“THIS IS A BETRAYAL!” Deadly DC Shooting Sparks Blame Game & What Trump's "BBB" Just Exposed
PDS Published 05/22/2025
-
Two Israeli embassy aides were gunned down and killed in the streets of D.C. last night, and now, it’s become just the latest flashpoint stemming from the war in Gaza.
That because right after they were shot, the alleged killer started yelling “free Palestine!”
Now, those victims have been identified as Yaron Lischinsky (Yah-RONE Luh-SHIN-skee) and Sarah Lynn Milgrim.
Right, Luh-SHIN-skee? He was 30-years-old and reportedly worked as research assistant in the embassy’s political wing.
And then Milgrim? She was 26 and organized trips to Israel.
With the Israeli ambassador to the US also revealing in a news conference that the pair were a couple about to be engaged.
And last night, they were attending a reception for young diplomats at the Capital Jewish Museum.
With the DC Police Chief saying in a press conference that a single suspect approached the couple and two others with them as they were exiting the museum and then opened fire with a handgun:
The 30-year-old suspect then entered the museum, was detained by event security, and that’s reportedly when he started his “free Palestine” chants. []
Now with that, the chief said it wasn’t immediately clear why the suspect entered the museum after the shooting or what he planned to do inside –
With officials also noting that the man had not been previously identified as a threat. []
And there, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said federal authorities were investigating the attack.
AG Pam Bondi said she was at the scene and that she had spoken to Trump a number of times throughout the night.
And Dan Bongino, the deputy director of the FBI, said the suspect was being interviewed by Washington police in conjunction with the agency’s counterterrorism team. []
Also, on the Israeli side, you had the prime minister’s office saying they’d be beefing up security for Israeli diplomatic missions all around the world.
And while we wait to learn more, the information we do have has been enough for the attack to be branded as antisemitic and widely condemned – including by both Democrats and Republicans.
With AOC, for example, writing:
“Absolutely nothing justifies the murder of innocents.”
“As we await more details, we must be clear that hatred has no home here. Antisemitism is a threat to all we hold dear as a society. It must be confronted and rooted out everywhere.”[]
And then, Trump saying:
“These horrible D.C. killings, based obviously on antisemitism, must end, NOW!”
“Hatred and Radicalism have no place in the USA. Condolences to the families of the victims. So sad that such things as this can happen!” []
And with that, we’ve also seen similar sentiments expressed by other world leaders as well as, of course, Israeli officials – the country’s ambassador to the UN, for example, calling the shooting “a depraved act of anti-Semitic terrorism.” []
With him also tying the shooting back to pro-Palestine protests we’ve been seeing here in the U.S. since the start of the war in Gaza:
“And then you hear those chanting on campuses, and you see that the leadership of the universities, they sit idly by. They ignore it. Well if you ignore it, that’s what happened last night. You will have those crazy lunatics taking action against innocent Americans, you know, who came to learn about diplomacy.” (0:14-0:32)
And people like the Consul General of Israel in New York echoing that, saying:
“This is a direct result of severe incitement and unprecedented riots organized by terrorists on U.S. campuses. Unfortunately, there were those who listened to the calls of ‘Intifada, Intifada’ even here.”
Of course, on the flip side, you’ve had people pushing back against that connection, saying things like:
“One radical person going out and killing a jewish diplomat does not mean this is a bigger issue revolving [around] all palestine supporters. They have the right to protest, although it is annoying if it effects your daily life but it is their constitutional right.” []
But with that, we’ve seen Israeli officials connecting what happened last night to the growing criticism of the war coming not just from student protesters but from European leaders.
With the country’s foreign minister saying: []
“This is the direct result of toxic antisemitic incitement against Israel and Jews around the world that has been going on since the Oct. 7 massacre.”
And adding:
"This incitement is also done by leaders and officials of many countries and organisations, especially from Europe." []
He didn’t specify which leader or officials he had in mind but, notably, the minister for diaspora affairs?
He issued a statement directly accusing the leaders of the UK, France and Canada of having "emboldened the forces of terror.” []
And if you’re wondering why these three countries specifically are being called out, it may be because earlier this week, they all signed an unprecedented joint statement calling on the Israeli government to "stop its military operations" and "immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza." []
Also warning of possible "concrete actions" against the country if it continued what they described as its "egregious" expansion of military operations in the territory. []
And then, on top of all that, the UK said it would be suspending trade talks with Israel over the country’s "morally unjustifiable" military escalation in Gaza –
Also issuing sanctions against several prominent Israeli settlers and settler-linked groups.
With, separately, the EU’s foreign policy chief announcing that the bloc would reviewing its trade deal with Israel –
Citing a part of their agreement specifying that all signatories must show “respect for human rights and democratic principles” []
And notably, just a day after that, you had Israeli soldiers almost taking out European diplomats visiting the West Bank.
Right, 25 diplomats were visiting from 31 countries including Italy, Canada, Egypt, Jordan, the UK, China and Russia. []
With the Israeli military saying the visit had been approved but the delegation “deviated from the approved route” and so Israeli soldiers “fired warning shots” to distance them from the area.
Adding that that senior officials would contact diplomats to inform them of the results of its internal investigation into the incident and that it regretted “the inconvenience caused” []
Of course, the leaders of these countries? They say getting shot at is a little more than just an inconvenience – condemning the incident and demanding answers.
And so while it’s somewhat unconnected to the situation in Gaza, it is just one more thing adding to the tensions between Israel and Europe.
And beyond that, there are a growing number of voices within Israel speaking out against the war in Gaza in general – but also in connection with yesterday’s attack in DC.
Right, an ex-Israeli general who now leads a major opposition party, for example, has blamed Netanyahu’s right-wing government for “fueling antisemitism and hatred of Israel” – saying:
"A sane state does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not set itself the goal of depopulating the population.”
And adding: “The result is unprecedented political isolation and danger to every Jew in every corner of the globe.”
Now, with that, you’ve had far-right ministers and others actually then blaming this opposition leader for inciting antisemitism with comments like that – one saying “the blood of the embassy employees is on your hands and on those of your friends”[]
But you’ve also had others backing him up, including a former Israeli minister of defence and IDF chief of staff who took it even further, saying:
“This is not a “hobby” but a government policy, whose ultimate goal is to hold on to power. And it is leading us to destruction."
But with all that, the Israeli government has given every indication that there’s nothing anyone can do or say to stop it.
Right, as we’ve talked about, just a few days ago you had the military announcing “extensive ground operations” and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu claiming the military will take “full control" over the whole of Gaza.
And just today, it issued an evacuation warning for 14 neighbourhoods of northern Gaza – all while strikes have reportedly killed at least 52 people since the morning. []
With roughly 3,600 people being killed since Israel resumed strikes on March 18th after a failed ceasefire – taking the war’s overall toll to almost 54,000, mostly civilians.[]
And that’s of course the direct death toll, with many fearing the dire humanitarian situation means the true number will ultimately be much much higher.
Right, on that note, over the weekend, Israel agreed to allow a "basic amount of food" to enter Gaza – partially ending its 11-week blockade.
With 93 trucks reportedly entering the enclave on Tuesday carrying aid including flour, baby food, medical equipment, and pharmaceutical drugs. []
Though, notably, you have UN bodies estimating that 600 trucks a day are required to even begin tackling Gaza's chronic humanitarian crisis.[]
And even so, at least as of yesterday, you had the UN claiming that none of the aid from those 93 had actually been distributed.
And this as UN experts say Gazans are at “critical risk of famine” and that tens of thousands of children could suffer from acute malnutrition if the restrictions continued.
With now even chronic water shortages worsening as desalination and hygiene plants are running out of fuel.
And this as already children in Gaza have reportedly grown used to drinking salty water.
With doctors saying they have seen a rise in serious kidney complaints as a result. []
But despite all that, Netanyahu has only again repeated his intention to continue the war until Hamas is disarmed and all of Gaza is entirely under Israeli control.
Notably, with him also explicitly saying this time that Israel will go ahead with Trump’s plan for the territory –
Which, you might remember, involves taking it over and turning it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” –
With this being seen by many as essentially a call for forced displacement and ethnic cleansing in the name of real estate development.
And notably, one the administration is reportedly taking seriously, with NBC recently reporting that it’s working on a plan to permanently relocate up to 1 million Palestinians from Gaza to Libya.
So ultimately, while we may be starting to see the tide shifting in terms of international acceptance of Israel’s actions in Gaza, it may be too late to change anything.
-
Are people being paid to rally support for Diddy outside of his trial?
That is what some allege is happening as people stand across the street from the courthouse in “Free Puff” and “Free Diddy” shirts.
With journalist and content creator Emily Hagen posting a TikTok of the group of people in matching shirts that also includes this interaction:
“So these are all paid protestors, you can get $20 per hour if you wear a tee shirt, she just got recruited, right?...I refused…you said no? It wasn’t worth the $20?...No, but like, he told me it’s for a Diddy coin, so I’m not really sure what that is.” (0:05-0:21)
“The lady right there, she just kept convincing me to go wear a shirt, and I’m like, I’m good.” (0:31-0:34)
And while that TikTok was initially posted around five days ago, it has gotten a lot more traction recently as people like 50 Cent, who has famously not gotten along with Diddy for decades, started posting about it and trolling Diddy by posting seemingly edited images of him in the shirts, writing things like:
“Ok now where do I send my $20 invoice guys, a deals a deal.”
With the Daily Beast also speaking to the woman in that video, who told the outlet:
“I was wondering why they were wearing those shirts. I was curious. I crossed the street, and I’m standing there with my phone out, and then this older lady is staring at me. She’s just staring at me for a period of time. Then she tells me, ‘Do you want to come out here and wear a shirt for $20 an hour?’”[]
“‘Just go to that guy. If you’re already standing out here, you may as well get paid.’”
With her also saying that to her, it looked like most of those protestors appeared to be unhoused.
But as for how people allegedly started getting paid to wear these shirts, well, you had the Hollywood Reporter saying the first Free Puff shirt was first present at the trial during jury selection when one of Diddy’s longtime friends was wearing one. []
But the outlet said that other than that, groups of Diddy supporters are “scarce” at the courthouse, so this newfound gaggle of people wearing shirts really stands out.
And the fact that the girl in the video said she was told it was for a crypto promotion is significant because there is a $DIDDY memecoin, and the rapper’s sons are behind it.
With the Hollywood Reporter saying the coin was launched to capitalize on the controversy and trial, with it beginning trading during jury selection and getting public support from people like Kanye West. []
And the outlet did also reach out to Diddy’s team to ask if he had any involvement in the tee shirts or any comment on them, and so far they have not responded.
The Daily Beast likewise reported that it is unclear who exactly is paying anyone to wear these shirts, if that is indeed the case. []
Also adding that because of the crypto claims, it seems like this “may be more of a cash grab than an ego boost for” Diddy.
Others, though, think it could be a bit of both.
And this all of course comes as the high-stakes trial is still playing out, and today, Kid Cudi (Cuddy like buddy) actually took to the stand to testify, comparing Diddy to a “Marvel supervillain.”[]
As for why he is tied up in this, he briefly dated Cassie Ventura, who is Diddy’s ex and the main witness of the trial.
Last week during her testimony, she actually said that Diddy was furious when he found out she had dated Kid Cudi and threatened to blow up his car. []
And today, he discussed just that, saying that one day in December of 2011, he got a panicked call from Cassie, telling him that Diddy had found out about their relationship, and after he went to pick her up, he got another call from one of Diddy’s employees claiming that Diddy had broken into his house. []
Diddy also allegedly told him he was at the house “waiting” for him, but when he got there, there was no Diddy to be found, and instead, the Christmas presents he got for his family had been opened, and his dog was locked in a bathroom.[]
And he was unsure what was going on, so he called the police.
And then, a few weeks after that, his Porsche was destroyed by a fire while parked outside his home in the Hollywood Hills.
And you have the New York Times reporting that his “testimony is viewed as an important part of the government’s narrative” in this trial. []
But the Washington Post added that the defense is trying to use it “to question the character of the prosecution’s star witness, Cassie Ventura,” by painting her as kind of leading on and playing both Diddy and Kid Cudi. []
So that is where we are on this case today, and I would love to know your thoughts on either aspect here, whether it be the allegations of people being paid to wear Diddy shirts, or Kid Cudi’s testimony.
-
After hours of debating through the night, the House officially passed Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” in the early hours of the morning by the slimmest possible margin — 215 to 214.
And almost up until the last minute, it was really unclear if the chamber was going to be able to pass the $4 trillion tax and immigration bill that advances key parts of Trump’s legislative agenda.
Right, and we covered the GOP infighting that was holding up the bill extensively in yesterdays show.
But without rehashing everything, the key background you need to know is that the main holdouts preventing passing were hard-line conservatives who wanted deeper cuts to offset the trillions of dollars that would be added to the deficit.
With those members specifically calling for deeper cuts to Medicaid and other benefits programs — a move that was deeply opposed by more moderate, blue-state Republicans.
And while you had House Speaker Mike Johnson expressing confidence that he would be able to appease the competing factions of his party and get the bill passed, top conservative leaders said they needed more time for negotiations.
With House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Andy Harris even explicitly saying yesterday that, as is, there was “no way” the bill would pass in the immediate future.
But, clearly, Johnson was ultimately able to secure enough votes from the far-right flank of his party to get this passed.
Though, notably here, Harris did end up voting “present” on the legislation — making him the only member to do so.
With him explaining his decision on X, writing: “I voted to move the bill along in the process for the President. There is still a lot of work to be done in deficit reduction and ending waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program.” — the only member.”[]
But, beyond that, we only saw two other Republicans joining all Democrats in voting against the measure.
And two others didn’t vote at all — one because he fell asleep and the other because he couldn’t get his voting card in time — though both later said they would have voted yes.
But, at the end of the day, Johnson made it happen by the skin of his teeth — delivering Trump and the party as a whole a massive win.
So with all that, I want to highlight a few major changes Johnson made to the initial version of the bill in order to get everyone on board.
And I’ll make sure to link to our previous coverage from a few weeks ago outlining the key provisions in the original draft, in case you missed it or need a refresher.
Okay, so diving in, one of the most significant changes was actually one we talked about yesterday: increasing the cap on the state and local tax deduction — or SALT — which lets taxpayers write off the amount they paid in local taxes when they file federal taxes.
And initially, the first draft of the bill raised the cap from $10,000 to $30,000.
But moderates said they wouldn’t vote for the legislation at all if it wasn’t increased further, prompting Johnson to strike a deal increasing it to $40,000 for people making under $500,000.
But that agreement pissed off the far-right wing of the party, which said the change made the bill a non-starter for THEM.
So it’s really notable that this agreement still ended up in the final version of the bill, which still managed to get enough support from the hard-liners.
Beyond that, the final version of the bill also speeds up the timeline for enforcing Medicaid work requirements.
Right, those work requirements are arguably one of the most significant provisions in this bill — and one of the most fiercely opposed by Democrats.
And specifically, the bill would add a work requirement to Medicaid for poor, childless adults, that requires them to that they are working 80 hours every month in order to stay enrolled.
A move that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will kick 7.6 million poor Americans off their insurance and force millions more to face higher healthcare costs when taken alongside other changes in an earlier version of the bill.
Right, and initially, the new work requirement was set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2029.
But in order to appease hard-liners, Johnson accelerated the timeline so states have to implement the change by Dec. 31, 2026.
And that is incredibly significant because it gives states much less time to implement what The New York Times described as “the strictest” Medicaid work requirement that congressional Republcians have ever put forward.
Right, this is something the GOP has been pushing for years, but, according to The Times, this goes beyond anything we’ve seen before.
With the outlet reporting that, under the provision:
“It would be easier to lose benefits, and harder to re-enroll. And it would apply to a larger set of Medicaid recipients, including Americans previously determined to be too old to need such requirements.”
And adding: “by designing the work requirement proposal to be so rigid, the change could be just as transformative to the program as other large cuts that Republicans rejected.”
Right, and that last part is super significant because not only did moderate Republicans fiercely oppose sweeping cuts, but Trump himself has repeatedly promised that no one would lose insurance.
But, beyond all that, there were also several other notable changes to the “big, beautiful bill.”
This including the addition of another $12 billion in funds to reimburse states for money spent on border security after Biden took office.
With that on top of the $175 billion in new spending the bill already allocated for Trump’s immigration enforcement.
The proposal also expanded a ban on the use of Medicaid funds for gender transition measures so that it now pertains to adults too — not just children and teenagers, as outlined in the earlier version.
Another new inclusion would deregulate gun silencers by removing them from the national registry regulated under the National Firearms Act.
And the updated bill would also speed up the phaseout of clean energy tax credits put in place under the Biden administration.
And the final thing I want to touch on here isn’t a substantial change in terms of actual policy, but just kind of a weird little thing Republicans did to suck up to Trump.
Right, one of the provisions in the original bill gave newborn babies born between Jan. 1 2024 and Dec. 31 2020 a $1,000 tax-free savings account called “money account for growth and advancement” — aka the “MAGA account”
But apparently, “MAGA account” doesn’t make it clear enough that this policy is tied to Trump, so Republicans changed the name so it’s literally just the “Trump account” instead.
That’s it, that’s the entire change, with Axios explaining:
“It’s the latest in a series of attempts by congressional Republicans to display their loyalty to the president through legislation”
Right, and those are just some of the most significant changes — I can’t hit on everything, but I’ll link some resources down below.
But, as far as what happens next, the bill will now head over to the Senate, with Trump today urging the chamber to pass the measure “AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!” []
But it’s unclear how soon that could happen — right, it is widely predicted that the measure as-is will face major hurdles in the upper chamber.
With Republican leaders there making it very clear that they will make some major changes to the legislation — changes that could test the compromises Johnson made in order to secure the bill’s passage in the House.
Now, notably, Republicans only need a simple majority to pass the “big, beautiful bill” because the budget reconciliation process allows them to bypass the 60-vote filibuster usually required for most legislation.
But that still means they can only afford to lose three GOP votes if all Democrats oppose it and JD Vance breaks the tie.
So the margins there are also slim, especially given the deep divides and outstanding issues many lawmakers have with the bill.
Right, similarly to the dynamic in the House, you have some of the more fiscally conservative members demanding structural changes and deeper cuts to Medicaid and other benefits programs.
But at the same time, more moderate or politically vulnerable Senators want to protect Medicaid and keep some clean energy tax credits.
Right, at least three members have voiced concerns about the Medicaid cuts in the House bill.
And one of them — Sen. Josh Hawley — has openly said he will oppose any bill that cuts the program.
So there’s a lot that needs to be done to actually move the legislation forward in the Senate.
But even once that can happen, the bill will still have to go BACK to the House, where members will be given the choice of passing it as-is or working out their differences with the Senate.
Now, with that said, Republicans have set a July 4 deadline for this process to play out and to send the bill to Trump’s desk.
And, as we’ve mentioned before, that deadline is actually fairly strict because the bill also raises the debt limit, and the Treasury Secretary has said that lawmakers must take that step by mid-July if they want to avert the catastrophe of defaulting.
So a lot is up in the air, but for now, we’ll just have to wait and see how all this plays out.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes!
-
We are just a few days out from the anniversary of George Floyd’s murder and the federal government is backpedaling on police reform.
Right, the Justice Department announced yesterday that it is moving to cancel settlements and close civil rights investigations into police departments across the country accused of widespread abuse.
Specifically, they’re canceling settlements which were made in response to the nationwide outcry following the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. []
Not only that, they are also looking to retract any previous findings of wrongdoings.
Now, this is a pretty sharp about-face between administrations on the topic of police reform.
The Justice Department under Biden aggressively pursued federal oversight of disagreeable police forces.
Which included launching a dozen investigations into local and state agencies, and they released in-depth, cutting reports on departments in cities like Minneapolis, Louisville, Phoenix, and Memphis. []
But by the end of Biden’s term, the Justice Department had only reached agreements with Minneapolis and Louisville.
These agreements, aka consent decrees, set requirements for how cops should be trained and disciplined, with an ou tside monitor and a judge to ensure compliance.
Now, both of the agreements with Minneapolis and Louisville were sent to a judge for the final okay but had never been formally adopted. []
Which led to yesterday - when the Trump 2.0 Justice Department requested that both cases be dismissed saying they no longer believed the consent decrees, quote, “would be in the public interest.”
With Harmeet Dhillon (Har-meet Dylan), who leads the civil rights division of the Justice Department, accusing the previous administration of using flawed legal theory to judge police departments. []
Saying they forced costly and burdensome consent decrees on them for issues that are better solved in-house.
Writing in her statement,
"Today, we are ending the Biden Civil Rights Division's failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees.” []
Adding to reporters,
“It’s our view at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration that federal micromanagement of local police should be a rare exception, and not the norm.” []
In response to the canceled settlement, leaders in both Minneapolis and Louisville have promised to maintain their end of the agreements. []
With the Minneapolis mayor saying,
“We will comply with every sentence, of every paragraph, of the 169-page consent decree that we signed this year.” []
Adding,
“Minneapolis is serious about our commitment to police reform, even if the president of the United States is not.” []
Now, we’ve obviously seen drastically different responses and coverage of this news - with sites like the Washington Post, New York Times, and NPR noting the proximity of this announcement to the anniversary of George Floyd’s death.
And highlighting voices speaking out against this move.
Including Kristin Clarke, the head of the Civil Rights Division under the Biden administration, who defended the Biden-era investigations in a statement, saying,
"These investigations were led by career attorneys, based on data, body cam footage and information provided by officers themselves, and the reforms set forth in consent decrees were carefully negotiated with the full support of law enforcement leaders and local officials. To wholesale ignore and disregard these systemic violations, laid bare in well-documented and detailed public reports, shows patent disregard for our laws and the Constitution." []
And Reverend Al Sharpton - who worked with both the Floyd and Taylor families - told the AP,
“This move isn’t just a policy reversal. It’s a moral retreat that sends a chilling message that accountability is optional when it comes to Black and Brown victims. Trump’s decision to dismiss these lawsuits with prejudice solidifies a dangerous political precedent that police departments are above scrutiny, even when they’ve clearly demonstrated a failure to protect the communities they’re sworn to serve.” []
By comparison, sites like Fox News and the Daily Wire spent time highlighting the explanation - specifically noting Dylan’s assertion that the consent decrees were founded on “faulty legal theories.”
And presenting this as an example of Trump going to bat for police departments - including a quote from Dylan saying,
"Overbroad police consent decrees divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs, turning that power over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, often with an anti- police agenda.” []
It is also worth noting here that it isn’t consent decrees in general that this iteration of the Justice Department has beef with.
Dylan specifically noted to reporters yesterday that they may decide to employ them against universities and school systems accused of failing to stamp out on-campus antisemitism. []
And there are reportedly 2 other investigations that could lead to consent decrees:
One involving whether gun ownership rights are too restricted in LA county and another about whether Black defendants in Minnesota are given an unfair advantage for reduced prison sentences. []
But as for this step back from police reform, we’re just going to have to see how things develop from here.
And pray that a lack of federal oversight doesn’t have disastrous consequences.
In the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
-
And for your breath of fresh air today, the staff at this wildlife center in California are dressing up like bears to care for this baby cub!
Right, a few weeks ago, campers in the Los Padres National Forest found a baby black bear cub crying alone in the woods.
This poor little guy was not even 2 months old and his mother was nowhere to be seen.
So the campers reported him to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
At first, biologists just watched the area, hoping that his mother would come back for him. []
But when they realized that wasn’t happening and that this little guy wasn’t going to survive on his own, they brought him to the San Diego Humane Society’s Ramona Wildlife Center.
And the beginning of his stay there was kinda shaky.
The little cub wasn’t in good shape at just 3 pounds and the wildlife operations manager Autumn Welch said that he was “extremely fragile.” []
But in the 5 weeks he’s been at the center, he’s gained 10 pounds - with staff feeding him multiple times a day and even overnight while introducing him to targeted activities to make sure he’s learning survival skills.
And the kicker of this story is that the whole time they’re feeding him and working with him?
We’re talking a full fur coat, bear mask, leather gloves - they even rub themselves with black bear scented hay before interacting with him.
With Welch saying,
“We don’t want him touching our skin at all. He never sees us as humans.” []
Adding that the point is to make sure that he doesn’t develop any bonds with people - which would disrupt his natural instincts and make it harder for him to survive in the wilderness.
Saying,
“We’re dedicated to doing whatever we have to do to keep him wild.” []
Beyond just the bear suits, staff at the Wildlife Center also created 2 habitats meant to mimic the wilderness - with climbing structures made of natural trees, plenty of leaves and dirt and branches, and little acorns stashed around for him to sniff out.
With Welch saying,
“He uses his nose to go find them. It’s pretty amazing how quickly he learns, and you can see him processing it when he’s learning something new. He’s very thoughtful.” []
They’ve also added little stuffed bears for him to snuggle with which is probably the best thing I’ve seen all day.
Now, this little guy may be the youngest cub the Wildlife Center has ever taken in but he certainly isn’t the first.
In the last 5 years, they’ve taken in 4 black bear cubs and rehabilitated and released them to the wild. []
In fact, around this time last year, two sibling cubs were released after spending 10 months at the WIldlife Center.
And according to Welch, this little guy has about a year left in the care of the Wildlife Center before they can send him on his way - saying,
“For the most part, by a year, a bear cub should be able to be fine on their own. At that point, they’ve learned all the things they need to learn.” []
Adding that as much as they like having him around, they’re all looking forward to the moment he’ll get to run off into the woods - saying,
“There is nothing like releasing a bear back to the wild. It’s an amazing feeling.” []
