Wild Zoo News

Factual Zoo Industry News and Updates

Is PETA acting against Gods word?


“We do not advocate ‘right to life’ for animals”.   -Ingrid Newkirk, PETA, CEO and Founder.

What does the Bible say about animal rights?   PETA acts against Gods word.

The Word of God does not mention the treatment of animals to a great extent. However, from the creation account we get both what the Bible says about animals and how we must treat them. In Genesis 1 we find the creation of all things. It is here that we see God establishing the relationship between man and animal. In verse 28 God gives to man authority over all that was created on earth. Man is to take care of and use the earth. Man is to have the authority over all that was created. This means that man is to assume the control and protection of all that God had created. We must be careful in this role.

However, it is important to notice what God does after the sin of man. Genesis 3 gives to us the details of the first sin man commits. In verse 21 God prepares for mankind a covering out of skin, and for the first time an animal dies. The implications of this flow throughout the Word of God; because of man’s sin, death has entered the world. However, for our discussion on animals, it is important to understand that the animals are to be used by men for our needs.

In Genesis 9 there is a change in man’s relation to animals. Up to this point, animals were not used as food. However, God now includes certain animals in the diet of mankind. God also puts fear of man into the animals. Again, animals are used to fill the needs of men. However, God repeats His command in verse two to watch over these animals.

Animal cruelty should not take place if men truly understand the command to be “caretakers” of the earth. We are to control the numbers of animals so disease and sickness do not kill them off; we are to use the animals for our needs; we are to control animals in a manner in which they are not harmful to humans; and finally we should protect them from over-killing and abuse. The problem lies in the fact that many do not understand this balance and tend to over-protect or under-protect animals. Animals were created for us to enjoy, so protecting a remnant for others to enjoy is also proper. Proverbs 12:10 tells us, “A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”

So in reading PETA’s motto in part (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals):

“Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way”  Then reading the Bible, it would be clear that this group, and those that support it act against the word of God and his will?


reblog for Wild Zoo News

Carole Baskin: Master Manipulator! FWC slams BCR in recent inspection, OVER 70 violations !

FWC-LogoCarole Baskin: Master Manipulator! On November 07, 2014, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) made an unannounced visit to inspect Carole Baskin’s Big Cat Rescue and found a whopping 77 violations that day!  Violations consisting of enclosures with trees that grew through the cage tops breaking the wire, trees that grew through cages and died, rust and corrosion on many, many of the cages, dead limbs and debris weighing down the tops of many cages, broken cage support poles, Broken cage door supports, hog rings used to hold cages together were disconnected, in other words, not holding cages together, grass needing removed, cages not having been raked or cleaned, a water dish so filthy the FWC said it needed to be replaced, and one enclosure didn’t even have the top panel connected to the cage! When confronted with these violations, Carole Baskin starts up her manipulation machine then asks the followers on her Facebook page to chime in.  She actually turned the word “Violation”, a word the FWC used many times in their report, into “Suggestion” stating that anyone who called them violations were misquoting the FWC.  Her word change, in effect, changed the entire focus of the FWC report.


Screen shot above is taken from comments made by BCR under this article:

Here is what the FWC actually wrote: No misquote at all.  The word VIOLATION was used 3 times in that paragraph alone.  The word recommendation(s) was not used a single time in the entire 14 page report.  You can read the FWC inspection from November 14, 2014 here:

Carole did some photo shopping and turned the above statement from the FWC into this:


They left out a comma after “but” and the word “TO”  at the end of the first sentence in the highlighted paragraph.  There are no grammatical errors like that in the original report, clearly indicating that someone else wrote the paragraph that Baskin claims to be the original from the FWC.  You can read this version of it on her BCR website:

Baskin is a master manipulator and BCR supporters virtually eat up everything she says and does. This manipulation machine must be stopped.


Katie Altec for Wild Zoo News

Case Finding: How the USDA/APHIS conducts predetermined inspection reports

Case Finding


How the USDA/APHIS conducts predetermined inspection reports
and the chronic misuse of their authority.


The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, (APHIS) over the past several years has begun a relentless bombardment of unfair practices, to the point of the illegal acts to deprive licensees of their right and fair ability to conduct business in a regulated commerce. Many stories have been told and conversations had by such licensees over the years of such acts by inspectors, even to the extent of many recorded inspections and the unbelievable biased, predetermined approach, flawed inspection procedures, and misuse of their official capacity to predetermined inspection outcomes in a direct, deliberate and collaborated effort to harm licensees unfairly.

A recent case from February 1, 2013 with devastating findings against APHIS from their own Chief Administrative Law Judge,  Peter M. Davenport found the following:

-“APHIS conducting biased investigations initiated and conducted with the obvious intent according to a predetermined conclusion.” [page 4]

-“Regional Directors refused to take licensees telephone calls for assistance and feel under no obligation to assist licensees by providing guidance”. [page 7]

-“Investigations directed against licensees are inappropriately influenced an unacceptably biased from their onsets as APHIS personnel involved in preparing a special orders by other directors/supervisors and her staff include language and reports of alleged violations that were not present. All in an effort to produce pre-concluded results from such inspections.”
[page 7]

-“The Regional Director erroneously improper conduct produced such a thoroughly flawed investigation that such scant reliance should never be placed on such an inspection or investigation.” [page 8]

-“Inspectors instructed to mark inspections as “routine” inspections of licensees. Despite the benign and innocuous characterization given to the inspection, it is clear from such testimony in this case concerning the elaborate preparation for it, that it was anything but routine.” [page 8]

-“[SIC] APHIS accused of conducting inspections on the licensee that were actions it intended devastatingly destructive damage to the licensee.” [page 10]

-“Licensee was subject to an improperly conducted investigations by individuals(from APHIS) misusing the authority vested in them, the result of which was professional embarrassment and significant financial loss.” [page 12]

-Chief Administrative Law Review Judge confirms “that animal welfare act considers license, once granted, contained no restrictive endorsements or limitations as to what animals may be exhibited on the face of its license.” [page 12] Note: APHIS Inspectors routinely will tell licensees that obtain other animals that they are not licensed for such animals. This is completely untrue.

-“APHIS continuously scrutinizes through unfair practices the determination of a licensees’ asked variance when concerning large carnivores, elephants, marine mammals, etc. as far as the experience level of a licensee APHIS is unable to provide any testimony concerning the extent of the evaluation process, it is unclear whether the additional documentation of a licensees background was actually examined or simply ignore. It is clear that none of the references were contacted.” [page 15] Note: This seems to be the exact same practice that the IRS used in the current denials of certain non-profit’s status request.

-“The abuse of authority in directing that on substantiated language place in inspection reports and questionable review of licensees qualifications to handle felids was the proximate cause of the licensee experiencing the loss of control of animals she had purchased and the revenue generated by their exhibition. “
[page 16]

-Subsequently the Chief Administrative Law Review Judge in this case finds that the licensee in fact does have the experience to handling care for such animals and continuously notes APHIS inability to prove otherwise or to explain the procedure on how such experience is validated confirmed or otherwise. [page 16]

Complete Findings Attached:

Decision & Order COVER_page_001


Blog at

Up ↑