and the broader implications for how wild animals are presented to the public. Evidence • Education • Accountability KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

Explore ethical wildlife tourism and responsible wildlife travel. Learn how to choose experiences that respect animal welfare and conservation. Wildlife tourism can inspire wonder, deepen our understanding of the natural world, and provide meaningful support for conservation and local communities. But not every experience marketed as “wildlife tourism” puts the interests of wildlife first. From animal encounters and photo opportunities to sanctuaries, rehabilitation centers, safaris, and wildlife attractions, responsible choices require looking beyond appearances and asking important questions about animal welfare, conservation value, transparency, and impact. Ethical Wildlife Tourism explores the evidence behind these experiences—helping travelers distinguish genuine conservation and respectful wildlife viewing from activities that exploit animals in the name of entertainment, education, or tourism. Posted in November 2026 › Beyond the Encounter Taking Stock: Assessing Animal Welfare in South African Captive Lion Tourism Venues Posted In October 2026 › Wild On Their Own Terms "How to Photograph Wildlife Responsibly: Advice from Pros" "What Is Responsible Wildlife Tourism? Panthera.org › Whose Experience Matters? What Research Reveals About Animals, Tourists and Ethical Wildlife Encounters › Think Before You Go: Your Wildlife Tourism Choices Matter An encounter can be memorable for a visitor and harmful to the animal. A few questions before booking can help us tell the difference. Posted In September 2026 › Responsible Travel and Ethical Tourism: Trends and Issues Responsible Wildlife Tourism: Look Beyond The Label › The Simplest Way To Help Wild Animals While Traveling? Don't Pay For The Photo › When Is Captivity For Conservation Justified? Posted In August 2026 › “Selfie safari crisis as social media drives dangerous, unethical wildlife tourism ”When Does Watching Wildlife Become Interfering With Wildlife? › When Tourism and Wildlife Conflict, Should Tourism Step Back? We Travel to Experience the Natural World. But What Happens When Our Presence Begins to Change It? › The ‘Sanctuary Gap’: Reviewing the Research on Captive Wildlife Sanctuary Tourism. When is a “Sanctuary” Really a Sanctuary? The Name on the Sign May Not Tell You. › “When Social Media Makes Inappropriate Wildlife Tourism Look Normal” How sharing direct-contact wildlife encounters can influence what others see as acceptable. › Is Taking a Wildlife Selfie Harmful?Learn how social media fuels animal exploitation, how to recognize harmful encounters and how to make sure your travel memories do not come at an animal’s expense. "A Comprehensive Guide for Ethical Tourism" Posted In July 2026 › The Preserve in Fredericksburg, TexasThey Call It An "Experience"But What Does The Elephant Experience?

A USDA inspection of paid lemur encounters in Texas raises questions about animal welfare, public safety and the business of exotic animal encounters. When Wildlife Becomes a Business, Who Pays the Price? A USDA inspection of paid lemur encounters in Texas raises a wider question: What happens when protecting animals conflicts with the experience a business is selling? A USDA inspection of paid lemur encounters in Texas raises a wider question: What happens when protecting animals conflicts with the experience a business is selling? ㅤ A customer pays for a close encounter with an exotic animal. The business earns revenue. A photograph captures an exciting moment. But where, in that transaction, are the animal’s interests? ㅤ A September 2, 2026, USDA inspection report for Yerrington Empire in Andrews, Texas, documents concerns involving paid, full-contact encounters with two young ring-tailed lemurs. A supplied Facebook screenshot from Animal House, also identified as Andrews Animal House, announces the end of its lemur encounters and offers the store’s explanation. ㅤ Read together, these records reveal a conflict that deserves attention beyond one business: the difference between an encounter’s appeal to customers and the safeguards needed to protect animals and people. WHAT THE USDA INSPECTOR DOCUMENTED During separate sessions, an inspector observed a boy and a teenage girl inside an enclosure with an approximately five-month-old male lemur and an approximately four-month-old female lemur. ㅤ According to the report, the lemurs jumped onto the children’s arms, shoulders and heads, sometimes bringing their faces close to—or into contact with—the children’s heads and faces. The girl pulled her head back during face-to-face contact. The boy turned his face away while a lemur touched his head and face from his shoulder. ㅤ The only store employee remained outside the enclosure and could not reach an animal without opening the door. ㅤ The USDA cited a violation of the animal-handling requirement under 9 CFR § 2.131(c)(1). The inspector identified risks of disease transmission between animals and humans, as well as injury if an animal became frightened or surprised. ㅤ A second citation, under § 2.131(d)(2), addressed supervision. During an encounter, the employee asked whether she could leave to provide water to other animals. The inspector told her she should remain present. The employee explained that, when working alone, she sometimes stepped away for up to two minutes to assist other customers and asked encounter participants to call for her if something seemed wrong. ㅤ The report states that a responsible, knowledgeable and readily identifiable employee or attendant must be present throughout public contact. ㅤ Both violations were marked corrected at the time of inspection after the licensee told the inspector that the store would no longer offer these contact encounters. ㅤ The report does not document an injury or confirmed disease transmission. It documents handling and supervision practices that the inspector determined created unacceptable risks. “SOMEONE HAD TO RUIN THE FUN” In the supplied September 2 Facebook post, Animal House announced that its lemur encounters were ending “for now.” The post opened with: “WELL... SOMEONE HAD TO RUIN THE FUN.” ㅤ It attributed the change to someone contacting the USDA, described receiving clarification about requirements and stated that the business took regulations seriously. ㅤ The store also said that continuing would require a dedicated handler, a harnessed lemur and no touching by guests. Those details are the store’s account; the supplied inspection report does not explicitly prescribe a harness. ㅤ The post explained that these changes would diminish the hands-on experience and invited followers to suggest another wildlife encounter. ㅤ That response warrants scrutiny. A person reporting concerns did not create the conditions the inspector observed. The USDA’s findings concerned animal handling and public safety—not simply whether customers were enjoying themselves. ㅤ Ending the cited encounters was an important corrective step. Framing oversight as spoiled fun, however, risks discouraging the public from speaking up. WHEN ACCESS TO AN ANIMAL BECOMES THE PRODUCT This case illustrates a tension that can arise wherever businesses sell physical access to exotic animals. If the attraction depends on touching, holding or having an animal climb onto a customer, safeguards that limit contact may also reduce the experience’s commercial appeal. ㅤ That creates a question businesses should answer openly: Will they change the product when protecting animals and visitors requires it? ㅤ The same question applies to exotic pet stores, traveling animal attractions, photo opportunities and other businesses built around close wildlife encounters. Each operation must be assessed on its own evidence, but customer enthusiasm alone cannot establish that an activity is appropriate. ㅤ An animal’s presence in an encounter does not demonstrate that its needs are being met. Nor does a memorable photograph establish an educational or conservation benefit. ㅤ Businesses should be able to explain how they protect animals during interactions, provide appropriate staffing and allow animals to retreat from public attention. Their responsibilities also extend beyond the encounter: suitable housing, veterinary care and a plan for the animal’s future remain essential. WHAT DOES THE CUSTOMER’S PAYMENT SUPPORT? Paying for an encounter helps sustain the activity being sold. Sharing its promotional images can extend its reach. ㅤ Before participating, customers can ask what their payment supports, whether physical contact is necessary, how animals can avoid interactions and what happens when an animal matures or stops being suitable for the advertised experience. ㅤ If a business claims an encounter supports conservation, it should identify the work being funded and provide evidence of that contribution. If it calls the activity educational, it should explain what visitors learn and why the animal must participate in that particular way. ㅤ A USDA license should not replace those questions. Federal regulations establish requirements for covered animal care and handling; the existence of a license does not answer every ethical question about an encounter. WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE Animal protection must be part of the business model from the beginning. Appropriate staffing, safe handling and care should be treated as operating responsibilities. ㅤ When inspectors identify violations, businesses should explain the findings and corrective actions accurately. People who raise legitimate concerns should not be blamed for interfering with entertainment. ㅤ Customers also have influence. We can choose observation over physical contact, examine inspection records and direct our spending toward activities that demonstrate respect for wildlife. ㅤ The larger question is not how to preserve every encounter customers enjoy. It is how to ensure that an animal’s welfare does not become negotiable when revenue is at stake. ㅤ Wild animals should not bear the risks of a business selling us a memorable moment. ㅤ Sources: USDA APHIS inspection report INS-0001676142, Yerrington Empire, certificate 74-B-0833, September 2, 2026, pages 1–2; supplied Animal House Facebook screenshots, including its September 2 announcement; USDA Animal Welfare Regulations, 9 CFR § 2.131. ㅤ RELATED READING: When Ambassador Animals Generate Revenue Explore what happens when animals presented as “ambassadors” become part of revenue-generating experiences, and where the line between wildlife education and commercial entertainment may begin to blur. ㅤ KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

A formal USDA complaint alleges 19 animal-welfare violations at Jungle Friends Primate Sanctuary in Florida spanning nearly five years. SANCTUARY UNDER SCRUTINY Jungle Friends Primate Sanctuary Faces a Formal USDA Animal-Welfare Complaint The animals who arrive at a sanctuary depend on a promise: that their needs will come first. A formal USDA complaint against Jungle Friends Primate Sanctuary in Gainesville, Florida, puts that responsibility under scrutiny. Filed September 3, 2026, the six-page complaint includes 19 alleged violations spanning September 2021 through June 2026—nearly five years. The allegations involve veterinary care, medication, food, sanitation, pest control and enclosure maintenance. ㅤ Why this action matters ㅤ Speaking to WUFT News, Delcianna Winders, Professor of Law and Director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, emphasized the significance of the enforcement action: ㅤ “It’s unusual for the USDA to even take this action at any time,” Winders said. “They only do [a complaint] in the most serious of cases.” ㅤ A formal complaint brings allegations into an administrative enforcement proceeding. It is a consequential development, although it does not establish a final finding against the facility. ㅤ The animals behind the allegations ㅤ The USDA alleges inadequate veterinary care and observation involving a cotton-top tamarin found dead in June 2023, and inadequate care for a brown capuchin, Golden Child, after a fight in June 2024. It also alleges that another capuchin received twice the prescribed dose of an expired medication. Additional allegations address accumulated waste, food quality, pests, rust and damaged enclosures. ㅤ These are basic responsibilities of captive-animal care. Veterinary instructions must reach the people responsible for treatment, medication must be checked, and enclosures must protect animals from injury. The question is whether reliable systems deliver those protections every day. ㅤ What Jungle Friends says ㅤ Founder Kari Bagnall told WUFT that the complaint omits important context and that the sanctuary has addressed earlier problems. She described a digital care-notification system, medication safeguards, repairs and other improvements. WUFT reported that three of four inspections in 2026 found no violations, while one cited rust. ㅤ Those reported improvements warrant scrutiny alongside the earlier record. As Winders explained to WUFT, later corrections do not erase an earlier violation or automatically prevent enforcement. Sustained improvement should be demonstrated through records, consistent care and independent oversight. ㅤ A pending case—and an ongoing responsibility ㅤ WUFT reported that the sanctuary remains open and its exhibitor license remains active. Jungle Friends can contest the allegations through the administrative process; the complaint itself is not a final decision. ㅤ For the animals, care cannot wait for the legal process to conclude. Their daily needs continue while the case proceeds. Any meaningful resolution should put dependable veterinary care, trained staffing, safe housing and ongoing monitoring at its center. ㅤ What needs to change ㅤ The word “sanctuary” carries an expectation of refuge. Maintaining that trust requires transparency about problems, evidence that corrective measures work, and the resources to sustain them. Donors and supporters can ask for inspection records, enforcement documents and clear explanations of how animal-care responsibilities are carried out. ㅤ Accountability must follow the animals—wherever they are housed and whatever a facility calls itself. ㅤ Sources: USDA administrative complaint ⁠, filed September 3, 2026; WUFT News ⁠, October 2, 2026; Vermont Law and Graduate School ⁠. “When Animals Need Rescue From a Rescue” — A Pennsylvania case involving an exotic-animal rescue owner facing animal-cruelty charges, reinforcing a broader principle: the label “rescue” or “sanctuary” should never place a facility beyond scrutiny, transparency or accountability for the animals in its care. ㅤ KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

Examine USDA findings involving wild and exotic felids exhibited without correct license designations and the questions raised about oversight and accountability. FROM USDA CITATION TO LIVE TELEVISION Just weeks after the U.S. Department of Agriculture documented concerns involving the exhibition of restricted wild felids at Chase Animal Rescue and Sanctuary in Webster, Florida, the facility appeared on live morning television showcasing close-contact encounters with juvenile African servals. The juxtaposition raises a straightforward question: what happens when practices documented by federal inspectors continue to be presented publicly as wildlife education or entertainment? ㅤ In its June 2026 inspection, USDA issued a repeat citation after documenting that the facility continued exhibiting wild and exotic felids—including a juvenile serval—without obtaining the required license authorization for those species. The inspection specifically referenced donor interactions with a juvenile serval during an Earth Day event, “Keeper for the Day” experiences involving the serval, and the addition of caracals to the facility. ㅤ USDA explained why those licensing requirements exist: “Not acquiring the correct license designations… can result in animals being held by unauthorized or untrained personnel for the species.” The concern, therefore, was not simply administrative paperwork. The agency connected the licensing requirements to whether animals are being handled by people appropriately authorized and trained for the species involved. ㅤ Weeks later, FOX 35 Orlando aired a live segment from the facility featuring juvenile servals climbing onto reporters during the broadcast. One reporter later joked on social media, “The baby serval has some really sharp claws!” Fortunately, no serious injury appears to have occurred. But the absence of an injury does not answer the larger question raised by placing these encounters in the context of the recent USDA inspection. ㅤ The issue is not whether juvenile servals can interact with people without immediately causing harm. It is whether close-contact interactions with wild felids should be promoted as entertainment or publicity—particularly after federal inspectors had already documented concerns involving the exhibition of those same animals. ㅤ Wild animals do not become domesticated because they are young. A juvenile serval still possesses sharp claws, sharp teeth, powerful instincts and behaviors that can change as the animal matures. The fact that an interaction appears manageable in one moment does not necessarily demonstrate that it is appropriate as a recurring public encounter. ㅤ Responsible wildlife conservation should inspire respect for wild animals rather than normalize close physical contact for publicity, social media or entertainment. If the stated purpose is education, then the educational value of the encounter deserves consideration alongside the excitement it generates. ㅤ Sometimes the most compelling evidence isn't an opinion. Sometimes it is simply placing an official inspection report beside the publicly promoted images and asking whether the two tell the same story. ㅤ Related Reading: “When a Wild Animal Becomes an ‘Ambassador,’ What Exactly Are We Teaching?” Explore the questions raised when a wild serval is presented in close-contact, human-centered settings—and whether proximity necessarily produces better conservation education. KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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 Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

Explore at least 49 USDA citation entries documented at Single Vision in Melrose, Florida, from 2017–2026, including repeat serval-handling concerns. Single Vision Inc. in Melrose, Florida, has a documented history of exotic animal encounters, including bear cubs and African servals. Its inspection record deserves attention beyond the visitor experience . BEYOND THE ENCOUNTER — THE USDA RECORD OF CONCERN Single Vision Inc. • Melrose, Florida • At Least 49 Citation Entries Documented, 2017–2026 A wildlife encounter lasts minutes. Responsibility for the animal continues every day. At Single Vision Inc. in Melrose, Florida, the inspection record raises concerns extending from public handling to veterinary care, enclosure safety, sanitary water and regulatory oversight. ㅤ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) database records reviewed for this article document at least 49 citation entries across 16 distinct inspection dates between June 22, 2017, and September 14, 2026: 45 Non-Critical, three Critical and one Direct. This is a documented minimum from the records reviewed, rather than a verified complete total of every citation since 2017. ㅤ What the number represents ㅤ Each entry is a cited noncompliant item, not a separate injured animal or necessarily a unique regulatory provision. A provision cited on multiple inspection dates contributes an entry on each date. Overlapping screenshot rows were counted once, and “Teachable Moments” were excluded. ㅤ The count also does not establish that a particular condition remained continuously uncorrected between inspections. Its value lies in showing the extent of the documented record and placing recent findings within a longer history. ㅤ Public encounters and animal handling ㅤ Single Vision has a documented history of bear-cub and African serval encounters. A July 2020 East Coast Current feature reproduced facility tour information offering approximately 30 minutes with baby bears for a minimum donation of $100 per person. Its tour page, reviewed October 14, 2026, advertised serval interactions and a baby-serval meet-and-greet package. ㅤ Serval contact was explicitly included in the September 5, 2023 USDA citation under 2.131(c)(1), “Handling of animals,” marked “Repeat.” Inspectors described public interactions with an adult serval and other animals without identifiable effective restraint or established barriers. One photograph described in the report showed a serval’s head on a visitor’s chest. ㅤ These were documented handling concerns, not simply a disagreement about whether encounters are educational. The advertising does not, by itself, establish how every current encounter is conducted. ㅤ Veterinary care and daily health monitoring ㅤ USDA’s August 2022 penalty document alleged deficiencies in veterinary-care arrangements and failures to seek or provide appropriate care for several cats, including geriatric tigers, a jaguar, a cougar and a Geoffroy’s cat. It also addressed communication with the attending veterinarian. ㅤ In September 2026, inspectors found a skin lesion on a New Guinea singing dog that appeared more than 24 hours old but had not been identified by the facility. USDA stated that the missed observation prevented timely veterinary attention. The veterinarian was notified during inspection. ㅤ Enclosure safety and injury prevention ㅤ The September 2023, June 2026 and September 2026 reports reviewed for this article all mark enclosure maintenance as a repeat concern. Findings include exposed metal, damaged caging, digging beneath wire guards and protruding fasteners or wire. USDA described risks of entrapment, punctures, lacerations and broken limbs. ㅤ These findings span enclosures housing multiple species, including bears, cats, foxes, wolves, porcupines and kinkajous. September 2026 also documented exposed screws in macaw perches. The reports identify hazards; they do not establish that every hazard caused an injury. ㅤ Water, sanitation and pest control ㅤ The 2022 enforcement document described unsanitary water available to several species during an October 2020 inspection. In June 2026, a tiger’s only available water source contained dark green, murky water, with the tank’s sides and bottom obscured. ㅤ Both 2026 inspection reports marked pest control as a repeat citation. June’s findings involved flies on foxes with ear lesions; September’s involved numerous flies and rodent droppings on the floor and tables in the food-preparation area. ㅤ Bird welfare, records and oversight ㅤ The September 2023 report also cited the absence of an environmental enhancement plan for an umbrella cockatoo and three macaws. Such a plan addresses psychological well-being, extending care responsibilities beyond food and shelter. ㅤ USDA’s 2022 enforcement document additionally addressed incomplete animal records, unavailable inspection access and interference with inspectors. The document assessed an $8,850 penalty for alleged violations. Those enforcement allegations provide context; they have not been added to the 49-entry screenshot count, which would risk counting some events twice. ㅤ Accountability beyond the visitor experience ㅤ The value of this record extends beyond one encounter photograph or one recent inspection. It shows why visitor-facing claims about education, conservation and lifelong care should be evaluated alongside documented handling and husbandry findings. ㅤ The reviewed records establish historical findings, not current compliance. Meaningful follow-up requires documented corrections, preventive measures and subsequent inspection results. The animals’ needs continue after visitors leave, after photographs are shared and after an inspection ends. Related Reading: Jackson Zoo: The Zoological World Under Inspection USDA findings at Jackson Zoo provide another case study in animal-care oversight, highlighting concerns about staffing and the resources needed to meet animals’ daily needs. ㅤ KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

Examine questions surrounding SPARTN and Wild Encounters and the distinction between wildlife rescue, exhibition and animal entertainment. RESCUE OR REVENUE? USDA: REGULATED ANIMAL EXHIBITION CONTINUED AFTER EXHIBITOR’S LICENSE WAS CANCELED Small Primate Animal Rescue of TN (SPARTN) An organization presented as a primate “rescue.” Monkeys transported to public events. Children allowed direct physical contact. And a federal exhibitor license that USDA says had been canceled more than two years earlier. ㅤ A June 2026 USDA inspection report involving Michael Robison—associated with Small Primate Animal Rescue of TN (SPARTN) and animal exhibition under the name “Wild Encounters”—raises serious questions about animal welfare, public safety and regulatory compliance. ㅤ According to USDA, the facility’s Class C exhibitor license was canceled by the licensee on March 12, 2024. Despite this, USDA reported that animals continued to be exhibited to the public for compensation. ㅤ Inspectors documented an April 25, 2026 Earth Day Expo in Athens, Alabama, involving two black-handed spider monkeys. According to USDA, photographs showed monkeys on leashes being used for hands-on encounters, with adults and children holding, petting and directly interacting with them. ㅤ The event organizer told USDA she paid $935 for the encounter through an online vendor platform. USDA also reported that the exhibitor’s online profile indicated he was USDA licensed—although agency records showed the license had been canceled in March 2024. ㅤ USDA stated: ㅤ “Continuing to conduct regulated activity without a license is a serious violation of the Animal Welfare Act.” ㅤ The agency further stated that no regulated activities may be conducted until a USDA license is obtained. ㅤ THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST USDA CONCERN. ㅤ In January 2024, USDA issued a Critical citation involving Mojo, a male vervet monkey whose incisor and canine teeth had been extracted. ㅤ Inspectors reported that documentation of the procedure was not provided and that the veterinarian identified in the facility’s veterinary-care program said he had neither performed nor recommended the extraction. ㅤ USDA stated that removing canine teeth from nonhuman primates solely for handling or husbandry purposes is unacceptable and can result in pain, discomfort and chronic health problems. USDA also cited the licensee for deciding to remove Mojo’s teeth without considering other husbandry, enrichment or training options. ㅤ An August 2023 USDA inspection documented additional concerns involving vervet monkeys, including animal-handling issues, inadequate perimeter fencing, damaged enclosure areas with sharp edges and exposed insulation, an accessible light fixture, surfaces that could not be readily cleaned and sanitized, and sheltered housing measured at 93°F during the inspection. ㅤ Taken together, these federal records raise important questions: ㅤ Why were animals exhibited for compensation after the USDA license was canceled? ㅤ Were event organizers aware of the license status? ㅤ Were children and the public adequately protected during direct contact with primates? ㅤ Why were veterinary records concerning Mojo’s tooth extractions not provided? ㅤ And perhaps the larger question: ㅤ How does a self-described primate “rescue” reconcile its mission with transporting primates to paid public events and facilitating hands-on encounters? ㅤ “Rescue” should mean more than a name. ㅤ When wild animals are transported to events, placed on leashes, handled by children and used in paid encounters, the public has every right to ask: ㅤ Who is benefiting from the encounter—and is it truly the animal? ㅤ Transparency matters. ㅤ Accountability matters. ㅤ Animal welfare matters. ㅤ Related Reading: “When a Wild Animal Becomes an ‘Ambassador,’ What Exactly Are We Teaching?” ㅤ KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link

INTERPOL-coordinated Operation Madre Tierra VIII reports 233 arrests and more than 1,000 live animals recovered across nine countries. WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME MEETS ACCOUNTABILITY INTERPOL-Coordinated Crackdown Reports 233 Arrests and More Than 1,000 Live Animals Recovered Across Nine Countries Operation Madre Tierra VIII offers a significant example of international cooperation against wildlife trafficking and illegal forest clearing, with animal care and case outcomes still requiring continued attention. ㅤ Environmental crime crosses borders. An international enforcement operation announced by INTERPOL on October 7, 2026, demonstrates the importance of a coordinated response. Operation Madre Tierra VIII, conducted from June 1 through July 31, resulted in 233 arrests, the recovery of more than 1,000 live animals and the identification of 60,000 hectares of illegally cleared forest across nine countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. ㅤ According to INTERPOL, the operation dismantled environmental crime networks, with investigators finding illegal timber and wildlife trafficking activity operating at an industrial scale along the corridor connecting Central and South America. The participating countries were Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama. ㅤ Across more than 330 reported cases, authorities recorded 313 seizures and identified 312 individuals suspected of involvement in environmental crimes. Seizures included up to 4.6 tonnes of cyanide, along with mercury and ammunition. The live animals recovered included exotic birds and big cat species. ㅤ These results deserve recognition. They document a collaborative effort to interrupt environmental crime and recover animals caught up in it. They also reveal the scale of the problem confronting investigators: wildlife trafficking and illegal forest clearing require attention to both the animals taken and the habitats damaged. ㅤ WHAT IS INTERPOL? ㅤ INTERPOL—the International Criminal Police Organization—is an intergovernmental organization that helps police across 196 member countries work together. Its services enable the sharing of criminal information and provide technical, analytical and operational support for investigations. This cooperation helps national authorities pursue cases that extend beyond their own borders. ㅤ Each member country has a National Central Bureau that connects its law-enforcement agencies with INTERPOL’s General Secretariat and counterparts abroad. The organization provides a framework for international cooperation; national authorities carry out enforcement within their respective legal systems. Describing an operation as INTERPOL-coordinated recognizes that supporting role and the work of the participating countries. ㅤ THE UNITED STATES IS A MEMBER: ㅤ The United States belongs to INTERPOL’s global network. Its National Central Bureau in Washington connects U.S. law enforcement with other member countries and the organization’s international information-sharing system. That membership is relevant to understanding the reach of international police cooperation. The United States was not among the nine participating countries listed for Operation Madre Tierra VIII. ㅤ WHAT THE REPORTED FIGURES ESTABLISH: ㅤ The results should be read carefully. Arrests are not convictions. The 312 individuals identified as suspected of involvement should not be added to the 233 arrests as though the announcement establishes two separate groups. Likewise, the 60,000 hectares represent illegally cleared forest identified by authorities; the figure does not measure habitat saved or restored. ㅤ More than 1,000 live animals recovered is a meaningful enforcement result, but recovery alone does not establish release into the wild or a lasting welfare outcome. The announcement excerpt available for this article does not describe the animals’ subsequent placement. Their futures remain an essential part of assessing the operation’s longer-term results. ㅤ WHAT NEEDS TO FOLLOW? ㅤ Accountability should continue through transparent reporting on the progress of cases, including prosecutions and judicial outcomes where appropriate. For recovered animals, follow-through should include veterinary assessment, suitable care and placement, and rehabilitation for release where feasible and appropriate. Continued enforcement should also address the networks involved and the conditions that allow wildlife trafficking and illegal forest clearing to persist. ㅤ Operation Madre Tierra VIII is a significant development worth recognizing. Nine countries working together demonstrate the value of international collaboration. The next measure of success will include what happens to the cases, how the recovered animals are cared for and what action follows to prevent further exploitation of wildlife and forests. ㅤ Sources: INTERPOL operation announcement — October 7, 2026 ⁠ What is INTERPOL? ⁠ United States member profile ⁠ Related Reading: “Illegal Wildlife Continues to Slip Through Canada’s Borders” — Examines enforcement gaps at international borders and the challenges authorities face in disrupting the illegal wildlife trade, providing broader context for why coordinated operations such as Madre Tierra VIII matter. ㅤ KeepingWildlifeWild.org 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. Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link