So I’ve had this idea for a while that perhaps in order for a wildlife institution to use the label of “ZOO” they would have to be an actual functioning zoological research or education center, having its main focus on the animals themselves. Many zoos and aquariums serve as…
Another self-righteous post from someone who believes they should be able to stand in judgement over how other people own, interact with, and love their animals. “Display” does not equal de facto exploitation. Even non-profit organizations have to be profitable enough to cover their operating expenses. It is not necessarily evil for animals to have a job which contributes money to their own support. Can we not work to make all these places into safe places for animals rather than getting out the old let’s-ban-everything-that-makes-us-personally-uncomfortable mentality? Love and compassion for animals is great. Let’s try to extend it to our fellow people too.
All right, I’m going to word this as nicely as possible.
Animals, aside from domesticated animals such as dogs and horses, do not understand the concept of ‘’work’’. That is not only a human concept, it is also a capitalist concept so there are literally entire societies in this world that doesn’t even know of the existence of ‘’working to cover live expenses’’.
The people that are against these facilities (that yes, are exploitative) are not mindless animal rights protestors self pretentious vegans. They know exactly what they’re protesting against. Especially wild animals do not understand the completely human concept of work, and to make them act against their instincts to cover ‘’life expenses’’- something that they don’t understand either- is completely cruel, too. there are endangered species in the ownership of these circusses, species that are solitary apex predators. in what world is putting a species that evolved to keep the balance of the prey numbers in its area in a completely different environment that enforces fear and uses it to ‘’train’’ said species humane i wonder?
i come from the netherlands. netherlands, along with other west european countries, are HUGE advocates for animal welfare. and yes, animal circusses are basically unheard of in the netherlands. you come from america. america… is a country that can lick my nicely shaved, well cleaned anus i’m sorry.
^ like that preferably
and you’re trying to tell me your country does it better than mine?
feel free to join in the anus licking party i guess………..
lmao what are do u live in to think animal circusses are good get with the program we’re not living in the middle ages anymore lmao grow a set of brains and enlighten urself regarding animal welfare and animal psychology and then come back with ur cheap, ugly af blog to tell actual knowledged ppl about what’s good or not :)
The Arabian Leopard (Panthera pardus nimr) is the smallest subspecies of the leopard native to the Arabian Peninsula. Weight ranges from 40 to 70 pounds, pelage hues range from pale yellow to deep golden or tawny, patterned with rosettes.
They are currently listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN with a decreasing population trend. Fewer than 200 Arabian leopards remain in the wild, an estimation made by the Arabian Fauna Conservation Workshop.
According to the Foundation for the Protection of the Arabian Leopard in Yemen, it is confirmed, through camera trapping and positive testing for Arabian leopard DNA found in collected scat samples, that Arabian Leopards do, in fact, still exist in countries such as Yemen, Oman and Palestine/Israel. Arabian leopards are most likely extinct in the wild in UAE, Saudi Arabia and are known to be extinct in the wild in Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Major threats to the Arabian leopard include habitat destruction, prey base depletion (leading to livestock predation and retaliatory killings by affected farmers), and poaching.
Sometime in the early 1990s, ten leopards were wild-caught, some sold to zoos, and others placed in conservation breeding centers. Of the captive Arabian leopards across the Peninsula, approximately 84 specimens reside in zoological and breeding centers with the largest and healthiest population residing in the Breeding Center for Endangered Arabian Wildlife.
More research and detailed studies need to be conducted to ensure the conservation for Arabian leopards in the wild, however, conservation groups such as the FPALY (see 3rd paragraph for link), are working to increase public awareness on this subspecies, while improving the breeding success in captive populations and pushing for legislation to establish protected areas for which Arabian leopard populations can safely grow in.
Really, you have absolutely no clue how they’d damage wildlife population? *sighs*
Well, first and foremost - and a little fact I sure as hell hope you know: cats are hunters, and rather indiscriminate hunters at that. You might hope that your cat is just going after mice and rats, but they’re attacking other animals and I can promise you that, including endangered animals.
I have volunteered at a wildlife shelter for 8 years, go ahead and guess what the number one reason animals are brought in for. In fact, I’ll just save you the trouble: they’re caught by cats. The kicker? Cats have a bacteria in their saliva that will KILL small mammals within 3 days if they aren’t given IMMEDIATE treatment within 24 hours. The sooner the animal is given antibiotics the better, but even if you get them treated soon after the attack they still might die on you.
If that’s not the worst part, it’s that they will torture their prey. Your average cat is more than likely not hunting for food, unlike wild cats that need to hunt for food - they’re hunting for fun. The animal that they caught is just a toy to them that they’re going to mangle and torture until the kindest thing you can do for them is put them down humanely… and that’s if the animal is caught in time.
Seriously, I have seen more animals mangled and killed by cats than I care to admit because it’s my fucking job to help my supervisors take care of these animals. It’s my job to pick up the robin that had it’s leg chewed off by a cat and it’s wing so severely broken that it had to be put down immediately. It’s my job to take care of the baby animals that were caught and injured by cats - wondering if that lethargic bird is actually going to survive til the end of the day or if that baby squirrel can survive the internal injuries along with the bacteria that is threatening to take their life. Most of them don’t live, too many times I’ve had to tell my supervisor that the lethargic little baby is now dead.
I don’t even blame the cats for this. They’re hunters, that’s what they do - it’s the humans that let their DOMESTIC cats outside to wreak havoc on the local wildlife that I blame.
No fucking shit cats have been around for thousands of years, in fact they’ve been around for longer than that. But a wild Serval in Africa hunting to survive is not the same thing as some dumbass letting their well-fed cat outside without supervision “because it’s in their nature.” Bull fucking shit it’s in their nature. They are domestic animals have been bred over those thousands of years to be companion animals to humans and they don’t need to go outside. They don’t need to wander around outside as much as a domestic dog needs to wander around outside. Furthermore, the domestic feline is not a native species to any continent as much as a Labrador is a native species and they directly compete with native predators (such as owls, foxes, opossums, hawks, minxes, etc).
Not to mention, when you let your cat outside you’re also putting them at risk. They will be hit by cars, they will be killed by coyotes or bears, they will run into asshole humans that will hurt them, they will be taken by eagles (yes, an eagle will take a cat). One day they will never come home and that all could have been prevented if you kept your cat indoors.
But hey, if you’re not going to take my word for it, google “cats are destroying wildlife.” Just do it, you’re going to get no shortage of sources that will explain the same time I’m saying. Here,letmemakeiteasy.
If I sound harsh right now it’s because I am losing my patience with people and I’ve seen way too many animals die or have their lives negatively affected by cats. It’s because cats are my favourite animals and I am tired of people thinking it’s okay to put them in situations that are harmful for the local ecosystem, wildlife and the cats themselves. It’s also because I’ve lost too many cats because my parents thought it was okay that they were indoor/outdoor cats (this was when I was too young to make decisions and thankfully, after loosing 3 animals to being hit by cars, my parents decided to keep them strictly indoor).
If you want your cats to go outside, fine. Leash train them, keep a close eye on them and scare away any wildlife that they’re trying to hunt, get a nice outdoor enclosure if you don’t want to put in the effort to leash train them or sit outside with them.
I do all three with my kitties - no wildlife harmed and my cats get to enjoy the outside.
Does anyone know the source of this picture, what facility this is is at or if this cheetah is privately owned? My friend pointed out that this does look a lot like taxidermy, if so - I apologize. But just in case, please read my post on why you should not glorify king cheetahs. At least when reblogging this add some kind of note explaining that they are inbred and exploited.
there is no source in the op, altho the person who posted this does have something for pet cheetahs, so i wouldn’t be surprised if this were to be a privately owned cheetah as well.
like
pointed out, king cheetahs should not be glorified, whether they’re someone’s “pet” or a mount or whatever. they’re inbred fucks, just like white tigers and white lions, and the survival of the species should come before any gross person’s aesthetic tastes. glorification is what makes people interested in these sick, conservationally useless felines- and not in a good way. it’s what inspires them to go see them irl: since no reputable zoo prioritizes the taste of the public these people always end up with visiting (supporting) problematic facilities that overbreeds/inbreeds/exploits/abuses their animals.
fucking thank u for adding up to that :) really i know the sort of people who likes this shit and who have no trouble reblogging it and showing it to their mass followers. god knows we’re getting tired with ur lowsy #but white tigers are bad!!! tags, but u keep ur mouths shut with other issues entirely while knowing damn well about them, just because they’re not as well known. i’m not saying go about and run an animal welfare blog, all im saying is fucking keep ur hands away from a problematic post if ur not going to call it out decently- and tags don’t fucking count.
and then u have the audacity to shit on millitant vegans/aras while ur no fucking better urselves LOL.
#vague 👀💋
The cheetah’s name is Kodi and he’s very much alive as there are multiple photos of him in different poses. Unfortunately the photographer doesn’t state what organization he is from, just that “he was brought in by people who are trying to help cats (big and small) from being endangered/extinct by education”
looks very much like it, just what they say about the better known places like t.i.g.e.r.s., tiger temple and all… the facility (if it is one) seem to have much direct contact with the animals in their care that they’re not supposed to be having direct contact with. could be like this one jaguar facility that i once came across with (whose name i’ve forgotten rn but)- they too have direct contact with the jags but they don’t breed them and rescue them from shitty places like circuses and give them much better homes (and don’t drug them and whatnot. plus, they’re young and Mexican (if I recall correctly) and the vibes that i got from them aren’t like the ones that i got from this (and the other pictures from the source) at all.
showed me that facility in fact (maybe u know the name?), and i really don’t like it but if she says its ok then its ok (with the other factors keeping in mind).
but i digress. all im saying is that direct contact is bad and that there are flaws in younger facilities but these pictures don’t send the same vibes. “helping big/lesser cats”? that’s what tiger temple says, too. the pictures are also taken in the Philippines…
yea..
Guys, I have a question about cheetahs in general; I read somewhere that cheetahs in general almost went extinct in an ice age so long ago and that there were so few of them that the only way to survive was inbreeding, and that today, cheetahs’ DNA is all practically identical. Is this ture? What is the basis of this notion?
Yes, that is true. The problem is, though, since they are already extremely inbred, it is essential that we try our best to not damage them any further by purposefully inbreeding for color mutations.
dannytiger: Mhm, what you said is true. I have some more search to do to see if the idea that they are practically identical is true, but the species as a whole is inbred enough to cause health consequences, such as high juvenile mortality, difficulty with captive breeding, infertility, etc.
During the last ice age, a genetic bottleneck occurred where the population of cheetahs got very low, forcing them to inbreed. And that is why cheetahs today have low genetic variability, or in other terms, are inbred.
So, as panthxra said, that’s why king cheetahs are especially bad to be breeding. I explain that further in this post.
Does anyone know the source of this picture, what facility this is is at or if this cheetah is privately owned? My friend pointed out that this does look a lot like taxidermy, if so - I apologize. But just in case, please read my post on why you should not glorify king cheetahs. At least when reblogging this add some kind of note explaining that they are inbred and exploited.
there is no source in the op, altho the person who posted this does have something for pet cheetahs, so i wouldn’t be surprised if this were to be a privately owned cheetah as well.like
pointed out, king cheetahs should not be glorified, whether they’re someone’s “pet” or a mount or whatever. they’re inbred fucks, just like white tigers and white lions, and the survival of the species should come before any gross person’s aesthetic tastes. glorification is what makes people interested in these sick, conservationally useless felines- and not in a good way. it’s what inspires them to go see them irl: since no reputable zoo prioritizes the taste of the public these people always end up with visiting (supporting) problematic facilities that overbreeds/inbreeds/exploits/abuses their animals.fucking thank u for adding up to that :) really i know the sort of people who likes this shit and who have no trouble reblogging it and showing it to their mass followers. god knows we’re getting tired with ur lowsy #but white tigers are bad!!! tags, but u keep ur mouths shut with other issues entirely while knowing damn well about them, just because they’re not as well known. i’m not saying go about and run an animal welfare blog, all im saying is fucking keep ur hands away from a problematic post if ur not going to call it out decently- and tags don’t fucking count.and then u have the audacity to shit on millitant vegans/aras while ur no fucking better urselves LOL.
#vague 👀💋
The cheetah’s name is Kodi and he’s very much alive as there are multiple photos of him in different poses. Unfortunately the photographer doesn’t state what organization he is from, just that “he was brought in by people who are trying to help cats (big and small) from being endangered/extinct by education”
This place is really sketchy, honestly. There are other ways to ‘educate’ people than this. Unnecessarily stressing the cats out and putting the people around them in dangerous situations. They’re wild animals. You never know when they’ll strike and injure or kill someone.
And it goes without saying, this sends a terrible message to the public, the idea that big cats are just “big kitties” that can be tamed or domesticated.
Lastly, how did they even get their king cheetah? They know the date he was born on, which means he was born in captivity, and all king cheetahs in captivity are inbred. Just like how white tigers are inbred. Bet they didn’t explain that while flaunting him around in front of people during 'private events’.
Anonymous said: hey! i just saw your post tagged "animal welfare" "not animal rights"....i don't think i fully understand the difference between the two. why do you support animal welfare but not animal rights? thanks for any information!
What a wonderful question!! This is a very complicated issue, that can sound like picking hairs for people who aren’t intimately familiar with the animal care industry.
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll use one example for each side of the argument. AZA will represent the side of animal welfare, and PETA will represent the side of animal rights, because both are very visible members of each ideology. I will also try to tag anything that is my personal interpretation, and keep most of this discussion balanced.
To start off, try to imagine all human interaction with animals on a scale from 0 to 10. At the 10 end, we have no regard for animal health or care, hurting and killing animals with complete disregard. At the 0 end, we have no interaction with animals, not killing them or even using byproducts. If the 0 end sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the ideal of most vegans. I’ll try to use this as a reference when describing where each group lies.
Another thing I want to point out is that both groups have a common interest, which is treating animals fairly and humanely, and trying to achieve the most optimum standard of living for each.
Animal rights groups like PETA look to aim for that “0” end of the scale. The ultimate goal of animal rights groups is a complete dissolution of any industry that interacts with animals, from rodeos, and circuses, to zoos, farms, and even pets. From the Animal Welfare Council’s website:
Animal Rights is a philosophical view that animals have rights similar or the same as humans. True animal rights proponents believe that humans do not have the right to use animals at all. Animal rights proponents wish to ban all use of animals by humans.
Animal rights proponents support laws and regulations that would prohibit rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, raising of livestock for food, petting zoos, marine parks , breeding of purebred pets and any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation.
Now, again, I totally understand why people support animal rights groups. It is true that animals can and do get abused for the profit of humans, and some of the treatment they get would never be allowed on another human. This is the linchpin of the Animal Rights argument. Animals should have the same rights as humans and treated accordingly. Now, let’s look at Animal Welfare.
Groups that focus on Animal Welfare, such as AZA, define welfare thusly:
Animal Welfare refers to an animal’s collective physical, mental, and emotional states over a period of time, and is measured on a continuum from good to poor.
Explanation: An animal typically experiences good welfare when healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to develop and express species-typical relationships, behaviors, and cognitive abilities, and not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, or distress. Because physical, mental, and emotional states may be dependent on one another and can vary from day to day, it is important to consider these states in combination with one another over time to provide an assessment of an animal’s overall welfare status.
To use my straight line measurement from above, Animal Welfare falls closer to the “5” area of the spectrum. Animal Welfare groups do not make a blanket statement that all human interaction with animals is bad, but they do maintain standards to ensure that animals are not being abused or taken advantage of for the profit of a human. Welfare groups like AZA support zoos and animal research, among other things, but only in that they are held to high standards created to ensure optimal animal welfare.
They also use measurements that are as scientific as possible to assess the status of an animal. This can be done by measuring hormones like cortisol, testosterone, and dopamine through blood tests, by observing and comparing animal behavior, monitoring eating amounts and patterns, or even the presence of breeding activity and successful childrearing behavior. More unscientific methods depend on the regular keepers of the animals, and when they notice that something feels ‘off’ in an animal’s routine.
I hope that comes off as non-biased as I meant it to. I do understand the heart of most people behind the Animal Rights groups. And it really is hard to say no when you’re asked if you’re against the mistreatment of animals.
(Here begins my opinion) That being said, I truly believe that Animal Rights does more harm than good. Very regularly, groups like PETA and the Animal Liberation Front use violence, threats, and other terroristic tactics to achieve their ends (thejunglenook can back me up on this.). If you do research on PETA, you will find that many of the animals they “rescue” from shelters are killed. They prefer animals to be dead than be in human care.
I support animal welfare for two main reasons. One, we cannot be naive and think that we can unentwine our human lives with those of the animals we share the world with. Two, I believe that keeping animals in captivity is helpful both for the science we can learn from keeping them (normal ranges of size, food, hormone ranges, gestations, etc), and for their educational use. I and others have written extensively about the impact of seeing animals in person to help the general public gain a connection to an animal they would otherwise care little about.
I have also found that many times, decisions made by animal rights groups are selfish, human decisions. These are decisions that feel good for us to make, like “let the animal be free in the wild!” or “don’t let these poor animals get poked and prodded, look how sad they are”. A focus on animal welfare means that we look past that. Animals may not be released because there is no wild for them to return to, because the animal has been raised by humans and is unequipped to handle the wild, or because it is part of an essential breeding program. Seeing an animal be handled by vets, or even euthanized, is truly for the benefit of the animal. Just like you don’t like going to the doctor, animals don’t, either, but it is for their own good. Short term pain for long term benefit. And euthanasia is used when an animal’s quality of life has dropped below welfare standards, and there is no other option except to let the animal die a drawn-out death.
So when I post #animal welfare #not animal rights, that’s what I mean. I support the scientific support of the good health of the animal, not what my gut tells me “feels good”.
That said… first off what is a soft mount? A soft mountis basically a pelt that has the face mounted with a taxidermy form and is stuff with polyfill instead of mounting it with a foam body. Basically best way to explain it is a rug mounted animal except its sewn up and filled with polyfill. The trend of them began around the late 2000s if I recall and you can find a lot of them on deviantART.
As with any type of taxidermy, you’re going to find your good ones.
Ones that are okay quality.
And ones that are bad quality.
That said, a lot of buyers or commissioners would love to hear advice on buying one as well as looking for someone to commission to mount their pelts. Here I’m going to give you folks tips on that so that you’ll know what to look for.
Buyers
How much is the soft mount and how old is it? I’ve found ‘cheaper’ soft mounts that are under the $250 range for fox or coyote for example that its going to be a quality that is sub-par at best. Always remember, you pay for what you get. If you buy a cheap soft mount, your going to get cheap quality while putting a little more money in will get you a really nice animal! Age is also a factor.
Who mounted it? This one is an important one since the buyer can trace who mounted it and then find if the animal was mounted by some who just started doing taxidermy or someone that’s been doing it a long time.
Making sure they are a reliable seller. I’ve seen way too many people over the years get burned by people that were selling them and never received them or got a ruined mount.
Does it look life-like? This one is probably the best way to weed out the bad ones. Bad soft mounts I’ve found look unnatural and not life-like while the good ones are going to look like how the animal did when it was alive. The best way to figure that out is looking up what the animal looks like, look up live images in google and compare it to the soft mount. You want to get one that people would think it was alive at first glance!
Commissioners
How long has this person be doing taxidermy? I know a lot of new people getting into taxidermy try to open up commission immediately when they probably don’t know the basic on taxidermy. These are folks you want to avoid unless they are skilled right at the beginning.
When you send them an inquiry, do they ask you about your pelt? Questions like “Is the ears turned?” “Are the nose, lips and eyeslids split?” “Are the genitalia in intact on the pelt?” and so on. These are folks that know the craft well.
Turn around time. Some taxidermist vary on times, some can get them done in a few months while others a year. Make sure its someone who has a good turnaround time. Anything over a year I would be wary.
Prices. If their their prices are very low, like $150 for a fox for example…you probably want to avoid them. Found that people that undercharge are often not using quality supplies and are making the soft mounts cheaply. Research the average prices on the animal you want mounted.
Do they send WIP photos? Self-explanatory, should see progress of your commission!
Has people had good dealings with them? I know as of lately been seeing some good taxidermist who did top notch work that suddenly got a lot of bad dealings. Make sure you research the person you pick to make sure no one has had issues with them.
Do they have quality work? Look into their previous works and commissions, is there work good? Do their mounts look life-like?
Optional: Are they a licensed taxidermist and do they enter competition or compete with their works? This one more of an optional but found that licensed taxidermists are usually ones that produce okay quality work to good quality works. Bonus also if they compete since it means they are actively involved in taxidermy and that these competitions critique their work and use that to improve themselves in the long run.
These are just some of observations and advice I give to folks on soft mounts. I’ve seen a lot of bad ones over the years and nowadays the market is just littered with them. I want to educate people on how to buy them or look for people to mount there stuff. Not sure how much of an impact it might have but maybe would help change the tides on soft mounts to a degree.
If you guys have more to add, feel free! I might have missed some points but point of the post is to be educational and give advice.
Photos posted here are not mine but found via Google Images. If one of your works is up on here and would like it to be removed for any reason, message me privately and I’ll remove it. :) I made sure to use images that would be hard to trace who did what.
In addition, especially if you’re planning to send in a personal pelt to a soft mount artist, it helps to be able to distinguish if your own pelt is mountable or not. Here’s a guide for that.
Many of the ‘okay’ or ‘bad quality’ mounts shown are the results of unmountable animals being mounted. If you’re looking for something realistic and high quality, make sure to send in a mountable animal or ask the artist whether the pelt they plan to mount has eyelids, spilt lips, etc.
The pictures above show Macho B, a male jaguar that was first sighted in the Baboquivari mountains by houndsman Jack Childs and was found years later in a wire snare in the Santa Rita Mountains (February 18th, 2009).
The trap was set up by a biologist from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) named Emil McCain as part of a bear-lion study. When Macho B was found in the wire snare, the AZGFD biologists considered this a ”happy accident”. Despite many conservationists having warned against potential risks years ago, they had instantly tranquilized and radio collared Macho B while jaguars weren’t even part of the plan (note: the trap was set up originally for mountain lions and bears, or so they claimed).
Twelve days later, the department noticed that Macho B wasn’t moving as far or as frequently as they had expected him to, and after they also noticed that he was showing signs of ailments, AZGFD had recaptured Macho B and brought him to the Phoenix Zoo on March 2th. The jaguar was then there diagnosed as terminally ill from kidney failure, and government officials and veterinarians concluded that he should be euthanized.
However, it didn’t stop there. The Center for Biological Diversity called for an independent medical examination, which revealed that the jaguar’s death was at least in part due to agency mismanagement (read more about this here). While most of the information was lost for investigation due to a faulty necropsy on USFWS’ behalf, some of Macho B’s organs remained intact. A veterinary pathologist who examined the jaguar’s kidneys, but whose report was never released, told the Arizona Daily Star that the organs appeared healthy and that Macho B ”may have just suffered from dehydration”.
Investigating Macho B’s death, the Interior Department’s inspector general concluded that AZGFD did not have a permit for the capture. Moreover, the investigation also concluded that the capture was in fact intentional (view the full report here). And if that weren’t enough evidence to prove the criminal wrongdoing within the AZGFD…
In May, 2010, Emil McCain admitted in federal court that he deliberately and without a permit captured Macho B by baiting a snare set in a canyon that he knew Macho B traversed and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor crime: illegal take of an endangered species. (McCain had convinced a female co-worker named Janary Brun to plant the bait, and she was sentenced as well.) McCain said he knew there had been recent evidence a jaguar had appeared in the area of the snares as photographs of the cat had been taken near the capture site months earlier. He was sentenced to five years’ probation and fined $1,000.
And it goes deeper than that. According to this blog run by Janary Brun, Emil McCain is claiming victimhood while at the same time admitting to ”whoring out the truth” and federal laws in exchange for being wined and dined and promised a future employment by former AZGFD biologist and current University of Arizona jaguar researcher Ron Thompson.
When McCain directed me to place jaguar scat at the BJDP cameras and near the AZGFD snare on February 4, 2009 I believed he was a legit researcher whom had permission from AZGFD, USFWS, & BJDP to attempt to capture and collar Macho B. After Macho B was collared and McCain and Childs did not correct AZGFD’s statements that Macho B’s capture was “accidental” I became suspicious. Then after I contacted Tony Davis of the AZ Daily Star to tell him Macho B’s capture was definitely not accidental and McCain’s reaction was to attack and defame my character with his words supplemented by a script his father provided, I thought I had been duped by someone I trusted. It was at this point I considered him to be some evil, master-mind. When I read the discovery of my case while preparing for trial it became clear that McCain had intent to capture and collar Macho B all on his own and this intent was encouraged and fostered directly by Thompson (AZGFD), Johnson (AZGFD), Smith (AZGFD), Childs (BJDP), and indirectly by Van Pelt (AZGFD), O’Brien (AZGFD) and Fernandez (USFWS). Now, I just view McCain as a sociopath; adamant about taking zero responsibility for his actions (he has a history of breaking laws, maiming and killing jaguars) and even incapable of viewing any wrongdoing he has done as wrong. He always chooses the victim card as his defense and his new version of that is curious as he waited years to shift blame from me as a liar to Ron Thompson as his pimp. Since he suspiciously leaves Childs out of the equation I am wondering if Childs is still of some use to McCain? Perhaps Childs is dusting off a seat at the “jaguar conservation” table for McCain when his probation is over in two years?
Whatever the conspiracies are about however, fact remains that twelve years after it was created, and with little else to show for its efforts, the Jaguar Conservation Team and its powerbroker the Arizona Game and Fish, had killed, for scientific purposes but absent the rigor of real science and outside the constraints of federal law, the last known wild jaguar in the United States.
