This documentary is a fascinating exercise in selection. It makes no attempt to tell multiple points of view, but is instead solely made to promote one contention - that ownership of unusual animals is necessarily bad.
I have kept venomous snakes and am proud of my high standards and protocols in keeping these creatures, and the fact that I have never had a single dangerous incident, ever. I am also proud of the fact that I constantly strive to keep these animals to the highest standards. I am always thinking about how I can improve their welfare and health.
Some of the species I keep are in grave danger in the wild. I am proud of the fact that private keepers like me represent what may be a last chance for the survival of these species. I know zoos well and know many zookeepers... and zoos on their own do not have the resources to ensure the survival of the huge number of animal species at risk. Incidentally, none of my animals were taken from the wild - all are the result of many generations of breeding in captivity.
This documentary, however, is out to make a political case against the private keeping of unusual animals. It centres around two individuals: the first is Tim Harrison, who is presented as a noble and heroic enforcement officer. I would have preferred a film in which Tim's views and politics were compared with that of his far more knowledgeable and experienced brother, Jim, from the Kentucky Reptile Zoo.
The other individual is Terry Brumfield, an invalid man who has a child-like love of his lions and who is completely out of his depth in looking after them. While this is shocking, Terry does not represent the vast majority of animal keepers. Most keepers I know are highly experienced and can discuss animal husbandry, health, behavior, toxicology, genetics, classification and biology (to name just a few things) in great detail. I have never met anyone like Terry Brumfield; clearly he should not have been keeping big cats and there was a need to bring this to an end in his case. Of all the keepers out there, Michael Webber (the director) chose Terry Brumfield as the film's representative keeper. Dishonest and grossly unfair.
While there is a danger of people like Terry owning such animals, this film puts a case for the banning of all unusual creatures, for everyone and everywhere.
The depiction of a reptile show is particularly laughable. Tim Harrison hams it up for the cameras and engages in some extremely unsafe practices himself with a venomous snake. Webber inserts some ominous music to try and create a sinister feel to the event. Please be aware of the film-maker's tricks and selective choices in the way he presents scenes like this in the film!
This documentary was made with the support of a massive lobbyist organisation - The Humane Society US, the leader of which has some very radical ideas which go well beyond snakes and lions, and which include the end of all animal pet ownership. This organisation also has objectives which are in direct opposition to conservation aims - for example, the banning of the private keeping of endangered animals.
This film is more like a high school student English essay in which the object is to argue one side of an issue to the hilt. It might have gained a bare pass for a low achieving student in that context, but is entirely unworthy of praise or to be the centre of public discussion on an issue which has many complexities - which are never covered in the film.
I have kept venomous snakes and am proud of my high standards and protocols in keeping these creatures, and the fact that I have never had a single dangerous incident, ever. I am also proud of the fact that I constantly strive to keep these animals to the highest standards. I am always thinking about how I can improve their welfare and health.
Some of the species I keep are in grave danger in the wild. I am proud of the fact that private keepers like me represent what may be a last chance for the survival of these species. I know zoos well and know many zookeepers... and zoos on their own do not have the resources to ensure the survival of the huge number of animal species at risk. Incidentally, none of my animals were taken from the wild - all are the result of many generations of breeding in captivity.
This documentary, however, is out to make a political case against the private keeping of unusual animals. It centres around two individuals: the first is Tim Harrison, who is presented as a noble and heroic enforcement officer. I would have preferred a film in which Tim's views and politics were compared with that of his far more knowledgeable and experienced brother, Jim, from the Kentucky Reptile Zoo.
The other individual is Terry Brumfield, an invalid man who has a child-like love of his lions and who is completely out of his depth in looking after them. While this is shocking, Terry does not represent the vast majority of animal keepers. Most keepers I know are highly experienced and can discuss animal husbandry, health, behavior, toxicology, genetics, classification and biology (to name just a few things) in great detail. I have never met anyone like Terry Brumfield; clearly he should not have been keeping big cats and there was a need to bring this to an end in his case. Of all the keepers out there, Michael Webber (the director) chose Terry Brumfield as the film's representative keeper. Dishonest and grossly unfair.
While there is a danger of people like Terry owning such animals, this film puts a case for the banning of all unusual creatures, for everyone and everywhere.
The depiction of a reptile show is particularly laughable. Tim Harrison hams it up for the cameras and engages in some extremely unsafe practices himself with a venomous snake. Webber inserts some ominous music to try and create a sinister feel to the event. Please be aware of the film-maker's tricks and selective choices in the way he presents scenes like this in the film!
This documentary was made with the support of a massive lobbyist organisation - The Humane Society US, the leader of which has some very radical ideas which go well beyond snakes and lions, and which include the end of all animal pet ownership. This organisation also has objectives which are in direct opposition to conservation aims - for example, the banning of the private keeping of endangered animals.
This film is more like a high school student English essay in which the object is to argue one side of an issue to the hilt. It might have gained a bare pass for a low achieving student in that context, but is entirely unworthy of praise or to be the centre of public discussion on an issue which has many complexities - which are never covered in the film.