Why is Vantara hiring flacks & lawyers instead of just explaining itself?

Vantara founder Anant Ambani may have good reasons for doing things differently from the international conservation establishment,  but he has not done a good job of explaining why

JAMNAGAR, India––Somewhere between 5,000 and 7,500 years ago,  Biblical tradition and Mesopotamian texts have it,  a man named Noah built a huge ark,  he claimed under orders from God,  much to the bewilderment and suspicion of his neighbors.

A 40-day,  40-night monsoon

Filling the ark with a male and female of every kind of animal,  Noah supposedly saved biological diversity when God subsequently destroyed the world with a deluge lasting forty days and forty nights.

Anant Ambani,  29,  son of the reputed twelfth richest man in the world,  apparently motivated by his own inner voice from God,  is attracting comparable suspicion and bewilderment for building and stocking Vantara.

Vantara,  meaning “Star of the Forest” in Hindi,  is a 5.4-square-mile series of wildlife habitats wrapped around the perimeters of Anant Ambani’s father Mukash Ambani’s Reliance petrochemical complex in Gujarat state,  near Jamnagar city.

A “zoo” that isn’t

Anant Ambani is reportedly also developing a second Vantara on the far side of India,  in the Kaziranga region of Assam.

As ANIMALS 24-7 pointed out in a previous look at the Vantara project,  Vantara: billionaire-built zoo/sanctuary has conservationists in a dither,  a growing global chorus of conservationist nay-sayers are currently bashing Anant Ambani and Vantara,  essentially because while Anant Ambani calls it a “zoo,”  it is not really a zoo at all,  not now,  anyway,  and it is not following zoo conventions for animal acquisition.

Vantara is,  however,  currently a nonprofit sanctuary,  as sanctuaries are defined by the American Sanctuary Association,  Association of Sanctuaries,  and Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries,  not open to paying visitors––at least not yet,  if it ever will be.

“The largest zoo in the world”

The most recent explosion of criticism of Vantara followed the March 13,  2025 publication of “The largest zoo in the world,”  an investigative report by Christoph Cadenbach,  Sebastian Erb, Lima Fritsche, Mauritius Much and David Pfeifer of Süddeutsche Zeitung,  one of the best-reputed newspapers in Germany,  better known as just SZ,  assisted by the also well-reputed Venezuelan investigative media outlet Armando Info.

Opened the SZ report,  “Vantara in India is said to be a kind of luxury shelter for animals in need,  financed by one of the world’s richest families.  But have the tens of thousands of animals actually been saved?”

The “opaque zoo project,”  SZ alleged,  “may have fueled the global shadow market for wildlife.”

Trying to buy the bad guys out of business?

Indeed it may have,  if the SZ team are correct in their suspicions of some of the Vantara animal sourcing.

On the other hand,  Vantara may also be simply trying to buy out of business some of the world’s most notorious wildlife exhibitors,  traffickers,  and hunting ranch operators.

Such buy-out efforts have a long history of failure,  including in attempts by some of the largest and best-reputed humane societies to close puppy mills,  fur farms,  and horse slaughter auctions.

But there have been some successes,  including by the Indian organization Wildlife SOS in buying dancing bear owners out of business and by the Austrian-based organization Four Paws [Vier Pfoten] in buying out a notorious hunting ranch,  turning it into the world-renowned Lionsrock sanctuary.

[See Heart failure fells Vier Pfoten (Four Paws) founder Helmut Dungler, 56.]

Vantara is not part of the conservation “old boys club”

Meanwhile,  though failures of the buy-out approach are frequent,  and almost inevitable,  conventional zoological conservation approaches have had little more success,  if any at all.

“Zoos like those in Berlin and Cologne obtain many of their animals,  especially endangered species,  through so-called conservation breeding programs initiated by the European Association of Zoos & Aquariums [EAZA],”  explained SZ.

“Vantara and the organizations behind it,”  specifically the Greens Zoological Rescue & Rehabilitation Center and the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust,  both also Ambani family charities,  “are not yet members of EAZA,  which also includes institutions outside of Europe,  and they have not yet applied for membership,”  SZ said.  “They have also not yet requested admission to the World Association of Zoos & Aquatic Parks (WAZA).”

Conventional conservation approaches are rarely more successful

In context,  however,  this means little.

Since 1973,  when the United Nations-brokered Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES] came into being,  accredited zoos following all the rules––and many major accredited zoos have been caught breaking them––have chiefly accomplished maintenance of their own exhibition stock,  often at severe expense to individual animal welfare,  while the global wildlife trafficking industry has only expanded.

“At least 39,000 wild animals were delivered to Vantara by the end of December 2024,  many of them in the past nine months,”  SZ reported,  while failing to distinguish between large charismatic megafauna and much smaller species who have also been finding homes at Vantara by the many thousands.

53 sources in 32 nations

“According to import data,  animals were delivered to Vantara from 32 countries worldwide,”  SZ said,  “from a total of 53 exporters.

“The most important exporting country is the United Arab Emirates,  from whence more than 11,000 animals went to Vantara,”  SZ continued,  “including endangered species such as 41 chimpanzees,  14 orangutans,  one bonobo,  and a mountain gorilla.

“Thousands of wild animals were also exported to Vantara from Venezuela,  including 142 giant anteaters and 101 giant otters,”  SZ enumerated.

“The Democratic Republic of Congo sent primarily primates native to that region,  among them approximately 100 owl-headed monkeys.

“Reptiles and birds in particular were delivered from Malaysia and Indonesia,  including 481 green tree pythons and 520 barred pigeons.

“According to the project’s official annual reports, nearly 5,000 animals also came to Vantara from within India.  These include approximately 220 elephants and many leopards.”

Animals from Tropic of Cancer to the Equator

Fumed German primatologist Angela Meder,  “It makes absolutely no sense to transport a single animal of these species to a rescue center in India,  far from their natural habitat.  If these were truly rescued animals,  they should have been taken to one of the sanctuaries in Africa where other animals of their own species live.  The goal of every rescue must be release into the wild.”

But Meder may not have looked at a globe or the news recently.

Every animal of any species known to have arrived at Vantara is native to the relatively narrow band of Planet Earth extending from the Tropic of Cancer to the Equator.

Situated within that band,  Vantara is climatically comparable to the native habitat of every animal there.  The sources of those animals,  except for some acquired from South African hunting ranches,  have also been within the band from the Tropic of Cancer to the Equator.

Political stability

Further,  though there are 23 primate sanctuaries accredited by the Pan African Sanctuary Association,  whose members and representatives are among the most vehement critics of Vantara,  none can claim facilities more spacious or better equipped than Vantara,  few if  any have had significant histories of success in returning great apes to the wild,  and none of the 13 nations hosting PASA sanctuaries enjoy political stability comparable to that of India.

India has had some recent border skirmishes with Pakistan and China,  but all 13 nations hosting PASA sanctuaries have been at least partially engulfed in shooting wars within the normal lifespan of a chimpanzee,  bonobo,  or mountain gorilla.

Source nations

SZ “specifically examined the companies and organizations that,  according to the data, each delivered thousands of animals to Vantara,”  the reporters detailed.

“These include numerous zoos,  but also commercial animal traders,”  SZ explained.  “They are based in countries such as Venezuela,  the Democratic Republic of Congo,  and Indonesia,  which are considered hubs for the illegal trade in wild animals captured there.  The United Arab Emirates is also an international hub and destination for this trade.”

All of which appears to be true,  but in absence of stable and effective governments in Venezuela and the Democratic Republic of Congo,  and of evident political will to address wildlife trafficking in Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates,  what mechanism exists,  other than those Vantara is using,  to free animals from the poachers and traffickers operating in these nations,  and give the animals the opportunity to lead safe,  healthy lives?

Zoocriadero San Antonio Abad

Non-cooperation with wildlife criminals may be the most effective strategy for the conservation of species,  but not necessarily for individual animals who have already been netted,  their families massacred to facilitate capture.

SZ expressed particular concern about “The Zoocriadero San Antonio Abad,  located in a large warehouse in an industrial area outside the Venezuelan capital,  Caracas.  Literally translated,”  SZ explained,  “zoo criadero” means “animal breeding.”

Between May and November 2024,  SZ reported,  “The Zoocriadero San Antonio Abad delivered approximately 3,300 wild animals to Vantara,  including protected species,  such as 90 giant anteaters and 100 scarlet macaws.

Wild captures?

“Given the species and the high number of animals, “  SZ said,  “Venezuelan conservation experts believe it is highly likely that some of the animals exported to Vantara were captured in the wild.

“Daniela Freyer of Pro Wildlife,”  SZ continued,  “has discovered further evidence in the CITES database suggesting that wild-caught animals from Venezuela’s neighboring country, Guyana, may have landed in Vantara:  150 squirrel monkeys and 31 bonneted capuchin monkeys,  for example.  These animals were reportedly sent to India in 2023 and are marked as wild-caught in the CITES database.”

But suppose these animals did land in Vantara?  Were they captured to order for Vantara,  or were they captured from an area slated for rainforest logging,  rescued by Vantara from the exotic pet trade or,  perhaps,  from cook pots and/or traffic in traditional Chinese medicine?

A closer look at the circumstances is warranted before a rush to judgement.

Skepticism vs. evidence

“According to the data,”  SZ said,  “Vantara’s most significant animal supplier is an organization called Kangaroo Animals Shelter Center,  or Kangaroo Animals Center,  in the United Arab Emirates.

“According to research by the SZ, the organization is backed by an animal dealer named Khaled Aldhaheri,”  the article said.  “On his Facebook page,  Aldhaheri advertises an online pet store called Ekat.  It offers dogs and cats,  as well as wild animals such as gazelles.”

SZ obtained a statement from Ekat / Kangaroo saying that,  “Khaled has been working with several organizations in the field of animal care and animal welfare for many years.  Khaled helps private individuals or institutions who can no longer care for their wild animals.  All exports and imports of animals are carried out in strict compliance with CITES regulations. These are exclusively non-commercial transfers,  for which not a single cent is paid or received.”

Skepticism may be in order,  but SZ did not produce evidence contradicting the claims.

How Vantara shot itself in the foot

“At the beginning of March 2025,  the SZ finally visited Vantara,”  the SZ report described.

On arrival at Vantara,  the reporting team was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

“But why should they suddenly not be allowed to report on their visit?”  SZ asked.  “The purpose of the trip was,  after all,  to get their questions answered and form their own opinion.  To report on it.”

This paranoid and bizarre behavior on the part of the Vantara management contributed to the widespread impression that Vantara must have something to hide,  even though no one yet has even hinted at any way that either Anant Ambani or anyone else involved in operating Vantara might be profiting from it.

Legal threats

Even if Vantara is considered “greenwashing” for the Reliance petrochemical complex,  it is by all accounts “a kind of luxury shelter for animals in need,”  and very high-end “greenwashing” as “greenwashing” goes,  creating a great many jobs in a region which other than Reliance has few other major employers.

Suspicion of Vantara was heightened within days after the SZ visit when three leading Indian national newspapers,  the Deccan Herald,  the Telegraph,  and The Tribune,  withdrew from their web sites a syndicated report that amplified concerns expressed by the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa about Vantara animal sourcing.

Mahesh Deka,  editor of Northeast Now,  identified by Shinjinee Majumder and Pratik Sinha of Alt News as “a Guwahati-based media outlet which has not taken down the story,”  told Majumder and Sinha that he both “received a threatening email after the publishing of the Vantara story,”  and “was also approached by a public relations firm and offered financial incentives to take down the article or change it to a different version which the agency would propose.

“Vartha Bharati,  a Karnataka-based media house,  received similar communications,”  Shinjinee Majumder and Pratik Sinha said,  “from a person identifying himself as a representative of Reliance Corporate Communication.”

Why not just answer the questions?

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa,  headed by longtime South African animal advocate Michelle Pickover,  is an alliance of about 30 organizations with well over 30 years of experience in exposing commercial use and abuse of wildlife.

In light of experience,  that the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa has questions about Anant Ambani and Vantara is quite understandable.

Less understandable is why Anant Ambani does not simply answer the questions,  including explaining why Vantara is operating altogether differently from conservation industry norms.

Public clarification of motives and modus operandi would appear to be much more effective and less expensive than paying lawyers and public relations firms,  whose mere appearance in any controversy tends to heighten suspicion.

But for what it’s worth,  Noah had the same problem.

Please donate to support our work:

More related posts: