Clueless Zookeepers Continue to Piss Me Off

So I got blocked by someone on Facebook for the *checks tallies* 6 hundredth and...22nd time...this year 😁...on a page called Zookeeper Memes for Critically Endangered Teens, a page that is inexplicably followed by a few exotic pet-owning people on my friends list. 

Why? I got pretty damn triggered by this hideous comment:

(yes, that's my angry face)

That was in response to this semi-intelligent comment:

You see, I've always suspected and subsequently have become enraged at the thought that zookeepers want us laypeople to be "jealous" of them and their access to unique animals while we watch them from behind the fence with our stupid ass fanny packs, sipping from a cup with a straw protruding from a monkey's head, trying not to trip over a fleet of strollers (I can fuck with the gift shops, though).

Zookeepers can be so damn condescending. 

Zookeepers often run their mouths and flat-out lie that certain animals make bad pets while they drag them around on a leash, clearly showing the contrary. 

Zoo organizations, such as the head honcho, the AZA, are also supporters of some of the most nonsensical legislation, such as the recently passed Big Cat Public Safety Act, as they seem to believe only they can decide which animals we are allowed to own, pet, or even be in the vicinity of. 

They started their stupid af "Not a Pet" campaign going after even owners of iguanas, turtles, and sugar gliders. 

They foolishly align themselves with the same animal rights nuts that would love to see their facilities burn to the ground. 

Therefore, this comment just really hit home for me. And pissed me off. I don't care if it was written 3 years ago.

So I got into an argument with the person who wrote that.

Then I got a reply from the group's owner(s), probably this chucklehead:

Zookeepers and many of their fans are in a state of such naivety, oblivion, and ignorance, it boggles my mind.

What do I mean by this?

This Facebook group is loaded with anti-PETA, anti-The Dodo, and anti-The Humane Society of the United States humor decrying those darn meddling animal rights activists. 

The group's owners also seem to be okay with the Voldemort of zoos (in the eyes of many)...SeaWorld.

Yet, these clueless zoo groupies gave me a lecture that made it sound as though they were ready to show up Davion Irvin and liberate zoo animals, aka suffering inmates, from their prison cells.

"Yeah no that’s not how this works. Dogs and cats are domestic, bred over hundreds of thousands of years for the expressed purpose of existing alongside humans."

Since this dude said "expressed purpose", I imagine he believes dogs and cats were artificially selected for thousands of years. Honey...bless your heart...no. Not even close.

Try 200 years. Before this, dogs were largely free-roaming and free-breeding synanthropes. And guess what, most dogs and cats in the world are still free-roaming and free-breeding. It was not until the Victorian era that most modern breeds were conceptualized. 

But surely you recall that the Russian Farm Fox Experiment saw "domestication" changes in as little as 6 generations (this amounts to SIX YEARS). 

Oh and uh, guess what? Many zoo animals (and exotic pets) have been selectively bred longer than some dogs. 

In fact, zoo animals are undergoing domestication (genetic adaptation to captivity) to the point that it jeopardizes their reintroduction to the wild:

One of these wolves is not like the other: morphological effects and conservation implications of captivity in Mexican wolves (2021)

Morphological changes to black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) resulting from captivity

Changes in canid cranial morphology induced by captivity and conservation implications (2021)

The phenotypic costs of captivity. (2022)

Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs (2008)

Generations in captivity increases behavioral variance: considerations for captive breeding and reintroduction programs

Effect of captivity on morphology: negligible changes in external morphology mask significant changes in internal morphology (2018)

...and for the crescendo

Dilemmas for Natural Living Concepts of Zoo Animal Welfare:

Zoos indeed strive to keep their wild animals as “undomesticated” as possible [12]. This, however, may be an unattainable ideal, due to unintended and unavoidable genetic and epigenetic drifts favouring adaptations for life in a captive environment, despite our best efforts to otherwise prevent this from occurring. Indeed, in a human-animal interaction review chapter, Hemsworth et al. [18] write about the possibility of unintended domestication in zoos, citing research such as Price [47,48]—“While zoo animals are generally not considered to be domestic animals, domestication can obviously occur with wild animals kept and bred in captivity, such as zoos, but the extent of the domestication process will depend on the rate of artificial selection”

Just a lil' taste of the science I've compiled that shows so-called "wild" captive animals are in fact domesticated 😲

Their welfare requirements are harder, their behaviors have not adapted alongside people over generations, and they can plain and simple be dangerous.

Exotic pets have the same exact requirements as dogs and cats, described as the "5 freedoms." 

Sure, you need to alter things depending on the species like, instead of taking a pet on a walk as you would a dog, you give them a damn box with treats to open, just like zookeepers do to keep animals entertained. 

I mean, is that so hard?

Zoo people really think we are fucking idiots. 

Your job is not mentally demanding, I hate to break it to y'all. We can provide "enrichment" too. 

We have boxes, perfume bottles, and treat dispensing toys. 

I literally throw my armadillo's food in a damn snuffle mat and he's good for hours. 

No animal deserves to be in the hands of someone who cannot provide all the care requirements and that’s not just food and water, that’s full enclosures, medical care, enrichment, etc. that someone who just wants a monkey because they’re cute aren’t going to care about.

Nooooo shit. There are people who shouldn't have dogs, people who can't care for cats, and certainly people who shouldn't have children. Yet you sure as hell don't run around proclaiming it is wrong to care for these species. If someone says "I want a dog", you say "oooh what kind? I like terriers."

When someone says they want a want a wallaby, you say:

"WAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOURRRRR DATS WROOOONG!!"

Instead of just fucking telling them what care an animal requires. 

You and your clickbait YouTube videos about how cougars can be pets are quite literally just continuing the dangerous mindset that wild animals are pets. This hurts people, animals, and especially wild populations as the demand climbs the people wanting to make money find completely unethical ways to get it, being capturing them or breeding them unethically.

Do you have even the slightest clue of how hard it is to get views on Youtube? Like, damn, cut me some slack. They have attention-grabbing thumbnails to try and entice people to listen to my horrible voice drone on about science but they are not clickbait. All the titles are accurate.

I did research for that cougar video and found out things even I wasn't aware of. I originally felt that cougars were inherently dangerous and would therefore be horrible pets, but the truth is more complex. 

Oh and trust me, no one's running out to capture cougars for the pet trade. That simply doesn't happen.

Look at Harry Potter with owls, Game of Thrones with huskies and wolf dogs, Finding Nemo with clownfish and tangs. History has shown us that people that “just want exotic pets” are incapable of caring for them.

Dude, that shit about the owls is a myth (there may have been a rise in Asian countries but this also coincided with social media). Try READING. Stop swallowing the crap people are spoon-feeding you. Not to mention, you have no idea who is capable of caring for what. Let's just educate people on how to do so instead of condemning exotic pet ownership. 

They belong in the hands of professionals at facilities that can care for them, and even then, a large chunk of zoos can’t even do that. You can be horridly offended that someone is condemning you for your ignorant and straight up idiotic viewpoints, but the fact of the matter is, you cuddling a springhaas is not the amazing gotcha you thought it was.

So I had words attached to that picture of my springhare, that was the "gotcha" part. I just posted the picture to rub my exotic pet in someone's face because they want me to be "jealous" of them and I say to that, bite me. He's well cared for and he's none of your business. It's not your business what animals I buy. NOT your business! 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people think they can tell other people what pets to keep. It really isn't a big deal.

You’re right, nobody can stop you from keeping your exotic pets, but I can definitely keep you from spreading your dangerous misinformation on my page!

Then he blocked me. Of course. I can at least commend him for not typing in the 'last word' to feel like he 'won'. People who do that are shit that's been stepped on by an animal and tracked around the cage. But he did erase my comments after leaving a "laughing" face:

Oh, it's on now. 

. 

I will revive my last comment here:

Ok look, I get it. Ooo look at those nasty unqualified private owners, they're so horrible, we're so superior and professional. If only they would stop buying pets, all would be well, and the animal rights nuts would leave us alone.

You're fucking yourselves.

They're not going to leave you alone. When they're done with us, they will..no...they ARE...coming for all of you and your precious zoos. Your jobs. Your livelihoods.  

When you support this idea that some animals are too 'special' to be pets, the public is listening. They will eventually determine that not only should they not be pets, they don't belong in any cages (especially when they get a load of some of that research I posted no less)!

They are, after all, special. They'll decide that Carole Baskin should have all your cats and you'll get holograms as replacements. They'll fire your asses and hire a CGI guy. 

If you keep supporting the mythological domesticated/non-domesticated binary falsehood, it's going to bite you in the ass for sure. It likely already has. 

Why Don't We Breed Exotic Pets for Temperament?

One of the most aggravating comments I’m getting increasingly tired of hearing from people who are anti-exotic pet is the argument that “dogs have been bred for thousands of years.”

This is, of course, completely untrue. Yes, dogs have been “domesticated” (I can actually argue that dogs aren’t domesticated, which will blow your mind) for some number of years in the thousands range (the exact amount is heavily disputed in the scientific community). However, it certainly didn’t take thousands of years for dogs to become “domesticated.” 

Furthermore, people who make this argument really need to take note of the fact that despite such “thousands of years”, plenty of dogs have behavioral problems, and some are severe enough to warrant euthanasia. It might be a controversial practice, but it really shouldn’t be. 

Anyone who truly reads the stories of those who’ve gone through the emotionally draining challenge of living with and trying to cure a dangerous dog will understand that some dogs cannot be “cured.” Sometimes, these issues are due to trauma or poor treatment, however, this doesn’t happen to every dog. Plenty of dogs come from terrible backgrounds but still have excellent temperaments. 

Instead, it seems as though only certain dogs, likely due to genetics, are prone to severe anxiety and aggression. In many cases, this can happen to dogs that aren’t mistreated and were raised since puppy-hood by their loving owners. The sad fact is that genetics rule the roost. While some owners can manage their dog’s issues, others aren’t so lucky and it is in no way their fault. 

This leads me to the subject of exotic animals and the claim that they shouldn’t be pets because they aren’t “domesticated.” There is a constant push from dog fanciers to buy dogs from “responsible” breeders who are very strict about which animals enter their breeding program. A big part of this involves choosing the correct temperament.

 So far, I have yet to hear of a dog with problematic behavior originating from a stringent breeding program from a “reputable” breeder, and this is why animal professionals loathe “backyard breeders” who do not do expensive health testing and make other informed assessments. Therefore, it seems that even “domesticated” animals require specialized techniques to ensure that their behavior is consistently docile and non-problematic.

So I got to thinking, this isn’t really a thing with exotic pets.

In most cases, exotic animals are not selectively bred for temperament — rather — the objective is just to produce as many of the species as possible. In some of the few cases where an exotic pet species is part of a breeding program, it is for coloration, such as what is occurring with ball pythons, sugar gliders, and hedgehogs, or “breed” creation, such as is the case with Savannah cats. 

In many cases, breeders don’t really have a choice, as some species are difficult to breed or they exist in low numbers within the pet trade. There may not be sufficient demand for “well-bred” exotic pets such as fennec foxes and kinkajous. 

My point is this; if even dogs, which are the quintessential “domesticated” animal, require extensive research, testing, and education on the part of the breeder to produce even-tempered animals that are excellent pets, not to mention that most pet dogs are spayed or neutered, why do we assume that exotic animals — where these efforts are not really carried out — make such terrible pets in comparison? 

Maybe if the culture that surrounds dogs existed in other species, we’d be looking at animals that can adapt to captivity more readily, and have traits such as increased docility, calmer behavior, and better “bathroom habits.” 

We can deduce from the famous Russian Farm Fox Experiment, where foxes were selectively bred for tameness (and aggressiveness) to test the hypothesis of domestication syndrome (traits such as floppy ears, curly tails, etc. being associated with increased docility) that behavior can be selected for in species not normally considered to be “domesticated” (although the foxes in the experiment were actually “domesticated” initially, depending on which version of the word one uses). 

Therefore, there’s no reason this cannot be accomplished in servals, wallabies, and even primates, although none of these species will become dogs (dogs are always the standard people think is being aspired to when “domesticating” an animal) because they are their own separate species with their own specific traits. This was the case with the Russian foxes. 

I think breeders ought to try their hand at “domesticating” exotic pets when possible, attempting to only breed animals that have an exemplary temperament. This would only serve to improve the exotic pet trade, just as dog people demand that their species must always be “improved.”

Real Rescue

 

 It's been a while since my last post on this blog, and this is partially due to lack of motivation but as of recent, I've been going through unexpected and devastating loss regarding my animals that has only served to further impede any progress in breaking this cycle.

 In recent news I've been following the harrowing stories of Nowzad Animal Rescue and the miraculous escape of 150+ dogs and cats from the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and the sad and unfortunate failure of Kabul Small Animal Rescue to do the same. 

Both Nowzad and KSAR faced down tear gas, chaos, sleepless nights and Taliban soldiers sticking guns in their faces. Sadly the staff of both rescues who are Afghans were not permitted to leave by the Taliban. Only KSAR's founder, Charlotte Maxwell-Jones, was allowed to leave being from the U.S., but despite ongoing donations including my own, KSAR's chartered plane(s) did not arrive on time and the cats were not allowed to enter the airport by the Taliban for some reason. 

The dogs actually managed to get into the airport, but thanks to the wonderful rules of the CDC barring dogs from Afghanistan from entering the United States, they could not be placed within the cargo (where humans are not allowed) of departing military planes headed for the U.S. 

The remaining U.S. soldiers "assisted" Charlotte by releasing those dogs in a section of the airport, and they prompted her to get on a flight and leave a disabled puppy she had in her arms behind. She refused, and she is now stranded in Afghanistan, still rescuing pets that have been abandoned by their fleeing owners, dogs that are roaming the streets, and contracted working dogs (not the military dogs belonging to the U.S military) and headed into an uncertain future. 

I just thought I'd show people who I consider a "hero", and someone who deserves piles of donations. Charlotte and her staff, I'm sure, would love it if another animal did not need their services. They do not rescue animals they "want" or those that are worth thousands. They do not rescue "as needed" to further their business or for any other self-serving purpose other than the pursuit of happiness by helping animals who desperately need it. Apparently in Afghanistan, dogs are considered "dirty" and some have their noses chopped off.

Recently I've been made aware of more "Youtubers" who have begged for donations so they can buy animals or have the ones they've chosen to buy financially accommodated, and I really want to document it, despite my small readership here.

I began to wonder at some point, if those who literally sent Brock Afentful of 2canTV thousands of dollars to upgrade his house or the single individual who bought him a hand-raised, perfect, baby channel-billed toucan have donated to Nowzad, Kabul Small Animal Rescue, or any other causes where hundreds of animals or humans are in peril. I of course, have no evidence they have not, but forgive me for being very doubtful that they have.

Brock Afentful's (2can.TV) Proposed Luxury Fake "Rescue"

I think I ought to emphasize that the things Mr. Afentul is posting are actually intended to make him look good. Each upload that he creates is carefully designed to lure the viewer into feeling like they are contributing to a greater good by helping to pay for his bills, a house upgrade, and very expensive pets.

In my last post regarding the creator of 2can.TV, I was completely and utterly aghast that he chose to flagrantly defy his past claims that toucans shouldn't be pets and go ahead and purchase yet another toucan chick with someone else's money to further complete his "rainbow" collection of different species, akin to the picture on his Youtube banner and the artwork he uses at the end of his videos.

He presented this decision to his fans in such a way that presented such bratty behavior as quirky and innocent. 

His reasoning? He needs to buy toucans to teach people not to buy toucans. He certainly needed another rarer toucan species to accomplish this, despite the fact that he already had a tame, hand-raised, and well-behaved baby to be an "ambassador" (Rhiannon). And after receiving essentially a $5000+ donation to buy the new, non-rescued bird, he continued to solicit donations for a new house (!!!).

The brazen lack of understanding of what he's asking for and the audacity he would need to consider a new house to be a "donation" is further displayed in another video, called "Designing a Toucan Sanctuary (For Real)".

In the video, Brock is using a computer game to give his fans a realistic idea of some ideas for his new house, which he calls a "toucan sanctuary".

Outside of Brock's fantastical imagination, his conceptional designs are not a sanctuary for birds but a human bird lover's paradise. Aside from several rooms for the humans, one plan includes 3 large indoor walk-in aviaries that are actually incorporated into the construction...just on the first floor! 

This design is needlessly expensive. What's worse, some of the cages will apparently be glass-fronted, which will look fabulous, but is actually to the bird's detriment, simply because sometimes toucans like to land on the screen of their cage. 

Covering the front with glass will just reduce the opportunities the birds have to fully use their enclosure, but it will look fancy and high end for Mr. Afentful, who also discusses his preferences for a more industrial design look (I bet there's other outrageous statements made in the video but it's over 3 hours so long, so, I'll never know).

One of his followers even suggests that maybe the birds will fly into the glass, but Brock replies something to the effect that zoos have glass on their enclosures. Why yes, zoos, who have very expensive and enormous enclosures that are designed for the public's viewing pleasure, not a single, undeservedly spoiled human. 

I wonder if his fans believe that they can pay for his bills for the next potential 20 years of the bird's lifespan? Brock's latest video at the time of this writing suggests that his keel-billed toucan, Beatrix, is "wild" because she's not as cuddly as Toupac, Rhiannon, and Lalo(?). He suggests this is due to the poor treatment Beatrix received from the previous owner.

Which is it Brock? Are they bad pets because they aren't cuddly? Are they not cuddly only when they've been abused? And if they're supposed to be cuddly doesn't that make them good pets? Wouldn't a "wild" and bitey toucan be a much better "ambassador" for toucans making bad pets?? You make NO SENSE.

Furthermore, Brock is pretty scummy for obtaining another bird when he has inadequate room for the ones he has. Beatrix is in need of an upgrade, and I believe she is still housed in a divided enclosure next to another toucan that may be chronically stressing her. 

Brock's hoping his fans will keep paying for his living expenses. He suggests that only special people of his approval are qualified to care for toucans and only people without jobs like him can do it, and that's why WE need to send him money, or the poor birds have nowhere to go (and also, non-accredited zoos are not good enough for Beatrix! And that's why re-homing her is not possible).

Brock has excuses for everything that make perfect sense, after a certain level of inebriation. 

 

Why is Rep. Mike Quigley Lying about the Big Cat Public Safety Act?

 

The Big Cat Public Safety Act WON'T Close "Roadside Zoos". 

For some awful, inexplicable reason, almost no one, and I'm not exaggerating, seems to understand what the "Tiger King Bill", the Big Cat Public Safety Act (H.R. 1380) entails for animal owners and zoos. On both sides. This includes the bill's own sponsor, Mike Quigley. Either he is exceptionally ignorant to the terms of the bill he is pushing to pass, or he is simply lying to the public about what his bill will actually do. I'm not sure which is worse at this point. 

 After much research and messaging people about this proposal, I am finally confident that I have a firm grasp of what this bill does and why it is a grave injustice. 

Mike Quigley tells a blatant mistruth about his own bill.

H.R. 1380 in a Nut Shell

This bill bans the non-commercial private ownership of "big cats". This means people who are not USDA-licensed.

This bill includes a requirement for zoos and exhibitors holding big cats to keep people at least 15 feet away from them or the cats must be behind a "structurally sound" barrier. The only people who can come into physical contact with the cats are "trained employees", licensed veterinarians (and vet students), and a limited number of designated visitors under strict circumstances.

What the Bill Won't Do

Close any "zoo" of any kind, "roadside" or otherwise. Why? Every "zoo", which I define as a facility that holds animals to exhibit to the public, is required by law to be USDA-licensed. 

Big cats in backyards can be USDA-licensed. Private Owners can be USDA-licensed. 

Unless a zoo is not in "good standing" with their license (this concept is not defined), they are exempt from the Big Cat Public Safety Act. That means, theoretically, if Joe Exotic was out of prison and operating his zoo, and if he was in "good standing" with his license, this bill would not affect him, other than ending his "pay to play" tiger cub business. 

Joe Exotic would still be able to own, breed, sell, and exhibit any big cat. As well as thousands of other so-called roadside zoos.

Mike Quigley used this photo to suggest tigers in apartments are a problem. This famous incident (Ming the Harlem tiger) happened ONCE in 2003 and never again. The possession of this tiger was already illegal as is it likely is in all urban areas and the owner was charged, pled guilty, and jailed.

Why the Bill is Wrong

This bill automatically bans the small number of non-commercial big cat owners from being able to obtain anymore big cats. This has nothing to do with how well the animal is cared for. Some people believe that all private owners are keeping big cats in apartments and tiny backyards. They are wrong.

Just as you wouldn't expect a horse owner to keep a Clydesdale in an apartment, there are many big cat owners who practice commonsense responsible ownership, keeping their animals in spacious and structurally-sound enclosures. These owners often exceed the standards of some owners with USDA-licenses.

No matter how excellent a private non-commercial facility is, the owner cannot be USDA-licensed because they are not conducting a commercial exhibition business.

The USDA does not regulate private "pet owners". Private owners are all subsequently banned from owning big cats and it has nothing to do with their husbandry standards or experience. 

A licensed exhibitor could have far inferior husbandry and public safety protocols to a private owner and still be exempted from the Big Cat Public Safety Act. 

Good big cat owners who have responsibly owned their animals are punished FOR NO REASON and this is a grave injustice. 

Public Safety

Despite the name, this bill has little, if anything, to do with public safety. It enacts no stringent public safety protocols. It requires the public stay 15 feet away from big cats, but the USDA already made it illegal for the public to physically handle big cats older than 12 weeks (and less than 8 weeks). This bill essentially has been drawn to address commercial cub petting. Cub petting, while controversial for animal welfare reasons, was never a public safety issue. Some bites have occurred, but any animal can bite, including dogs and cats. 

This bill was drafted to legislate the opinions and ideological views of certain groups, not protect the public. 

This bill is designed to allow certain individuals to overstep their boundaries because it extends beyond the fundamental interests of the public and society. The public has a right to be concerned about the presence of dangerous captive animals and whether or not the animals are securely contained by responsible owners. This bill does nothing to address that, and seems to be laying the framework for future mandates that comprise merely the opinions of special interest groups that believe all big cats "belong in the wild". 

The bill is also loaded with ill-defined and ambiguous terms, such as the requirement that the USDA license be in "good standing", defining the "public", and numerous others.

Conclusion

The Big Cat Public Safety Act bans non-commercial pet owners from owning big cats and USDA-licensed facilities from letting the public pet big cat cubs. Pet owners can get around this if they sign up to be a "charity" as long as they don't sell, transport and display, breed, or allow the public to come into contact with their animals. Rep. Mike Quigley doesn't understand his own bill or he is lying to the public about what it does for some reason.

References

Garner, Rachel. Legislation Breakdown: H.R. 1380 “The Big Cat Public Safety Act”. September 19th, 2020.

 

 H.R.1380 - Big Cat Public Safety Act. Congress. gov

Big Cat Question and Answer Commonly Asked Big Cat Questions

Check Out This Hypocrite: Derek Small of Wildlife Encounters

 So I made mention in my last post that I have more content planned discussing people who present "animal ambassadors" and my problems with them. I just happened to stumble on this person who exemplifies the worst of it, and unfortunately, his stance is not unique among animal exhibitors. 

Derek Small is the owner of Wildlife Encounters Ecology Center & Farm School, formally the Granite State Zoo and The W.I.L.D Center & Zoological Park of New England.

I saw him write this on Facebook, in response to a largely inaccurate map of the legality of kangaroos that was trending on Facebook:

 

So, we have our standard animal exhibitor nonsense. First, the animals he owns, cares for and lives with are "not pets". It's hard to find exhibitors who don't perpetuate this lie. Small throws around the mostly meaningless terms: "permit", "USDA licensed", "educational", and "ecology center" to make himself sound reputable and distinctive from private owners.

This bugged me enough, but scrolling through his Facebook profile (he's Facebook friends with people who sell exotic pets and even one who has sold an exotic pet to me) and learning about his operation, I really started seeing red. This post on his profile REALLY takes the cake:

I had so many mixed emotions seeing this. 

First, despair. This post was in response to a twitter comment from Kamala Harris who at the time of this writing is on track to taking the second highest position in our government. She touted that she is a co-sponsor of the miserable Big Cat Public Safety Act.

Second, I felt fury. Mr. Small laments that he must "side with the assholes" who want to keep monkeys, wild cats, "and such" as pets. Oh the humanity, poor Mr. Small.

And lastly... vengeful pleasure. Why? Because there's a silver lining to all these inevitable animal bans and regulations. It's that while I'll lose my rights, selfish hypocrites like Small will also suffer and possibly have to end their businesses. This "asshole" won't shed a tear when that happens. No..in fact when I lose my last "exotic" pet I want a front row seat. 

Why is Small a hypocrite? I know what he's thinking. He believes that while private owners are just wreckless and unethical, he has a noble reason for owning animals and has special qualifications. 

I did some quick research on Small's qualifications, not that I believe you need any to own the creatures he possesses. Small has a B.S. of Education in Exercise Science and a minor in nutrition. He was a fitness director and then a personal trainer. At some point he was in sales at Enterasys Networks/ Cabletron Systems. 

With this substantial experience in animal husbandry, he started his path to zoo ownership and animal presentations. At his non-AZA accredited facility (but a member of ZAA and the FCF, pro-pet organizations), which is USDA-licensed and he really wants you to know it (the same professional rank awarded to Joe Exotic), he has "ambassador animals" such as foxes, a coati, reptiles, birds, amphibians, porcupines and of course the kangaroos he mentioned. 

There is literally no logical reason anyone can give on why only exhibitors should have animals that have reasonable care. Being USDA-licensed is something literally anyone can get and it just means you get inspected once or twice a year. It exists to regulate animal-owning businesses and is a requirement of such. Controversial zoos like the Cherokee Bear Zoo have the same "Federal license" he brags about.

Small can't even hide behind the excuse that he doesn't support the exotic pet trade and only "rescues" animals. He even admits on his website that some of his animals are "captive-bred in a US-based protected environment" using such specious terms, aka he purchased them from breeders like the rest of us. He has expensive animals that cost thousands like a 3-banded armadillo and brush-tail bettong, which he obviously bought. 

The other reason exhibitors believe they are so superior to us private owners is that they are "educational". I am later going to look into the research involving the educational value of animal ambassadors, but for now I can at least say this: even if they do possess some educational value, they are not mandatory or essential for a child's education.

Children can learn about wildlife and conservation without the use of live animals, and exhibitors cannot escape this fact: parading around with exotic animals on leashes, like Small is doing below, will inevitable create "assholes" like myself who want to do the same. 

 

People like me who have a brain will not be too impressed with the claims that these animals make "bad pets" when your ambassador is behaving brilliantly in front of an audience. Most members of your audience, who probably don't want exotic pets anyway, will buy what you're selling, but not us. That will work as well as telling teens to stay from drugs, but what's worse, showing us how fun it is to work with your animals is the equivalent of telling kids not to smoke, and then pulling out a blunt and showing them how great it makes you feel. 

People who don't support private pets shouldn't present "animal ambassadors", they should stick to documentaries and stuffed animals. While Little has at least chosen some employees with professional experience teaching science as presenters, he himself is just self-taught, like most gatekeeping exhibitors. He's no more qualified than the rest of us to care for animals. 

Little also writes on his website:

"we fundamentally disagree with and strongly oppose the efforts by small ideologically-driven segments of society to deprive domestic and wild animals and plants of their reproductive rights – and further oppose their long term agenda of domestic animal extinction and exclusion of animals from human society."

It's amazing to see Little complain about animal rights nuts who want all animals out of captivity but then call people who are no different than him other than not taking animals to presentations "assholes". 

What a loony. And speaking of assholes, I found a pathetic presentation on Little's Youtube channel featuring what I'm pretty sure is a live fish being chased, tortured and eaten alive for "education". Like anyone's paying attention to the insipid "facts" while watching the trapped fish swim for its life. This would have caused me significant distress as a child and even as an adult. This "presenter" even cheerfully speaks about a 2 year old toddler getting killed by a large pet snake for anti-pet propaganda. What a callous display of sociopathy and indifference.

This screen cap is protected under the "Fair Use" doctrine. It is essential for the point I'm making.

Brock Afentful (2Can.TV) Spits in his Fan’s Faces (and They Love It!).

First of all, I do believe in previous posts I promised to further discuss the "2 Can TV" situation in more detail, although I can’t really remember what I was planning to expand on. For those of you who don’t know me well, I suffer from a chronic illness called procrastinatosis, and I really do find it mentally exhausting to examine and discuss Afentful’s bafflingly obvious hypocritical behavior that only about one out of 200 of his followers even recognize and then deal with his inexplicably “confused” (to put it lightly and politely) fans and supporters. Honestly, I was planning on giving it a rest.

But then this happened.

 

 

What in the smoldering hypocrite Hell is this? Brock acquired another baby toucan? ANOTHER species? LESS THAN 3 MONTHS AFTER BUYING "RHIANNON"?

I’m at a loss. I was starting to successfully delude myself into believing that Brock might be starting to develop awareness of his contradictory behavior. I thought that maybe from now on, he’d start attempting to stay true to his word and only “rescue” these unique animals (for toucans, this means buying birds second hand from owners instead of breeders). 

I’m still not a fan of that, because toucans don’t need to be “rescued”. To demonstrate this, try searching for toucans that are available for adoption via Petfinder in your area, or really anywhere. I’ll be completely amazed if you find more than zero (of course, some are up for re-homing on Craigslist, which is the case for literally every pet species kept in captivity unless they are ultra rare).

But, Brock clearly has no shame, conscious, or even a basic moral compass. Shortly after using his donators’ money to replace his non-rescued $6500 red-bill toucan, he saw yet another species of toucan that was available and, being the “rescuer” of toucans that he is, started shooting the breeze with the breeder, who is Miguel Rocha by the way; a clear supporter of the exotic pet trade Brock whines about, a (former?) co-owner of what animal rights nuts would call a “road side zoo”, and he should be ashamed of himself for doing business with a harmful hypocrite like Brock.

Brock tells us that he wasn’t planning on getting this bird, but the breeder was excited to engage with Brock’s Youtube celebrity, subsequently fed his ego, and asked Brock if he wanted the bird.

Poor Brock was put in a compromising situation! He wanted the bird, but he’s saving “his” money that was given to him by donators to move to a new house. So, poor Brock said, “no thanks”, I’m saving up for my unaccredited “toucan sanctuary” (aka, an upgrade from his current quarters which appear to be a double wide trailer) and went on with his business because it’s not like he needs a new toucan when he barely has room for the ones he currently owns.

Wait, no, never mind. 

What he actually did was cry to one of his patrons (WAAAAHHH!! I WANT PRETTY BIRD NOOW AND I DON’T WANT TO SPEND MY MONEY WAAAAHHH!!!), and one patron bafflingly complied.

 

“Okay Brock, $6500+ coming right up! Don’t cry baby!” And so, Brock got a shiny new baby bird to add to his “rescue”.

So basically, he’s a psychopath and a bratty, blobfish of a human.

Who does that? 

Who, after already having hypocritically purchased a shiny new baby toucan, which is an action you claimed is bad and wrong, asks a stranger to buy you ANOTHER one because your greedy, spoiled af, entitled behind wants to collect a new species that isn’t regularly available? And then he has the absolute, treacherous gall to talk down to one of his fans who questions this action as seen in the reply below:

Transcription: 

"Please remember that this channel is also about education. None of my birds are pets. My entire life revolves around their safety and care as well as sharing them with you guys. Ambassador animals serve a very important purpose with what I do because it takes the pressure off of birds like Beatrix that would otherwise be stressed out with me trying to film her constantly for content that my viewers demand. So not only do you guys get to see the contrast between a healthy, normally behaving bird and a rescue- but they can also take the load off of Toupac and Beatrix having to perform and interact for videos when each of them have varying degrees of ability to do so. There is a huge difference between someone like me, a keeper, and someone who expects to shove something pretty into a small cage and leave it in a corner of their home when they have 9-5 jobs, children, and lives to attend to. If I wasn't able to have the birds out here (and now outside) freely, for most of the day- I would not have a toucan. Thankfully because of YouTube I am able to dedicate my life to seeing that they get proper care and attention. And thanks to birds like Rhia and now this baby, I can feel more comfortable taking in birds in the future that would otherwise feel terrified of a strange human holding a camera and talking loudly around them. In the future, once we move and build the proper enclosures, you will likely see these birds the most while the more wild and traumatized birds live amongst themselves in a large outdoor enclosure with far less human interaction. You have to take the big picture into consideration. I hope this helps."

What a ghastly response. Of course, one of my ultimate triggers is someone saying that an animal that they care for, own, and live with is “not a pet”. How f*cking stupid. Of course it is.

But Brock takes it some steps further. In order to justify his toucan collecting, in the most condescending and smug tone, he refers to himself as a “keeper” and suggests that he needs to buy birds so they can be educational “ambassadors”, which makes utterly no sense, considering presenting well-behaved toucans will make them look like GOOD pets! (Which they are!). Why would he contradict his claim that toucans shouldn’t be pets by buying tame babies and presenting to the public that this is the way a “healthy” toucan should act?

By the way, I have a lot more content coming up discussing "animal ambassadors", even legit ones at licensed facilities with educated presenters, and why they are inherently conflicting. Brock however, is another level of ridiculous. He makes the other "ambassador" people look like Harvard law professors.

Brock suggests he NEEDS to buy birds so he can show the contrast between rescues and hand-raised babies (why the hell do people need to see that anyway?) and so that he can “rescue” more birds…how convenient for him, considering he was planning on breeding toucans. He practically suggests that only people milking money from Youtube should have toucans. He thinks that living off of donations and uploading a sh*tty home movie once a week is a career.

That begs the question, who was he living off BEFORE he started begging for donations? What about Ripley and the collard aracari named Zoey, who he never mentions? These birds are in a precarious situation, being collected by jobless Brock who hopes his generous patrons will support him and his pets for the 15+ years of their life.

I theorize at this point that perhaps, just like the cult leader Keith Renerie who I’m watching several docuseries about, Brock is able to deceive his fans by blatantly putting the egregious behavior on display so that, paradoxically, it is less likely to be questioned. It’s a special kind of narcissism where a person gets the ultimate thrill in openly lying or deceiving their supporters only to get their unwavering loyalty in return.

As you can see in the below photo, he literally finds the fact that he bought another toucan amusing and his fans echo the sentiment. 

 

Brock doesn’t even appear to even have enough ROOM for another toucan. "Toupac" is apparently cageless and sleeps on a perch. "Rhiannon" is likely staying in the divided enclosure with the unfriendly Beatrix and getting stressed the hell out of just like "Maeve" had endured.

Brock recently unveiled a very “meh” outdoor enclosure, finally deciding to give his larger toucans closer to the minimum of what reasonable owners provide, although it doesn’t appear to be a permanent living space, so I have no idea where the new bird is staying.

Brock feels that he didn’t take away funding for his fake toucan sanctuary home upgrade because, well, the patron paid for the BIRD. Brock feels his fans are dumber than gravel. Why did this “patron” have thousands of dollars to pay for Brock to add to his toucan collection but couldn’t donate this amount to Brock’s Fake-tuary? Imagine how many animals could have been helped with $6500. He could have transported toucans to new good homes that aren't his, but of course there's a better chance a pig will fly to Uranus before he ever does something that doesn't directly benefit himself.

As Brock has willing patrons lined up to pay for his emergency luxuries, it is apparent that he is not currently in need of money in any way and is lining his pockets with donations so that he doesn’t have to work (hell, I’ve even heard from a source that he didn’t even pay for his current home, but enough about that) and can keep upgrading his lifestyle, suckling off of his fans like a piglet or an engorged tick.

I won’t mince words here. Brock is a terrible human being. He is the absolutely worst example of an animal “rescue” hypocrite that I’ve ever seen in my life. He needs to go step on a heap of legos and get hang nails on every finger.

To the “patron” who paid for Brock’s bird: I beg of you, there are so many deserving pet owners who fall into a bind and can use $100 or so to pay for palliative and life-saving treatment for their pets. You can make a serious difference in someone’s life during a difficult time. That is if you actually exist, and if Brock didn’t just use his donator's money to get another bird and lie about it so that people keep funding his new house (which would be slimy behavior that I would NOT put past him at this point).