A letter from Howie to Leonora LaPeter Anton at the St. Pete Times
Dear Leonora, Carole tells me that your recent questions have been directed at getting more views on exotic pet ownership and about the numbers of cats in the wild. Thank you for taking the time to do that.
There is one comment in one of your emails that I would like to address. You may well have decided at this point the structure of your story and what you are going to include, so nothing I say may matter. But I would like to make one distinction clear in case it is not. The distinction is between mentioning Don’s disappearance versus the mentioning the claims of Carole’s involvement. I believe in one email you suggested Carole might not like your mentioning Don’s disappearance, and you made reference to her denying involvement.
Mentioning Don’s disappearance is not really something with which Carole has a problem. I’m not sure it would be a “big case” other than for the media circus that surrounded it, and I think that media coverage was generated not by the disappearance but by the false claims of Carole’s involvement. I doubt if Don’s disappearance would appear on your radar if it were not for these false claims and the hope of the breeders/owners that you will revive them. Those claims were not made by law enforcement, they were made by individuals who had something to gain. Law enforcement did their investigation and the result is obvious. But, it is a true fact that he disappeared, it is part of the history of the sanctuary and of Carole’s personal history.
In contrast to mentioning the disappearance as part of the history, repeating ten year old lies like those groundless accusations is different. It makes titillating reading for the masses. But I believe it serves no journalistic purpose or public benefit. It only serves the breeders/owners who make any effort they can to try to cause Carole pain, use up our time on their false complaints, and distract from the meaningful issues of extinction and captive animal ownership.
Carole mentioned to you some of the various ways in which the breeder/owners file false complaints with regulatory or accrediting bodies. This week we experienced a new one that I think is one of the best examples of what we are dealing with when it comes to the tactics and ethics of these people. Carole received a call for “Carole Lewis” from a regulator saying Carole was behind in child support payments for her son. Carole’s only son was a stepson for whom she was never financially responsible who died in a car accident years ago. The regulator who called concluded she must have the wrong Carole Lewis, not that uncommon a name, and we would have thought so too except for events later in the day. Carole got to the sanctuary to learn that our manager’s drivers license had been suspended for his allegedly failing to make child support payments. Scott has never been married and has no children. Think this is a coincidence? I suspect there is some hotline where people can anonymously report child support violators and the breeders/owners used it, like their false anonymous claims to Workers’ Compensation and others.
I did not ask you the content of the “tip” you said put this story on your radar. But I can tell you one thing for sure. The sole purpose of the tip, like these other actions, is to use you to cause Carole pain, try to discredit her, and use up our time to distract us from the work of changing the laws to protect the animals. The justifications these people use for their selfish treatment of the animals generally do not find acceptance with the public, who show increasing concern over the treatment of animals. So instead of intelligent debate on these issues, their primary tactic basically to “fight dirty” by spreading lies to try to discredit Carole since she is prominent in this effort and being effective in the trend toward tougher laws.
Whether you print the lies about involvement in Don’s disappearance, or the other lies they spread about the sanctuary, is up to you. I believe you when you say you want to write something that is balanced and fair. I don’t sense you are going about this with malice like Chris Hawes clearly did. When it comes to the issues of how animals are treated, there is a way to present sides of the argument with balance. But I do not see how there is a balanced and fair way to repeat outright lies. Simply printing them, no matter how they are framed, creates the innuendo and the shadow of doubt that the attackers desire.
There is certainly a human interest story in Carole’s evolution of views and activities. More significantly there are two really important issues - extinction of the animals in the wild, and their treatment in captivity - that are genuinely important to the world as a whole and an increasingly number of individuals. Exploring these serves a true journalistic purpose and truly serves the public interest, which I would think is inherent in the mission of the Times. Again, this is obviously your decision, but I don't see how reprinting ten year old lies serves these higher goals.
You will do as you see fit. If you do choose to rehash the false claims that were made about Don’s disappearance or the other claims the breeders/owners make, I can pretty well predict what will follow:
Yates and cohorts will gleefully be sending emails to each others patting themselves on the back for making you their latest agent in their disinformation campaign by getting you to revive the ten year old lies about the disappearance and any others they manage to get you to print. And they will be laughing at you as well as at us for their success in this.
When I tried to meet with Mr. Yates to understand his views on exhibiting animals, on top of the papers he brought with him was the old People Magazine. Now, he will have a copy of your article on top, trying to use the good name and reputation of the Times as support for his lies.
He and/or cohorts will start a new round of complaints to the accrediting bodies that we are approved by, sending your article as evidence of their claims. This will further drain my time by having to respond to them. As in the past, we will prevail, but they will have succeeded in making a nuisance of themselves to us and to the staff of these organizations.
Last, if you print the old lies, you of course cause some pain here just because it is painful to see this in print. In some ways perhaps more for me than Carole, because it is probably harder when someone you love is unjustly attacked than when you are yourself. And Carole, who has already been through so much over Don’s disappearance and does not deserve more, will of course survive the hurt of having the old lies printed. What will carry her, as in the past, is her strong will, her obvious knowledge of the truth, her passion for her mission and understanding that her role unfortunately includes being the subject of these attacks, and finally her strong faith and her belief that ultimately things happen the way they are supposed to. And, despite the distractions, we will continue our work toward protecting the animals. The breeders/owners can cause pain and distraction with these attacks, but the cultural evolution in the way treatment of exotic animals is being viewed by the public across the nation and world will continue. If you read this far, thank you, even if it makes no difference.
I’ll part with two quotes I find interesting but not sure if you will. One is the Ghandi quote I mentioned to you in our conversation and promised to send: “You can judge the moral progress of a nation by its treatment of animals.”
The other comes from a book I just started called “A Game Ranger Remembers” by a man who spent his life as a ranger at the Kruger National Park in South Africa. He talks about the difference in the way animals were viewed when the park was founded many years before to the time he became Chief Ranger in 1983. His remarks reflect a transition that continues at an accelerated pace today. He says:
“When the Park was proclaimed by President Paul Kruger, attitudes toward animals were based on a very literal interpretation of the biblical injunction that God had given Man dominion over the birds of the air and the fishes of the sea. By the time the pioneers (i.e. founders of the Park) bowed out the world was coming to realize that such dominion meant not the conferral of a license to plunder but the assumption of a great and noble responsibility.” Sincerely, Howard Baskin
I've been writing my story since I was able to write, but when the media goes to share it, they only choose the parts that fit their idea of what will generate views. If I'm going to share my story, it should be the whole story. The titles are the dates things happened. If you have any interest in who I really am please start at the beginning of this playlist: http://savethecats.org/
I know there will be people who take things out of context and try to use them to validate their own misconception, but you have access to the whole story. My hope is that others will recognize themselves in my words and have the strength to do what is right for themselves and our shared planet.
You can help feed the cats at no cost to you using Amazon Smile!
Visit BigCatRescue.org/Amazon-smile
You can see photos, videos and more, updated daily at BigCatRescue.org
Check out our main channel at YouTube.com/BigCatRescue
Music (if any) from Epidemic Sound (http://www.epidemicsound.com) This video is for entertainment purposes only and is my opinion.