As allegations of unethical wildlife trade at Vantara surface, major news reports have mysteriously vanished. Is corporate influence silencing investigative journalism on conservation?
A Conservation Sanctuary or a Corporate Cover-Up?
In what appears to be a mysterious media blackout, reports questioning the legitimacy of Reliance’s Vantara wildlife rescue facility in Gujarat have vanished from several major news websites. According to news published on AltNews , The News Minute articles from publications like The Telegraph, Deccan Herald, and The Tribune—which initially covered allegations of wildlife trafficking, unregulated animal transfers, and corporate influence over conservation narratives—have been quietly removed without explanation.
Climate Samurai team also received an unexpected call urging us to remove our story on #Vantara—without any justification. A follow-up call from the same number escalated to a threat against our entire website.
We reiterated stating that Journalism exists to question, investigate, and inform—not to serve as a PR tool for corporations or governments. Intimidation tactics only reinforce the importance of independent reporting
This sudden disappearance of critical journalism raises serious concerns about press freedom, corporate influence, and transparency in wildlife conservation. So, what exactly is happening with Vantara?
The Rise of Vantara and the Controversy Surrounding It
Vantara, located in Jamnagar, Gujarat, is promoted as India’s largest private wildlife rescue and rehabilitation center. According to Reliance, it houses over 2,000 species and 1.5 lakh rescued animals, claiming to provide them a safe and natural habitat.
However, a recent report by the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) has raised serious concerns ( Update : This too has been removed now ). The organization has urged an investigation into the large-scale transfer of wild animals, including big cats like leopards, cheetahs, and lions, from South Africa to Vantara. These transfers, they claim, may not be legitimate rescues, but instead a disguised form of commercial wildlife trade.
In one of the most controversial cases, two black panthers from Assam’s State Zoo were sent to Vantara in exchange for four zebras from Israel—a transaction approved by the Central Zoo Authority. Critics argue that such barter-style wildlife exchanges treat animals as commodities rather than beings in need of ethical rehabilitation.
The Disappearing News: A Media Blackout?
Shortly after these concerns gained public attention, multiple news outlets reported on WAPFSA’s allegations, highlighting potential violations in how animals are being acquired by Vantara. But within days, magically these articles started disappearing from websites without any formal retraction or explanation or redirecting to article glorifying Vantara.
AltNews reports that Journalists from regional outlets have received pressure from PR agencies and corporate entities to take down their reports. One Guwahati-based publication, Northeast Now, refused to remove their coverage despite alleged intimidation, reported the publication.
This raises the question: Why would media houses retract their stories if there was no wrongdoing? Is corporate influence silencing investigative journalism on critical environmental issues?
Concerns Over Private Conservation Models
Private conservation efforts like Vantara could play a role in wildlife protection—if they operate transparently. However, concerns over unregulated animal transfers, lack of independent oversight, and corporate branding of conservation efforts cannot be ignored.
Wildlife experts argue that Vantara, while providing a controlled habitat for animals, does not necessarily promote true conservation. Some species may be living in unnatural climatic conditions, and their long-term welfare remains uncertain.
Moreover, if corporations can privately acquire endangered animals, what stops future commercial exploitation under the guise of conservation? Without public access, independent verification, and regulatory scrutiny, such facilities risk becoming exclusive private zoos rather than legitimate wildlife sanctuaries.
The Call for Transparency
The removal of investigative reports on Vantara should be a wake-up call for both environmentalists and media watchdogs. If conservation is to serve its true purpose, it must be open to public scrutiny and free from corporate control over narratives.
As the controversy surrounding Vantara grows, the real question is: Will authorities step in to investigate these concerns, or will corporate influence continue to dictate India’s conservation agenda?
For now, the public deserves clear answers, ethical conservation practices, and, most importantly, a free press that isn’t afraid to ask tough questions.