|
Five grand would seem like a minuscule incentive for a large multi-million dollar corporation to even bother participating in a competition meant to help charities in need. So naturally, money hungry Big Cat Rescue entered likely hoping to easily snatch the cash prize as well as the title that came with it. We expected nothing less from them.
If you follow our Facebook page then you're likely already aware of a contest that started many months ago and officially ended on October 6th. The contest was created by a pet health insurance company called Pet Partners. Eligible animal charities entered the contest in hopes of winning a much needed $5,000 prize along with the title, "Animaltarian of the Year". In order for an organization to win Pet Partners' contest, they needed to work hard on social media in order to garner the most votes by the end of two phases. Phase I ended back in September and the top 5 organizations with the most votes at the end of the phase were allowed to move onto phase II. The finalists that moved onto phase II were Southeast German Shepherd's Phoenix Dog Program, Pilot N Paws, Coastal German Shepherd Rescue of Southern California, Team Leo Animal Rescue, and none other than the notorious roadside zoo otherwise known as Big Cat Rescue. 
With the odds stacked against them, the first round of voting ended with the Phoenix Dog Program fetching the most votes with a whopping 23,060 votes. Big Cat Rescue was trailing just behind with 21,398 votes. Even with the help from Chris Poole, their former employee better known for Cole and Marmalade, Big Cat Rescue still couldn't close the gap between the Phoenix Dog Program and themselves.
The second round of voting ended on October 6th at 10:00pm with Big Cat Rescue surprisingly gaining the most amount of votes in the last few remaining hours of the competition, overtaking the Southeast German Shepherd Rescue's Phoenix Dog Program which was leading by nearly 10,000 votes for the majority of second phase.
There is a cloud of suspicion surrounding Big Cat Rescue's sudden surge in votes. Many people, including Southeast German Shepherd Rescue, are questioning whether or not Big Cat Rescue somehow won through the use of underhanded tactics that are against the competition's rules. Supporters of the dog rescue quickly wrote to Pet Partners regarding Big Cat Rescue's sudden spike in votes and left numerous comments (that have since been deleted) on their Facebook page calling for an investigation. Others, including ourselves and people who follow our Facebook page, left comments with screenshots attached showing Big Cat Rescue's supporters breaking the competition's rules and encouraging others to break them as well. One of the rules states that a person can only vote once per day, but some of Big Cat Rescue's supporters apparently thought that meant they could vote multiple times a day using multiple mobile devices. The competition really shows how deeply devoted some of Big Cat Rescue's supporters are and how combative they can be. The competitiveness of their supporters was likely brought out due to Big Cat Rescue basically turning the charitable contest into a petty squabble between dogs and cats. Whether that was accidental or on purpose is up for you to decide. After much protest, Pet Partners decided to investigate the complaints before officially announcing a winner which we thought was great move on their part, but the good news didn't last long. Pet Partners released a statement addressing some of the accusations people made against Big Cat Rescue. We will go through each point Pet Partners made and provide necessary information they felt the need to leave out. The first point Pet Partners made is a bit misleading. Below is what they had to say (emphasis added).
First off, Southeast German Shepherd Rescue and Big Cat Rescue were not "neck and neck" throughout phase II. As we already pointed out, the German Shepherd rescue group was leading by a large sum of votes almost throughout the whole phase.
As a matter of fact, about two days before the contest ended, Big Cat Rescue made a Facebook post stating, "The dogs are more than 9,500 votes ahead of the cats." 
The next complaint Pet Partners bring up pertains to Big Cat Rescue's supporters cheating by voting multiple times a day and instructing others to do so as well.
While we agree that Big Cat Rescue isn't responsible for their fans going out of their way to break the rules despite their fans plainly stating their intentions on Big Cat Rescue's Facebook page (whatever right?), we can't help but to question why Pet Partners didn't ask the participating organizations to make a post telling their followers about the rule to only vote once. While many people knew about that rule many others did not.
Pet Partners then brings up some of the accusations people made against Big Cat Rescue and how they are not deserving of the awards due to the many untold atrocities they have committed over the years. We knew things would go downhill from here when Pet Partners said they had spoken to Big Cat Rescue about the allegations. We can only assume that they were told that the claims made against them are lies coming from "animal abusers" or "exploiters" despite the claims being backed by evidence. 
Below is the next complaint Per Partners tries to address.
It's irrelevant whether Pet Partners likes the idea, the point is, live feeding is not only unnecessary, but it goes against the very definition of what it means to be an Animaltarian.
According to Pet Partners, an Animaltarian is a person who seeks to support animal welfare. Big Cat Rescue is demonstrating the exact opposite of animal welfare by feeding live rabbits to their bobcats in their rehabilitation program. We would like to know what research Pet Partners conducted as they seem to have just repeated a typical response often parroted by Big Cat Rescue. An animal welfare advocate and vocal opponent of Big Cat Rescue's live feeding practices took it upon herself to question various wildlife experts about the practice of feeding live rabbits to bobcats. She discovered that many wildlife rehabilitators don't buy into Big Cat Rescue's brand of nonsense. The Clinic Director for the Clinic for the Rehabilitation of Wildlife (CROW), Amber McNamara, said, "We don’t use any live prey for feeding bobcats. When we feed them, the staff is diligent about making a disconnect between humans and food: hiding the food, placing in different spots in the cages, trying to introduce novel items, and making the bobcats “work” for the food by finding it, not by killing it. I feel very strongly that the vast majority of our patients are very instinctual, and don’t need the live prey stimulus to tap into their wildness or train them to be hunters. Just as we don’t need to teach baby birds to fly or otters to swim – they are incredibly instinctual." Pet Partners then goes on to mentions that they have spoken with Florida Fish and Wildlife.
We don't know which specific inspection report they are referring to so we can only guess that it was the inspection conducted by Florida Fish and Wildlife back in 2014.
That report listed 70+ discrepancies found at Big Cat Rescue ranging from filthy water bowls to rusty cages that if left further neglected can result in a cat escaping. In our opinion, that report shows the total disregard Big Cat Rescue has about improving their facility to provide the best possible life their cats can have. After Kara Hooker, Florida Fish and Wildlife Captain and alleged Big Cat Rescue sympathizer, instigated a conference call with Howard Baskin, many of the violations were changed to "suggestions." After many complaints there was an "investigation" where Captain Hooker denied having any recollection of that conference call. 
Pet Partners must have forgotten to address our complaint. We had questioned why they would allow a roadside zoo that rakes in millions of dollars a year to compete in a competition against smaller organizations in need of funds. To put things into perspective, if you subtract Big Cat Rescue's total expenses from their total revenue in 2014, they are left with over $1-million. Their surplus alone is way more than each of the organizations make in a year. Should multi-million dollar facilities with millions in surplus funds in the bank even be allowed to enter competitions meant to help those who are truly in need of funds? The picture below shows the revenue each of the competing organizations (couldn't find Team Leo's 990 form) made back in 2014. The revenue for the Phoenix Dog Program only accounts for the program and not the Southeast German Shepherd Rescue which made a little over $200,000 back in 2014. 
After Pet Partners "investigated" they made an announcement that Big Cat Rescue won the competition and the title of Animaltarian of The Year. Southeast German Shepherd Rescue was devastated by the news of Big Cat Rescue winning and we have got to give them kudos for calling them out for what they really are, a roadside zoo that is licensed to exhibit their animals for money. There is some good news to this story. Southeast German Shepherd Rescue exceeded their goal of raising $5,000. I would like to thank our followers who helped pitch in. At least there is one more organization that sees Big Cat Rescue for what they are, and hopefully many others will start to as well.
Comments
|
RSS Feed
|
We hold no claims of ownership to the referenced articles, screenshots, or photos that are public information online. All photo references and commentary articles have been carefully researched, reported, and solely intended for criticism, comment, and nonprofit educational purpose to inform the public. Subjects not referenced with facts should be considered opinion. Testimonies from sources/interviews, comments, criticism, and articles are released without malice (i.e., without intent to harm) to any parties and intended solely for educational purposes. If any content herein can be proven to be untrue, incorrect, or illegal it will be corrected or deleted immediately. BCR Watch is not affiliated with Big Cat Rescue Corp.. Any confusion related to perceived similarities is unintentional.
|
|