Please excuse my pun, when I say the fur is flying over this Wild Animal Repo (WAR), never-to-be-aired series. Both sides of the "owning wild animal" debate weighed in on this story.
Below are a few exerts from http://blogs.discovery.com/discovery-insider/2010/12/wild-animal-repo.html, Wild Animal Repo - Discovery Insider.
You have not idea how hard it is not to post a comment of my own. I have never read such disappointing comments made regarding the issue of whether or not humans should privately own exotic wild animals.
Ironically, both sides want the right to possess exotic wild animals. Both sides agree that the other side should be regulated. Both sides claim they want what's best for the animals. And finally, both sides believe non-responsible owners/sanctuaries should be shut down for it gives "their side" a bad rap. With this much common ground, it's sad to read how divided both sides are at this time. From what I have learned, sanctuaries do not want to give up money and power and the owners don't want to lose their personal rights and liberties.
For those of you who are pro-sanctuary, you probably do not understand why I would claim that sanctuaries do not want to lose power or money. I say, you have not been reading my blog from the beginning to the end. I don't expect you to change your mind on this issue. I would like to think this dialogue will encourage you to seek the truth and keep an open mind. I too, was very pro-sanctuary many years ago, until I learned how much both sides have in common. If you listen to the other side's opinion and ask questions, you might actually learn something. The sad thing is, while everyone is bickering about who is right and who is wrong, the animals are left hanging in the middle.
Having said that, I've selected a few statements from both sides of the issue. As I re-read these statements, I am so glad I never weighed-in on the "Lope" topic, simply because no one would have listen to me anyway.
You have not idea how hard it is not to post a comment of my own. I have never read such disappointing comments made regarding the issue of whether or not humans should privately own exotic wild animals.
Ironically, both sides want the right to possess exotic wild animals. Both sides agree that the other side should be regulated. Both sides claim they want what's best for the animals. And finally, both sides believe non-responsible owners/sanctuaries should be shut down for it gives "their side" a bad rap. With this much common ground, it's sad to read how divided both sides are at this time. From what I have learned, sanctuaries do not want to give up money and power and the owners don't want to lose their personal rights and liberties.
For those of you who are pro-sanctuary, you probably do not understand why I would claim that sanctuaries do not want to lose power or money. I say, you have not been reading my blog from the beginning to the end. I don't expect you to change your mind on this issue. I would like to think this dialogue will encourage you to seek the truth and keep an open mind. I too, was very pro-sanctuary many years ago, until I learned how much both sides have in common. If you listen to the other side's opinion and ask questions, you might actually learn something. The sad thing is, while everyone is bickering about who is right and who is wrong, the animals are left hanging in the middle.
Having said that, I've selected a few statements from both sides of the issue. As I re-read these statements, I am so glad I never weighed-in on the "Lope" topic, simply because no one would have listen to me anyway.
"It's been shown now that Scott did not head to TX to rescue..." And you have proof of this? Some independent source that can be verified? Others have posted here that, in fact, he did do just that and the animals were in deplorable condition. Whom to believe? It seems to me that the pet-tiger brigade has more to cover up than Scott... so prove me wrong. You don't know more than anyone else why DC pulled this show, so STOP ALREADY with the sketchy self-referential documents, the easily discredited Rexana and the pathetic attempts to libel individuals and organizations about whom, you know nothing.
Posted by: Chakracoo
01/17/2011 at 02:05 PM
Ah, the great Zuzana is finally flushed out. You, Madam, are perpetrating the greatest fraud of all. Who are you to decide what is "truth"? You and your minions may have succeeded in pressuring DC to supress this information at this time, but this is America and you communists can't keep Americans from making up their own minds. Indeed the truth will out and it and history will not look upon you kindly. Again, please, Scott, find a way to present your content.
Posted by: Chakracoo
01/17/2011 at 02:14 PM
Scott has no prior monkey or bear experience. Why is he relocating these types of animals without proper volunteer hours and training? The only licensed facility which Scott was ever employed by is Big Cat Rescue, which obviously has no monkeys or bears on premises, Isn't this dangerous not only to the bears and monkeys he is so called "reposessing", but Scott himself? W.A.O. was not ordered by any agency to close their doors, they decided to close on their own and asked the USDA for help RELOCATING these animals. Scott somehow ended up on the job with cameras and scripts to turn this relocation into a Carole Baskin type of scandal to pull on hearts and wallets. Lets not forget the massacre of chickens Scott played a leading role in at BCR , this man is no hero. http://911animalabuse.org/backup/files/chickens.PDF
Posted by: David
01/17/2011 at 12:48 PM
Would be nice to have a documentary made exposing the truth, the attrocities that happened at WAO
http://www.rexano.org/WAO.htm
As for the reality, in August 2010, USDA asked for help to rehome WAO sanctuary animals:
http://www.rexano.org/WAO/WAO_USDA_End.pdf
On September 15, 2010, news reported that 22 WAO bears went to Colorado sanctuary. These bears were NOT pets of a fictional private owner/breeder that Repo was featuring in the video teaser, these were WAO bears:
http://www.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=71552
snip
Funded by the Discovery Channel, 22 bears were transferred from WAO to the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Colorado last week. Still, 300 animals remain. And everyone must go, Straw said
SNIP
Some WAO big cats went to IN, MN, OR, NV, etc...
One rehomed bobcat is already dead in the new receiving sanctuary, as well as lioness that was put thru medically unecessary spay surgery at the sanctuary and died of complications.
One sanctuary that got WAO tigers has no tiger experiencde ...
Maybe it is time to do real story on the WAO animals, many of whom died needlesly at the horrible WAO sanctuary.Do a true story were the animals are the focus, where the animals will be THE STARS.
Posted by: Zuzana Kukol
01/17/2011 at 01:53 PM
Discovery, I think you owe the public an explanation as to WHY Animal Repo was canceled at the last minute? All these people posting on here are jumping to their own conclusions. TELL US WHY! And will it be aired at another time please?
Thanks
Posted by: michelle
01/17/2011 at 12:16 PM
Chakracoo: What more proof of lies do you want than first-hand knowledge? I worked at WAO, and I can tell you - first hand - that the facility shown in both the bear "repo" clip and the monkey clip are both at WAO - NOT at a private breeder facility as they staged in the case of the bears. In fact, I was there as the discussion of the relocation of the bears and monkeys were going on, though not there for the actual filming of the show. Fact is, those animals were going to be relocated with or without Scott and WAR. There was no "repossession" no "bad breeders" or "roadside zoo" in this case - THAT is what we mean by lying. I find it remarkable that, when no explanation has been given by Discovery, you all choose to jump to the conclusion that they 'caved' to the private sector. How about this - Discovery probably figured out that their so-called 'reality' TV was, in fact, fabricated, and chose to pull it for investigation or re-shoot.
Posted by: former WAO
01/17/2011 at 12:29 PM
Scott Lope won the Animal Planet Hero of the Year award as the Operations Manager for Big Cat Rescue in Dec. 2009 and left the next month to pursue his own show. While it meant that we had to hire and train someone right away, we were really happy that he was going to get the opportunity to expose the huge crisis in America that is the result of having such inadequate laws and enforcement to protect wild animals from those who exploit them as pets, props and parts. Scott said he would continue to wear our logo and promote the work we do, but the trailers did not seem to indicate that. We have still stood behind him and promoted his show though, because it isn't about us, or him, it is about the animals.
There is no federal agency that keeps track of how many of these exotic animals there are nor where they are. In 2004 USDA did a one time survey to see if they could figure out how many tigers were in their licensees hands. There were nearly 7,500 tigers alone. 200 AZA zoos, and a dozen accredited sanctuaries and the rest in private hands who had USDA licenses. There was no way to count all of them that are not in USDA licensed facilities. USDA only licenses commercial uses, and not pet owners.
USDA has 90 inspectors for more than 90,000 facilities and to get a USDA permit only requires name, address, phone and $40. Search "USDA Whistleblowers" and you will find many former agents who said they were instructed to NOT cite violations because there was nothing that would be done about them and it would make them look bad for not doing their job. At the state level there is just a patchwork of laws and most of them exempt anyone with a USDA license. The USDA minimum standards are cruel as well in that the cage size only has to be big enough for the animal to stand up and turn around.
There is no legitimate reason for people to be in possession of exotic cats and we at Big Cat Rescue were really hoping that Wild Animal Repo might help expose the horrid conditions these animals endure to a much broader audience.
Posted by: BigCatRescue
01/17/2011 at 09:36 AM
I am so disappointed in the Discovery Channel for pulling Wild Animal Repo! This is the same channel that sees fit to air Sarah Palin bludgeoning, shooting and killing animals on every episode of her show about Alaska. But when it comes to RESCUING animals, Discovery balks!! The show features amazing sanctuaries doi...ng incredible work, not to mention Animal Planet's Hero of the Year. Please bring it back!!
Posted by: Catherine Cowan
01/17/2011 at 08:44 AM
I, for one, WANTED, this show to air. I was very disappointed that you canceled at the last minute.
Until you show the premier of Wild Animal Repo, I will NOT be watching ANY of the Discovery Channels, nor will my husband (and Investigation Discovery is his favorite channel).
I hope you realize Discovery what a mistake you have made and that the obvious majority Wanted this show to air.
Posted by: Meredith
01/17/2011 at 05:59 AM
From Scott Lope's Facebook page:
Wow. You ar right. They did pull the videos as well. I am glad that I already ripped them from the internet then so that I have a copy of them. They were awesome!
Posted by: Animal Supporter
01/17/2011 at 05:25 PM
Maybe it was for legal reasons. If so, hopefully they will re-edit the show and show it at a later date. The stories still need to be shown regardless.
Posted by: Animal Supporter
01/17/2011 at 05:22 PM
What happened to the promo videos DC? Why are those pulled too?
Posted by: Ron B
01/17/2011 at 05:20 PM
Now, back to the Insider Discovery Blog:
JJ, Stop promoting yourself here. This isn't the place. That is just rude. And I know from first hand that that guy was not Discovery's first pick. He approached Discovery and they declined because they were making the show with Scott. So stop with those lies. I am not going to give details, but I know for a fact that your message isn't true.From Scott Lope's Facebook page:
Posted by: Animal Supporter
01/17/2011 at 05:15 PM
It's still unverified and I still want to see the show. Anyone can create a document or alter a photo. Two people can misrepresent as easily as one and others have posted comments that dispute your account of things. Maybe there are legal issues that have legitimate bearing on the decision to pull Scott's show. I think DC owes a public explanation.
Posted by: Chakracoo
01/17/2011 at 05:10 PM
My deepest apologies to everyone, Discovery just pulled a last minute schedule change and Wild Animal Repo has been postponed and will not air tonight. Please call them or e-mail and let them know your opinion.Now, back to the Discovery Blog:
21 hours ago
Jennifer Derrick Swatsworth Sorry Scott, I know how disappointing this is, we still support you 110% and have posted on their FB page and added comments on their website in hopes that they will soon air your show!
8 hours ago
Tammy Coffey Just wanted to let you know that I commented on Discovery Channel page, asking what happened to your show. Good Luck, and I hope they decide to air it. Thank you for being a voice for those that can't speak, keep up the great work
about an hour ago
The WAO used to advertise that they got their start from IFAW funding. There is a tremendous scandal to investigate there. Any pretense that they are "private owners that got in over their heads" is blown if you simply check their history.
Posted by: Tom
01/18/2011 at 12:36 PM
Care4All: No, those men cannot get in trouble, legally, for tearing up the papers - because the papers AND the men were part of the 'act.' None of that part was legitimate. I am by no means saying the animals didn't need to be rehomed. WAO was in shambles. BUT...again, why not just tell THAT story - the story of a sanctuary that was run into the ground and unable to care for the animals it had? Why feel it necessary to make up this 'breeding facility' farce? Could it be that there really AREN'T as many privately owned animals in need of Scott's "repo" to be saved???
To DisappointedwithDiscovery - no, not all the animals at WAO came from private hands. The majority of the capuchins in the troop that were born at WAO, as were several of the tigers. Most of the other monkeys came from research facilities, as did the chimps.
Posted by: former WAO
01/18/2011 at 12:26 PM
WAO used to spearhead the anti-ownership movement around San Antonio.
Posted by: Tom
01/18/2011 at 12:26 PM
"Only selfish people own these (wild) exotic animals. They deserve more. The only solution... REPO!"
THANK YOU BECKY- FINALLY SOMEONE WITH SOME COMMON SENSE AND COMPASSION!
Posted by: Free Tony The Tiger
01/18/2011 at 12:25 PM
oh for crying out loud, will everyone PLEASE stop this bickering. This is has NOTHING to do with BCR nor the majority of the private owners that are nagging on here. PLEASE keep your focus on the animals, THAT'S what this show is about. It is about rescuing animals and giving them the proper home/caretaking. People need to stop bringing up peoples backgrounds and so forth.
Scott is doing his part in making sure these animals get the best care and taking them away from places that either can not care for them anymore financially or they come from abusive situations.
So most of you need to get off your self promotions and high horses and let this show air.
Posted by: SGrant
01/18/2011 at 12:15 PM
Scott Lope's Facebook page:
Hey everyone, thank you so much for your support... as far as I know this is only a scheduling issue and will let you guys know as soon as I do when the series will air. Keep your e-mails and postings positive, this is a very important issue and I am going to keep on going strong and working even harder to make a difference !
Back to the Discovery Blog again..
This is the kind of show that absolutely has to tell the truth.
If they told the real story about WAO it would reflect badly on Scott Lope and Big Cat Rescue because WAO was in the same business that BCR and Lope are. They were in the business of declaring people to be unfit owners then using intimidation to take the animals away.
There is a lot of negative information to be found about the so-called sanctuaries who get paid millions of dollars in donation to conduct this kind of business. They tar private owners with a broad and dishonest brush but for themselves they try to reserve the privilege of owning the animals, touching them, exhibiting them, and allowing public contact. They are trying to form a business monopoly.
Posted by: Tom
01/18/2011 at 04:37 PM
I can not believe how many people have taken the WAO animals just to make more money for themselves. It is amazing to me that these bears were used to stage a show that Discovery Channel was going to air when its not even true or accurate. What people will do for money is disgusting.
Posted by: Someone who knows
01/18/2011 at 03:04 PM
Discovery did the right thing. Private owners of these animals have a right to be upset that the show fraudulently claimed these animals were "rescued" from private facilities when in fact they were turned over from an "accredited" sanctuary that itself got away with fraud for many years. Enough with the fraud already! Scott can "risk his life" and have his "hero" show w/o all the fraud, lies and misrepresentations, which were probably learned from his previous employment at still another "accredited" sanctuary.
Posted by: carol
01/18/2011 at 02:37 PM
Hey Marc. I've been actually mostly irritated because they didn't play it, but I have to admit after reading some of these posts, that I'm kind of turned around on this re-enactment deal, that's not even a re-enactment. I actually find myself getting kind of turned off on the whole deal.. The wouldn't it be cool if this happened and we'd get great ratings if it did soooooo, wink wink nudge nudnge, we'll fake like it happened, because we can't actually find anything interesting enough to show outide of bears and empty cages, so lets stir the pot and fool the audience into thinking something happened that never happened at all. Seriously, watch that promo again. What exactly am I "discovering" on the discovery channel? Isn't the point of the entire network to take me places that I wouldn't otherwise go? I don't need to go to this guys imagination, whoever's brain child this was. If I wanted that I'd watch the WWF. Seriously...
Having said that, I get where sometimes you have to do a re-enactment but that's clearly not the case here. That's just my 2 cents man. I read your posts, and I know you stand on the other side of it, but I'd be curious how many people agree with me. Its like I came to Discovery to read Time or the Wall Street Journal, and I got handed Star Magazine with Hulk Hogan on the front. My opinion for what its worth. If you got to start making stuff up, maybe you need to get some more material before you call it a show. And for that matter, (we've come full circle), maybe you should know that your safe to broadcast a show before you promote it. I'm sure someobody's asking at least one of those questions at the DC HQ.
Posted by: Discovery Watcher
01/18/2011 at 06:00 PM
I've been following this conversation for a while, and this article from the San Antonio Current from September (thanks for the links, Tom) said that the Discovery channel funded 22 bears to go from WAO to Wild Animal Sanctuary in Colorado.
http://www.rexano.org/WAO/WAO_Bear_Bounce.pdf
So those were definitely WAO bears. They are animals going from one sanctuary, which went bankrupt (and appears to have mostly animals from medical research) to another sanctuary. To claim that they were owned by private owners and to bring in actors to ratchet up the drama when it was all arranged and agreed to by the owners is faking it-and surely must be some kind of fraud.
Posted by: Lu
01/18/2011 at 06:02 PM
From Scott Lope's Facebook page:
Kaylee Maple Ohioans for Humane Farms: Scott Lope is an animal advocate that was scheduled to have a TV show air on Discovery Channel & it was pulled off because of a group that promotes exotic animal ownership. Please post a comment of support: http://blogs.discovery.com/discovery-insider/2010/12/wild-animal-repo.html#commentsAnd back to the Blog again:
This show could be a crucial p...art of educating the public in favor of making Strickland's ban permanent
Discovery, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE air this show. We need a new charismatic animal host on television. Scott seems to be able to bring the goods. I would love to see more of Scott, he is HOT!!! ...I'm just sayin.
Posted by: Kaylee
01/18/2011 at 07:32 PM
I'm on the side of the animal rescuers, but if what is being said about the show turns out to be true, then in my mind the damage is done. Even if they re-edit the show to remove these alleged "faked scenes"or false statements, it doesn't change the fact that they tried to pull one over on us. And Scott was a willing participant. Then again, we don't know what is true yet since nobody from the show is talking!
Posted by: Becky
01/18/2011 at 07:58 PM
Tom. The difference is, Scott does not own any wild animals. So your story is falling on mute ears. Also I am amazed how much time you spend searching and creating stories on here. Your conscience must be on overload.
Posted by: Louis
01/18/2011 at 10:41 PM
People like Carole Baskin, Tippi Hedren, and the owners of WAO are private owners. They are also bashers of private owners. They use nonprofit status as a shield against the laws that they want passed. What they are saying in essence is that a fictional person, a corporation, has more rights than a real person.
Welcome to Dystopia.
Posted by: Tom
01/18/2011 at 11:43 PM
The comments on here are really vicious.
I love Scott Lope!! I can't wait till Discovery air his show and everyone gets to see what a good guy he truly is. All the negative words on here don't change my opinion of him at all. I see the positive in everyone. Even when someone can't find a good thing to say.
God bless you all!
Posted by: Margot
01/19/2011 at 10:41 PM
To TEAM W.A.R. You are incorrect. Most of us that oppose the show are just watching for the next move. Most of us feel that the point has been made, and we are just not going to go over, and over, and over the same topics. Many different views on this topic. And please belive me when I say I am typing this is the nicest meant way. Its just one of those things where "we agree,..to disagree".
Posted by: Jeff N
01/22/2011 at 01:55 PM
To DISCOVERY - I don't know if you are really reading these posts or not. But, as you can see, the educated majority of the people would like to see Wild Animal Repo aired. Please respond with the new air date. We are all anxiously awaiting. Thank you.
To Tom - You seem to be the only person out there that does not wish for this show to air. We can no longer believe that there are many of you that feel the same. You, Tom, have proved to the rest of us, what exotic animal owners are like. With your falsifying names (mine) and your nonsensical ramblings. Since your name is associated with rexano, I think the rexano people should reel you in. Since you are doing more harm than good for your cause. But, I for one thank you
Posted by: TEAM W.A.R.
01/22/2011 at 01:15 PM
Scott Lope is an inspiration to many, including myself, and a true animal advocate. I can't wait to see the show!
Posted by: Amy
01/22/2011 at 01:14 PM
There is so little on TV worth watching, there is probably room on Discovery for all sorts of animal shows! I personally would like to see Wild Animal Repo to see how the animals were living and where they are now. Why is there all this arguing? I am sure Discovery would love to do more shows on wild animals, whether they are pets without claws or teeth, or whether they are wild animals attacking people. I didn't realize that I could have a pet tiger and just pull out their teeth and claws, can anyone tell me where to buy one, I have always loved tigers - maybe a lion too, and a bear, I love bears!
Posted by: We want more Animal Shows!
01/22/2011 at 12:28 PM
Hello Everyone. This time last week we all would have been watching Wild Animal Repo. I told myself that I would banter my point on here for a week, till the show would have aired. Much I have posted has been thought through comments, while other comments were said out of anger from feeling provoked, and yes a bit childish. With all of that said, I just want to say that I apologize for any hurt feelings or negative vibes, as I have experienced that too, and am now moving on. I have learned a lot this week in regards to animals and their caretakers. I think the most important thing is this, that whether we all agree or not, we all love animals and want the best for them. I wish there was a middle ground where we all could meet and come to a conclusion, which I think is unlikely. But nonetheless, I am thankful that there are people like you out there who care so much for animals that they battle their cause tooth and nail to get their message heard. And even though we may not agree, In the end, I just pray that the animals are truly cared for by whoever has them. Truthfully, that is all I want.
Posted by: Louis
01/23/2011 at 09:15 PM
And I will second the comments just made by Tom. Every time I have encountered animal rights activists, they have been rude, belligerent, disruptive and completely (and deliberately) ignorant of the rules that govern the situation they are in. This sort of behavior should, by all rights and means, reflect the level of credibility they are given by mainstream society. Unfortunately, mainstream society has yet to recognize how badly they are being misled by these folks.
Posted by: Timbalionguy
01/26/2011 at 07:43 PM
Scott , you are amazing and im so glad you do the work you do , cant wait to see more!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anthony Gordon
01/26/2011 at 10:30 PM
I was on the shoot. The show is real. Most 'reality' shows are not. This one was the real deal, and I am wondering why it was pulled.
Posted by: Film Crew
01/27/2011 at 02:58 AM
Film Crew - Since you were there perhaps you can answer this question: What license is Scott working under? He doesn't have one of his own - he worked under BCRs, but he left that place. Current USDA records don't show him as being signed off to work alone i.e. no license. So who was the supervising license holder for this show?
Posted by: Aimee
01/27/2011 at 11:49 AM
"Film Crew" - which site were you on? I can't speak for the tiger locale, so who knows how much of that was "real." However, if you mean the WAO shoot, I guess it's "real" in that the animals aren't animatronic, because none of the rest of the scenario was "real." Those monkeys were not aggressive enough to warrant patting himself on the back for not wearing a protective suit, nor were they housed in a "roadside zoo" as advertised. The bears weren't privately owned at this point - and the fuzzed out "owners" weren't "real" either.
Posted by: former WAO
01/27/2011 at 01:29 PM
I was just a crew member. You will have to get up off the couch and call Discovery or contact Scott and ask him yourself. What I saw was 100% humane and DEFINITELY needed. Wild animals do not need to be taken out of the wild and placed into small pens.
Posted by: Film Crew
01/27/2011 at 01:35 PM
And to address your misinformation further: he was not alone. There were zoo vets and professional rescue members on site at all times helping with the repo. I signed a nondisclosure, so I cannot talk about the show itself other than what I have mentioned.
Posted by: Film Crew
01/27/2011 at 01:39 PM
I am looking forward to a show that has truely participated and been able to make a difference in animals lives. There is a reason all of these animals needed to be relocated. May it be financial, hoarders, mistreatment, etc. The point is that Scott has always had the animals welfare in mind. From my understanding none of these animals came from thriving happy healthy situations. There is a reason some of the posts are coming from former WAO and not current WAO. I am sure many of the former animal care takers of all the animals on the show did what they could with the situation they were given and miss the animals dearly; but please consider the end results for the animals. Make sure your posts are not selfish. Please support what he has done. I do!
Posted by: Jen R
01/27/2011 at 03:41 PM
Okay, I just have to make a comment on the last entry by "Jen R" -- I'm not sure which former WAO employee wrote the posting, but I'm sure he or she will not take kindly of the notation that he/she has to shut up and go along with the program, just because Scott Lope's "intentions" were good. The entire WAO organzation was built on a stack of lies and Ms. "Jen R" wants to continue the WAO lie? Good grief -- just love laughing at people like Ms. "Jen R" -- what a hoot! Rock on "former WAO."
Also, at times, pet owners, regardless of animal species, might have better facilities than AZA or sanctuary folks. Labels do not matter - pet, sanctuary or zoo - what DOES matter is HOW you provide for the animal.Okay, now I am curious as to whom the "former WAO" person may be. I sure there are people out there thinking I'm the "former WAO." Not so. If I wanted to post something, I would use my own name and I would name names on the site. I would tell the world that the Asvestas, Matthes, and Cryers were directly responsible for the WAO's downfall, as my blog will prove. Shame on them all for what they have done to the animals. And shame on those who want to bury the real story that animals + greed = disaster.
Posted by: Responsible owner
01/27/2011 at 09:19 PM
If you could read the past posts by many - even opponents of the show - MOST are not denying the animals (I'm speaking of the WAO animals here) needed to be moved. What is objectionable is the fact this show was promoted as 'reality' or even a documentary, and yet the stories of the animals were not told truthfully. How is that doing anything for the plight of the animals? Why not just tell the actual story - that the former management of the WAO ran it into the ground, got way too many animals (often from shady pseudo-rescues, or by breeding them on site, intentionally or not.) Why make up some story about a bear breeding facility that doesn't exist, etc.?? THAT is what most of us object to - because by making up these 'owner' falsehoods you are using the show as a vehicle to vilify private ownership. Private ownership may not be something you agree with, but let me ask you - if there are that many animals out there that need to be 'rescued' from private owners, why go to a sanctuary and make up the story there for the show? Why not just have actual 'rescues?' I dare say it's because, in actuality, the vast majority of private owners are doing a good job with their animals.
Posted by: former WAO
01/27/2011 at 08:44 PM
Look, I could go on and on posting more comments from the Discover blog, but I don't think this "controversy" will ever end until we learn why the show was pulled. Come on Discovery, tells us the truth! In the meantime, Michelle Cryer has been really quiet on her Facebook page. Perhaps she is too busy giving personal WAO tours to her friends.
Kenneth L. Kuykendall It looked like they had alot of fun. We would really like to bring Curtis there for a tour of the place! I think Kimi is getting together stuff to donate.
January 14 at 2:00am.
WAO is supposed to be closed to the public. I guess when you finally get to take over the "zoo," you can do anything you want--including exhibiting the animals for "donations."
No comments:
Post a Comment