Annoula Wylderich
Annoula Wylderich has truth on her side, but fundraisers, the law, & probably most duped donors don’t give a damn
LAS VEGAS, Nevada––Fumed longtime Nevada animal advocate Annoula Wylderich in a 2021 comment to ANIMALS 24-7 about a quasi-sanctuary collapsing in Florida, “I am SICK of these disgusting, reckless carpetbaggers who capitalize off innocent animals and unwary donors. They harm humans, other species, and the very animals they purport to be ‘rescuing.’
“We need regulations and better monitoring to SHUT THEM DOWN,” Wylderich argued, “and to discourage others from following in their footsteps. Enough already!
(Beth Clifton collage)
Politicians don’t regulate their bag men
The regulations and governmental monitoring of animal sanctuaries remain as weak in 2023 as they were in 2021, and for decades before that, largely through the political influence of the fundraising industry.
Most of the same fundraisers who represent animal charities also represent politicians and political causes––and while politicians and political causes tend to come and go with each election cycle, representing animal charities brings steady income.
From homeless people panhandling on street corners with a hungry-looking pit bull beside them to multi-million dollar direct mailing empires, fundraisers have known for many decades that few pitches pay off more easily and often than emotional appeals on behalf of animals, attracting spontaneous donations with few if any questions asked.
If it says “Urgent!” or “Emergency!”, trash it
Note: if you receive an appeal either electronically or by snail-mail proclaiming itself “Urgent!,” an “Emergency!”, or anything else of the sort, trash it on receipt, because what it is really saying is “Send money without thinking about it.”
Major mainstream animal advocacy charities have never pressured regulators to crack down on misleading fundraising appeals because, truth to tell, most if not all of them use the same techniques, and sometimes the same fundraising companies.
Donors prefer rescues to advocacy
One major difference between the appeals raising funds in the name of quasi-sanctuaries, typically for big cats, horses, or pit bulls, and those sent by the big national organizations––the American SPCA (ASPCA), Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of the U.S., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and many others––is that the big national organizations are focused on advocacy rather than hands-on animal rescue.
Advocacy on behalf of animals is of course useful and necessary. And a strategic donor will always favor effective advocacy, that reduces the numbers of suffering animals, over trying to rescue one animal at a time.
Following the money
But appeals from the big national organizations doing advocacy tend to emphasize what little hands-on animal rescue they do, because they know donors respond much more generously to a pitch on behalf of a single animal in need than to a pitch on behalf of millions who might benefit from the passage of new legislation or from genuine public education.
Therefore the big national organizations, though issuing frequent appeals insinuating that they are rescuing individual animals as a first priority, often do even less hands-on animal care relative to their annual income than the sleaziest of quasi-sanctuaries run by people with long criminal histories and/or histories of breeding animals, selling animals, and otherwise contributing to the need for sanctuaries instead of working to shut down animal exploitation industries.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Appeals are allowed to lie
The multi-million dollar direct mailing empires serving the quasi-sanctuaries meanwhile take little or no responsibility for accurately representing their clients, holding––like lawyers––that their primary duty is to those who hire them, not to truth, justice, honesty, humaneness, or any other abstract ideal.
No one anywhere, not fundraisers and not any institution at any level of government, takes responsibility for ensuring that appeals are accurate.
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court even ruled circa 40 years ago that the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and press allow charities and politicians to lie outright without consequence.
Only blatantly spending money for personal benefit going well beyond the incorporated purposes of a charity brings governmental intervention, and then––as in prosecuting the gangster Al Capone––mostly in response to tax evasion.
Annoula Wylderich vs. Lion Habitat Ranch
None of that, though, kept the ever-idealistic Annoula Wylderich from tilting once again at a windmill in an August 18, 2023 letter to the Office of the Nevada Attorney General in response to “a letter I received asking for a charitable donation for Lion Habitat Ranch in Henderson, Nevada, a non-profit organization.
“Based on the contents of the letter,” Wylderich alleged, “I believe this organization is engaged in fraudulent fundraising practices by making provably false statements for the purpose of raising money.”
For example, Wylderich explained, “The letter repeatedly asks people to sign and return a ‘Save Lions from Caged Hunting’ petition to shut down hunting ranches in this country. There are no hunting ranches with lions to shut down. In 2015 the U.S. government recognized lions as a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act, so lions cannot be legally hunted in this country.
“Hunting ranches with lions do not exist in U.S.”
“The author of the letter, Keith Evans,” Wylderich continued, “says he will send the petitions to the Secretary of Agriculture to shut down the hunting ranches. Again, hunting ranches with lions do not exist in the U.S.,” yet “The letter says there are ‘perhaps hundreds [of hunting ranches] in the country’ that allow people to shoot lions.
“In the letter Evans says he founded his facility to ‘give these innocent big cats a forever home where they would be safe and loved,’” Wylderich pointed out.
However, Wylderich discovered, and ANIMALS 24-7 verified, “According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal of March 4, 2015, Evans established his facility as an ‘exotic animal compound’ in 1999 when he was displaying lions at the MGM Grand. He drove the lions to MGM and back each day until MGM closed the lion display in 2012.
(Wildlife Waystation photo)
Evans bred his lions
“Lion Habitat Ranch did not become a nonprofit organization until 2014.
“Over the years,” Wylderich summarized, and a variety of media coverage confirmed, “Evans,” now age 76, “bred his lions, increasing their numbers. In 2015, Clark County considered shutting down Lion Habitat Ranch – which had 46 lions at the time – due to zoning violations and safety concerns.”
Evans, recalled Wylderich, “had also been cited for ‘the addition of different species of animals to the facility,’ including a giraffe, emus, ostriches and fowl that were not on his permit.
“It is my understanding,” Wylderich allowed, that Evans “later agreed to stop breeding lions to reduce their numbers.
(Beth Clifton collage)
“Not enough to make ends meet”
“The letter states,” Wylderich added, “that Lion Habitat Ranch is supported by the ‘small fee’ he charges visitors but ‘it hasn’t been enough in the past few years to make ends meet.’”
The Lion Habitat Ranch filing of IRS Form 990 for 2022 shows “Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold, or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization’s tax-exempt purpose” of almost $1.1 million.
This is on top of $1.4 million in “Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received.”
For the year, Lion Habitat Ranch bagged $444,489 in income beyond expenses, or in crude terms, an average of $9,877 net profit from each of the 45 exotic animals mentioned in the Form 990 “Statement of Program Service Accomplishments.”
“Calls for investigation”
Continued Wylderich, “The letter suggests that Lion Habitat Ranch may be unable to feed its lions and would possibly need to euthanize them. (‘It scares me deeply to think what might happen if I can’t afford to feed them. It’s possible they would be euthanized because they simply have nowhere else to go.’)”
Suggested Wylderich, “If Lion Habitat Ranch is desperate to feed its animals, this calls for an investigation into the welfare of the lions and other animals kept there. If it is necessary to move the lions, there are accredited sanctuaries available to take them in.”
Wylderich is quite unlikely to see any satisfactory response from the Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Indeed, Nevada has long been known for lax enforcement of any sort of regulations pertaining to fundraising, charity accountability, and possession of exotic and/or dangerous animals.
(See “Tiger King” associate Karl Mitchell was Nye County animal control chief.)
Investigative reporter Dana Gentry responded
But Nevada Current investigative reporter Dana Gentry responded.
“Contacted by the Current,” Gentry wrote, “Evans retreated from his claim the animals are in danger of being killed.
“We are making ends meet. We just don’t have the cushion we’d like,” Evans told Gentry. “The lions are safe,” Evans said.
“Evans says he has not reached out to any sanctuaries about taking the animals,” Gentry continued.
“They’re older cats. They don’t travel well and they have medical bills,” Evans said. “We are maintaining them.”
Wrote Gentry, “Evans acknowledged to the Current he’s aware canned lion hunts are illegal in the U.S.”
The fundraiser
Gentry mentioned that “Evans spent more than $66,000 on professional fundraising fees in 2022, according to the return.”
But Gentry did not mention, perhaps not recognizing the names, that the professional fundraisers identified on recent Lion Habitat Ranch filings of IRS Form 990 are Bruce Eberle and his company Fund Raising Strategies, of McLean, Virginia.
Eberle and Fund Raising Strategies have also represented many other controversial and questionable animal sanctuaries over the past 30 years or so, among them the now defunct Wildlife Waystation and Wild Burro Rescue.
(See Wildlife Waystation founder Martine Colette, 79, goes to “walk with tigers” and Diane Chontos of Wild Burro Rescue charged with felony neglect.)
Another client, Great Cats in Crisis, in 2002 distributed a direct mail appeal behalf of Marjan, the deceased Kabul Zoo lion, 10 days after Marjan died, a week after his death was extensively reported by news media.
Other Eberle clients
Other Eberle clients, among a long list, have included, or still include, Lifesavers Wild Horse Rescue, Noah’s Lost Ark, Peaceful Valley Donkey Sanctuary, Tiger Creek, and Tiger Haven.
Eberle fundraising tactics on behalf of non-animal-related clients in December 1992 came under investigation by the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW, jointly headed by U.S. Senators John Kerry and John McCain, and have been involved in a variety of other political scandals and controversies.
Probably best remembered were two in 1998, one pertaining to fundraising for former U.S. Senator John Ashcroft and the other pertaining to fundraising for Paula Jones, who had accused U.S. President Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.
Also well remembered is that Eberle in 2005 allegedly funded an operation that planted a far right political operative named James Guckert in the White House media corps under the name Jeff Gannon.
Please donate to support our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Related Posts
No, the wait for a single-shot chemosterilant for cats has not ended
Waiting for Godot & a good, cheap non-surgical alternative to s/n surgery
More predators in animal charity than remain in the wild
Why was there “a long lull in KY law enforcement against cockfighting?”
FDA verdict on Mifrepristone upstages more nonsense from Alex Pacheco
“We are fine; the problem is with everyone else,” by Steve Hindi
Thank you for this piece, Beth and Merritt. There’s nothing respectable about any organization that would seek to exploit animals and donors through fraudulent practices. Another equally important point you made is the importance of donors thinking strategically by donating towards animal advocacy as much as they do towards rescue. We need to be looking at the long picture and the goal of saving many animals, not only the few that might be highlighted in a pitch.
Sick, avaricious and extremely disappointing, as usual.
Sharing to socials with gratitude, and agreeing 100% with Ms. Wylderich, of course.