![\"Charles](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_26-08-08_11-16-16-197-e1786213087714.png?ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n \u201cAmy Dickens,\u201d\u00a0 the pseudonym used by the author of the following guest column, will be quickly recognized as such by anyone aware that British author Charles Dickens\u2019 most memorable female character was arguably Amy Dorrit,\u00a0 heroine of his novel Little Dorrit<\/em>,\u00a0 published serially in 1855-1857.<\/p>\n ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong>\u00a0does not know who \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d is.<\/p>\n We rarely post anything sent to us anonymously,\u00a0 nor do we often use anonymous information.\u00a0 If we must stand up for what we publish,\u00a0 we believe,\u00a0 our sources should too.<\/p>\n Beginning with an email we received on December 3,\u00a0 2025,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d has furnished an unusual wealth of documentation,\u00a0 including many side-by-side image comparisons, in support of her allegations about apparent falsification of predation scenes in nature videos.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Any reader may inspect this evidence,\u00a0 drawing whatever conclusions he or she may, \u00a0at either https:\/\/medium.com\/@thewildtruth2026\/the-wild-truth-reports-on-evidence-of-animal-cruelty-in-natural-history-films-625193fe8892<\/a> or https:\/\/bit.ly\/wildtruthreport<\/a>.<\/p>\n ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong>\u00a0acknowledges that much of what appears in the \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d side-by-side images showing alleged staged predation and artificial set-ups represented as \u201cnature\u201d could have been done by someone highly skilled in either photographic manipulation or the use of artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n But these scenes have been sold by the producers as made from life,\u00a0 not even AI-enhanced.<\/p>\n And if the producers contend that \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d herself is the source of any fakery,\u00a0 why have none of them so far come right out and said so?<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n ANIMALS 24-7,\u00a0 <\/strong>as described in previous reportage,\u00a0 has since first receipt of the \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d materials made extensive efforts to obtain meaningful responses to them from humane organizations in multiple nations who might be supposed to have some relevant jurisdiction and professional expertise.<\/p>\n See The Wild Truth about wildlife videos & lack of humane jurisdiction<\/a><\/strong>,\u00a0 posted on April 24,\u00a0 2026,\u00a0 and When others looked away, ANIMALS 24-7 looked at the evidence<\/strong><\/a>,\u00a0 posted on April 26,\u00a0 2026.<\/p>\n Our efforts have in nine months gone nowhere.<\/p>\n ANIMALS 24-7 <\/strong>must wonder if some of the apparent indifference of major national and international animal rights and welfare organizations reflects that the \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d allegations primarily involve relatively unpopular species\u2013\u2013rodents and reptiles\u2013\u2013rather than the warm,\u00a0 cute,\u00a0 and cuddly species typically used in fundraising appeals.<\/p>\n Meanwhile,\u00a0 as \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d recounts,\u00a0 the primary responses to her by the producers of the videos in question,\u00a0 at least in extensive correspondence shared with us,\u00a0 has been not to refute her allegations in any specific detail,\u00a0 for example with a statement from a videographer saying \u201cI filmed this at such-and-such location on such-and-such date,\u00a0 and here are some out-takes proving it,\u201d\u00a0 but rather to abuse and misuse the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to prevent \u201cDickens\u201d from showing others why she believes what she does.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Showing Animals Respect & Kindness [SHARK] encountered a parallel situation in December 2007 when the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association repeatedly used Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to suppress SHARK distribution on YouTube of videos of animals suffering injury during copyrighted rodeo performances.<\/p>\n Eventually the Electronic Frontiers Foundation sued the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association on behalf of Showing Animals Respect & Kindness.<\/p>\n On February 12, \u00a02009 the Electronic Frontiers Foundation announced that the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association had agreed to pay $25,000 and accept restraints on making claims of copyright violation against Showing Animals Respect & Kindness.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n But despite this and other clear precedents,\u00a0 \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d and The Wild Truth,\u00a0 the organization she represents, \u00a0have so far enlisted no comparable legal clout,\u00a0 apparently to preserve what ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong> believes is their misguided anonymity.<\/p>\n ANIMALS 24-7<\/strong> acknowledges,\u00a0 however,\u00a0 that some of The Wild Truth sources appear to be in South Africa,\u00a0 a nation in which witnesses in court cases,\u00a0 some of them involving wildlife,\u00a0 have often been assassinated in recent years.<\/p>\n Thus there may be more cause for \u201cAmy Dickens\u201d anonymity than the mere trepidation over professional consequences than she admits to.<\/p>\n \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage illustrates allegations from The Wild Truth.)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n The Wild Truth is a group of anonymous wildlife \ufb01lm-making professionals and industry insiders dedicated to investigating and documenting evidence of unethical practices and potential animal cruelty in wildlife documentary production.<\/p>\n Over the past several months,\u00a0 we have published a series of detailed reports examining evidence that predation scenes in some wildlife documentaries may have been staged using captive animals.\u00a0 Our investigations focus on productions involving Lion Mountain Media,\u00a0 Aquavision TV Productions,\u00a0 African Reptiles & Venom,\u00a0 and The Living Vivarium,\u00a0 with programs distributed by Bomanbridge Media and Earth Touch Media,\u00a0 broadcast by National Geographic.<\/p>\n The evidence presented in these investigations indicates that birds,\u00a0 rodents,\u00a0 snakes,\u00a0 and crocodiles were intentionally placed into staged predation scenes,\u00a0 resulting in their deaths.<\/p>\n Those sequences were subsequently broadcast to audiences as authentic depictions of wild animal behavior.\u00a0 These \ufb01ndings suggest not only a serious breach of documentary ethics,\u00a0 but also raise signi\ufb01cant animal welfare concerns.<\/p>\n We have provided the organizations named in our investigations with the opportunity to review the evidence and respond to our conclusions.\u00a0 To date,\u00a0 none has produced evidence that directly addresses or contradicts the speci\ufb01c factual \ufb01ndings documented in our reports.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Lion Mountain Media has corresponded with us extensively,\u00a0 both directly and through its legal representatives.\u00a0 During that correspondence,\u00a0 the company informed us that it had engaged a private investigator in an attempt to identify us.<\/p>\n After initially declining to engage,\u00a0 Lion Mountain Media provided lengthy responses discussing general wildlife behavior,\u00a0 standard \ufb01lming practices,\u00a0 company policies,\u00a0 and the scale of its archival footage.\u00a0 However,\u00a0 these responses did not directly address the speci\ufb01c evidence presented in our investigations.<\/p>\n Throughout our correspondence, we repeatedly asked two simple factual questions:<\/p>\n Despite multiple opportunities over the course of several emails, neither question was answered.\u00a0 After we presented further evidence, \u00a0including behind-the-scenes photographs published by a pet shop located not far from Lion Mountain Media\u2019s o\ufb03ces that appeared to match scenes broadcast in The Secret World of Snakes<\/em>,\u00a0 correspondence was taken over entirely by the company\u2019s legal representatives.\u00a0 They characterized our work as \u201cfalse,\u201d\u00a0 \u201cdefamatory,\u201d\u00a0 and \u201cunlawful\u201d.<\/p>\n However,\u00a0 despite these serious allegations,\u00a0 neither Lion Mountain Media nor its lawyers identi\ufb01ed a single statement in any of our reports that they asserted was factually incorrect,\u00a0 nor did they provide any evidence demonstrating that any of our \ufb01ndings were false.<\/p>\n <\/a> Beth Clifton used AI to add the rat & the reflection of the photographer to this image advertising The Secret World of Snakes.<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n As co-producer and distributor of The Secret World of Snakes<\/em>,\u00a0 Bomanbridge Media was provided with the same evidence and a series of questions concerning animal welfare oversight,\u00a0 ethical standards,\u00a0 disclosure,\u00a0 and its knowledge of the production.<\/p>\n Rather than responding directly, all correspondence was handled through the company\u2019s solicitor.<\/p>\n Bomanbridge Media stated that it was committed to high ethical and animal welfare standards,\u00a0 required production partners to comply with applicable legislation and recognized industry guidelines,\u00a0 and would take appropriate action if those standards were shown to have been breached.<\/p>\n However, it did not answer our speci\ufb01c questions concerning the production itself,\u00a0 nor did it directly address the evidence presented in our investigations.<\/p>\n After we supplied further evidence linking multiple predation scenes to behind-the-scenes photographs published by a Johannesburg pet shop credited at the end of the episode, Bomanbridge Media ceased responding altogether.<\/p>\n <\/a> National Geographic chief executive Jill Tiefenthaler and stuffed friends.<\/strong><\/em> National Geographic is the broadcaster of most of the productions examined in this report and commissioned Africa\u2019s Deadliest<\/em>.\u00a0 We are aware that senior National Geographic personnel became aware of our allegations through correspondence from Lion Mountain Media.<\/p>\n In particular,\u00a0 Peter T. Lamberti,\u00a0 chief executive officer of Lion Mountain Media and Aquavision TV Productions,\u00a0 copied Janet Han Vissering,\u00a0 senior vice president of development and production for National Geographic Content,\u00a0 on correspondence relating to our investigations.<\/p>\n We also independently provided National Geographic with the evidence supporting our \ufb01ndings. Despite having multiple opportunities to review that evidence,\u00a0 National Geographic has not provided a response to our reports or answered our questions concerning the production or broadcast of the programs examined in our reports.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n We twice reported our \ufb01ndings to the National Geographic Society through its ethics reporting system,\u00a0 providing detailed reports,\u00a0 supporting evidence,\u00a0 and links to our video analyses.\u00a0 We explained that our objective was to prevent unnecessary harm to animals and asked the Society to review evidence suggesting that predation scenes broadcast under the National Geographic brand had been staged using captive animals.<\/p>\n In response, the Society stated that it does not produce or control National Geographic television programming,\u00a0 is a separate non-pro\ufb01t organization,\u00a0 is not a\ufb03liated with Lion Mountain Media,\u00a0 and that our concerns should instead be directed to The Walt Disney Company.\u00a0 The Society advised that it could not assist further and would not respond to any additional correspondence.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n In addition to publishing written reports, we produced a series of videos presenting the evidence uncovered during our investigations.\u00a0 Following their publication,\u00a0 Lion Mountain Media submitted multiple Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaints against our content.<\/p>\n As a result, our videos were removed from multiple platforms,\u00a0 our social media accounts were suspended or disabled,\u00a0 and even some of our email accounts were blocked,\u00a0 signi\ufb01cantly limiting our ability to communicate our \ufb01ndings.<\/p>\n We believe these copyright complaints are without merit.\u00a0 Our videos are transformative works created for the purposes of criticism,\u00a0 commentary,\u00a0 and public interest reporting.\u00a0 We believe they constitute fair use (or the equivalent fair dealing exceptions in applicable jurisdictions).<\/p>\n We believe that copyright law should not be used to suppress legitimate public scrutiny or prevent discussion of matters of public interest.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n We have now put together the \ufb01ndings of our investigations into a single 61-page report,\u00a0 \u00a0currently accessible at either https:\/\/medium.com\/@thewildtruth2026\/the-wild-truth-reports-on-evidence-of-animal-cruelty-in-natural-history-films-625193fe8892<\/a> or https:\/\/bit.ly\/wildtruthreport<\/a>.<\/p>\n The overwhelming majority of the evidence presented in this report is derived from publicly available sources,\u00a0 including television broadcasts,\u00a0 YouTube videos,\u00a0 Facebook posts, production company websites, and other publicly accessible material.<\/p>\n Wherever possible, we rely on primary source material and provide su\ufb03cient detail for readers to independently verify our \ufb01ndings.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n In addition,\u00a0 we relied on two con\ufb01dential sources.<\/p>\n First, we received a pre-release copy of The Secret World of Snakes<\/em>, which was subsequently broadcast by National Geographic under the title The Hidden World of Snakes<\/em>.<\/p>\n Aside from the title change, the broadcast version was otherwise identical to the version we received.<\/p>\n Second,\u00a0 an anonymous source provided us with Aquavision TV Productions screener videos showing predation sequences \ufb01lmed under controlled conditions.<\/p>\n The authenticity of these screeners has since been independently corroborated by Lion Mountain Media\u2019s DMCA copyright complaints,\u00a0 which identify the same material,\u00a0 as well as by the inclusion of matching footage in later broadcast productions.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n The investigations brought together in this report span multiple productions,\u00a0 years,\u00a0 species,\u00a0 and \ufb01lming locations.<\/p>\n They examine programs produced for National Geographic and other broadcasters by Lion Mountain Media and associated companies,\u00a0 using a wide range of evidence, including broadcast footage,\u00a0 production screeners,\u00a0 publicly available social media posts,\u00a0 archived online videos,\u00a0 and frame-by-frame comparative analysis.<\/p>\n The same patterns emerge repeatedly.\u00a0 Across these investigations,\u00a0 we identi\ufb01ed:<\/p>\n Considered individually,\u00a0 each \ufb01nding raises legitimate questions.\u00a0 Considered collectively,\u00a0 they present a consistent body of evidence suggesting that these are not isolated anomalies but part of a broader pattern.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Equally concerning has been the response to these \ufb01ndings.\u00a0 We provided the organizations involved with opportunities to review the evidence and respond.<\/p>\n Rather than directly addressing the speci\ufb01c factual observations documented in our reports,\u00a0 the principal responses consisted of general statements about wildlife \ufb01lm-making practices,\u00a0 aggressive legal correspondence,\u00a0 or no substantive response at all.<\/p>\n None of the responses provided evidence capable of explaining or disproving the speci\ufb01c observations presented in this report.\u00a0 If these sequences were genuinely \ufb01lmed as spontaneous wild encounters,\u00a0 it is reasonable to expect that production records\u2014such as travel documentation,\u00a0 behind-the-scenes photographs,\u00a0 production logs,\u00a0 or unused footage\u2014could assist in addressing the questions raised.<\/p>\n At the same time, r epeated copyright complaints were used to remove our videos,\u00a0 social media accounts,\u00a0 and other means of communicating our \ufb01ndings,\u00a0 signi\ufb01cantly limiting public access to this evidence.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n This report is not an argument against the use of captive animals in wildlife \ufb01lm-making.<\/p>\n Captive animals are frequently used for education,\u00a0 scienti\ufb01c illustration,\u00a0 and documentary production,\u00a0 and such practices can be entirely ethical when conducted responsibly and disclosed honestly to audiences.<\/p>\n Our concern is the apparent presentation of controlled predation involving live animals as spontaneous events occurring in the wild,\u00a0 without transparency and,\u00a0 where live prey is intentionally introduced,\u00a0 in circumstances that may raise serious animal welfare concerns.<\/p>\n The issues identi\ufb01ed in these investigations extend beyond the productions examined here. Wildlife documentaries occupy a unique position of public trust. They are widely regarded as factual representations of the natural world and play an important role in conservation, education, and public understanding of wildlife. If audiences cannot rely on broadcasters and production companies to distinguish between genuine \ufb01eld observations and constructed scenes, con\ufb01dence in the genre as a whole is undermined.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n For that reason,\u00a0 we believe these \ufb01ndings warrant independent investigation by broadcasters, distributors,\u00a0 regulators,\u00a0 industry bodies,\u00a0 and organizations responsible for overseeing animal welfare in \ufb01lm production.\u00a0 The evidence presented here should be assessed on its merits,\u00a0 and the questions it raises answered through transparency rather than suppression.<\/p>\n We recognize that extraordinary claims require strong evidence.\u00a0 That is why our report relies, wherever possible,\u00a0 \u00a0on publicly veri\ufb01able material,\u00a0 allowing readers to examine the evidence and reach their own conclusions.\u00a0 We remain willing to correct any factual error if credible contrary evidence is produced,\u00a0 and we continue to invite those involved in these productions to provide explanations addressing the observations documented throughout this report.<\/p>\n <\/a> (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n Ultimately, the purpose of this report is not to assign guilt but to encourage accountability.\u00a0 If wildlife \ufb01lm-making is to retain the con\ufb01dence of audiences and continue serving conservation and education,\u00a0 it must be transparent about how its most dramatic sequences are obtained and ensure that the welfare of animals is never subordinated to entertainment.<\/p>\n Our goal is simply to see cruel and misleading filmmaking come to an end.\u00a0 We hope our work will encourage greater public awareness of how some wildlife footage is obtained,\u00a0 particularly where there is evidence that animal welfare may have been compromised for entertainment.<\/p>\n We also hope broadcasters and distributors will take their ethical responsibilities more seriously by conducting meaningful investigations when credible concerns are raised, rather than dismissing or ignoring them.<\/p>\n <\/a> Beth & Merritt Clifton.<\/strong><\/em> Note:<\/strong> If you have information that may assist our investigations, wish to discuss the evidence presented in this report, or would like to request supporting materials, please contact us at thewildtruth2026@gmail.com<\/a> or wild.truth@mail.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n We are happy to provide full-resolution images,\u00a0 frame comparisons,\u00a0 source materials,\u00a0 and other supporting documentation to substantiate the \ufb01ndings presented in our report.<\/p>\n Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" (Beth Clifton collage) Editors\u2019 note: \u201cAmy Dickens,\u201d\u00a0 the pseudonym used by the author of the following guest column, will be quickly recognized as such by anyone aware that British author Charles Dickens\u2019 most memorable female character was arguably Amy Dorrit,\u00a0 heroine of his novel Little Dorrit,\u00a0 published serially in 1855-1857. ANIMALS 24-7\u00a0does not know who […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7034817,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12022],"tags":[197956,13249,197957,197958,88292,4303,197959,18031,197960,53295,5477,13073,5701,9638],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-7034816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-activist","tag-african-reptiles-venom","tag-amy","tag-aquavision-tv-productions","tag-bomanbridge-media","tag-charles-dickens","tag-dickens","tag-earth-touch-media","tag-efforts","tag-ion-mountain-media","tag-national-geographic","tag-truth","tag-videos","tag-wild","tag-wildlife"],"yoast_head":"\nEditors\u2019 note:<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nSee for yourself<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nInquiries going nowhere<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nSuch cases can be won\u2013\u2013but not anonymously<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nBut South Africa is not the U.S.<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nThe Wild Truth about wildlife videos & our efforts to tell it<\/span><\/h2>\n
by Amy Dickens<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nLion Mountain Media<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nBomanbridge Media<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\nNational Geographic<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nThe National Geographic Society<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nDigital Millennium Copyright Act Abuse<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nSources<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nTwo confidential sources<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nMultiple productions,\u00a0 years,\u00a0 species,\u00a0 & sites<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nEvasive response<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nNot an argument against any use of captive animals<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nCall for independent investigation<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\u201cNot to assign guilt but to encourage accountability\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\nPlease donate to help our work:<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n
More related posts:<\/em><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
\nDiscover more from Animals 24-7<\/h3>\n