Contributing factors for false and misleading information about mustelids

Sensationalism and glamorising

Although not always viewed entirely negatively, many mustelid species have been frequently mischaracterised in media due to sensationalism—dishonest content that ignores or purposely misconstrued facts to exploit the general public’s lack of knowledge about these animals and fear of the unknown. It is unfortunately too easy to make mustelids appear more vicious or threatening to human life than they naturally are, since many people do not think critically about seemingly shocking content they come across.

For example, if one films a wolverine behaving “savagely” (while stuck in a trap and being agitated or provoked), shares a photo of an “angry” ferret baring its fangs (when the ferret is just yawning), or a mink “ferociously” ripping the flesh of its prey with its bare teeth (despite having no other practical way of eating), an initial impression could be made that mustelids are nothing more than bad-tempered killing machines.

Furthermore, there exist examples in some documentaries of likely rented wild and domesticated mustelids being trained to engage in seemingly aggressive behaviour they normally would not, taxidermied specimens with exaggerated expressions used in staged photography to fabricate an unrealistic scene or narrative, or doctored photos that highlight bloodstained teeth to make an otherwise natural circumstance appear demonic. Even some wildlife experts aiming to inform the public are not impervious to using sensationalism. These methods are intended to provoke public interest or excitement by simply arousing and manipulating our emotions, rather than appeal to genuine curiosity or intellect.

Social media’s impact on mustelids

In the age of the internet, this often manifests itself into pseudo-educational clickbait on social media by dishonest clout chasers and desperate attention-seekers, as well as online news articles with sensational headlines equivalent to, “Sadistic Killers of the Natural World” or “Most Ferocious Killing Machines”. These and similar captions bizarrely describing mustelids as though they are miniature, resentful malefactors seeking to put everyone and everything to the fang. People can become so engrossed in their own sensational narratives that they fail to mention or even consider that many mustelids are also prey. Rather than educating or informing us, this type of scaremongering further perpetuates deeply-entrenched misconceptions about these animals. And if a species becomes demonised because of such language, it can give rise to irrational fear and even hatred, which can and have led to unnecessary killings.

We have heard the argument, “At least they’re bringing attention to animals that many people otherwise wouldn’t know about”. While this may be true to an extent, sensationalist content that disguises itself as nonfiction does not aid the public in understanding lesser-known animals, because they are more or less being introduced to mythical creatures. While there is nothing wrong with having an imagination, there are numerous overlooked and less discussed facts about mustelids that can make them fascinating as they are. We should not have to fabricate information or spread misleading half-truths about them to generate public interest. For those who still believe they must resort to these methods, perhaps their professed knowledge of these animals in reality leaves much to be desired, along with their ability to make honest content engaging.

The down-to-earth facts on some common questions and beliefs

• Are wild carnivorous mustelids feisty and have formidable hunting skills? Absolutely. Like most mammalian predators, they must defend themselves and hunt (when not scavenging) to survive.

• Do mustelids hunt prey much larger than themselves? Some of them, yes. While this ability is not unusual of many mammalian predators, viral videos and reports can mislead people into believing rare occurrences and outcomes are the norm. Just because they can do it, that does not mean they are always successful (they can sometimes sustain a paralysing or fatal injury from their prey), nor does it imply they always attempt to. Their ecosystem and habitat can also influence hunting choices. Certain species of marten, for example, may only take greater risks and pursue significantly larger prey when their usual food sources, such as rodents, hares, small birds, and eggs, are scarce. Even if a mustelid manages to kill a much larger animal, it is possible that animal was not in the best physical shape. Illness, starvation, and injury are all factors that might account for why it was captured initially.

At the end of the day, being a predator is not always about going after the largest or most difficult prey you can—the key to survival is to not expend energy unnecessarily. A good example of this would be Eurasian stoats (M. erminea) in New Zealand. They were introduced to the island in the 1880s with the expectation that they would help control the invasive European rabbit (O. cuniculus) population, but instead opted to target easier prey such as the native ground-dwelling birds.⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

• Will they defend themselves against animals above their weight class when cornered or provoked? Certainly. They will do so when they feel it is necessary just like most other animals—no different from a dog, cat, or even a mouse. In fact, mice—which are often depicted as meek and helpless—will defend themselves against an adult human when cornered, which can be over 2,000 times their size. There is nothing unique about this behaviour in the animal kingdom.

• Are they even naturally “bad-tempered” animals, as commonly described? No, and the notion that they are is mostly a parroted stereotype. If you had to traverse though a dangerous alley (in their case a forest, tundra, or other hostile environment), would your instinct for self-preservation lead you to be cheery and approachable? Chances are you will be silent, inquisitive yet cautious, and act as intimidating as possible towards anything that encroaches on your personal space. This is survival 101 for most mammals and does not imply anger is the only emotion they experience. Indeed, regarding mustelids, there are no shortage of videos online depicting them playing amongst themselves and even behaving quite docile towards others when food resources are abundant and they do not feel threatened.

How can glamorising wildlife be problematic?

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have glamorising—portraying an animal’s essence as more attractive or ideal than it really is. This often (but not always) arises among individuals who believe they identify with or as non-human animals. Many will assume they understand an animal by simply cherry picking what they consider to be the most appealing aspects of its behaviour and experiences, subconsciously imposing their own traits and aspirations onto them.

For example, one may glamorise wolverines because they are said to be bad-tempered, tough, and so formidable they win every fight and go wherever they please. What tends to be carefully overlooked is that starvation, avalanches, territorial disputes with conspecifics, and mountaineering accidents claim many wolverine lives per year.⁽³⁾⁽⁴⁾ Wolves (especially when in packs), bears, and mountain lions are also common sources of mortality.⁽⁴⁾⁽⁵⁾ Wolverines are frequently persecuted, poached, and even culled in areas where populations are considered vulnerable.^(6)(7)(8)

Wolverines are not as invulnerable as commonly portrayed. However, they can be so glamorised, why would the average person consider that the species is at risk of becoming endangered in the near future? Fixating on one or a few appealing aspects of an animal while ignoring unpleasant truths only prevents us from genuinely appreciating and respecting their existence.

---

Overanthropomorphising

Anthropomorphism, by definition, means attributing (or projecting) human traits, emotions, desires, or intentions to non-human entities.⁽⁹⁾ We often intentionally (sometimes subconsciously) impose fantasised or glorified perceptions and beliefs onto non-human animals to make them seem more interesting, entertaining, relatable, or to mobilise support for a cause. Much of the legendary myths and misconceptions surrounding mustelids and other animals has stemmed from this practise.

Depending on the intent, context, and level of it, anthropomorphising animals can be harmful, supportive, or more or less neutral. An example of overanthropomorphising, would be to judge if an animal is inherently “good” or “wicked” based on its visual appeal, sociability, tamability, or what prey it eats to survive. It goes without saying that weasels, martens, the wolverine, and other mustelids are subjected to many double-standards when compared to more “majestic” predators like the lion (P. leo) and bald eagle (H. leucocephalus).

Some people will also overanthropomorphise when highlighting behaviours they perceive as “cruel” or “unethical”. This can be controversial when said definitions are broad and largely assumed based upon attributing our own emotions or desires to an animal, rather than being based on actual evidence of such. Infantilising wildlife can especially cloud our judgement. This can compel us to leap to conclusions and be up in arms over the most harmless or natural of things lose sight of the real issues—at times taking bias stances or counterproductive measures to mitigate behaviours we deem immoral. The Bambi effect serves as a prime illustration of this.

Loaded and often misused labels have not helped their image

Anthropopathic labels such as “killing machine”, “malicious”, and “bloodthirsty” have been traditionally used to rationalise the behaviour and psychology of mustelids for their predation habits. They are predators, so naturally they hunt prey—no different from birds that eat worms, moles insects, or penguins fish. Yet many choose to equate their actions with “murder”. Some are even demonised as “cruel” or “evil” for their aggressive social behaviours. To be critical of their nature is to misunderstand wildlife and our priorities.

We humans tend to gloss over the unpleasant fact that, for all our supposed moral superiority over these non-human animals, humanity has and continues to hide behind tradition, pride, and general xenophobia as excuses for committing violent acts and atrocities. And our relationship with nature often involves killing not out of necessity, but over the slightest discomfort or inconvenience. To vilify mustelids for simply trying to survive as they have evolved to—in a world of ever-increasing human intrusion and habitat loss no less—betrays a sense of anthropocentrism and self-righteous delusion. While we are capable of much good, we are in no way as a species above the very contemptuous labels we place on these animals and other fauna and must learn to be more accountable.

Not only are such labels hypocritical, too often they are casually stated or accepted as fact when based on individual perception. We need to consider that humans diverged from carnivores over 80 million years ago—perhaps their brains evolved to process certain information differently, and that it is not always logical to shoehorn human emotions just to make their behaviour easier for us to understand. Like most animals, the behaviour of mustelids is primarily driven by instinct. They are not and should not be burdened with our ever-changing and culture-based sense of morality.

Anthropomorphising and realism can coexist, with balance

Some denounce anthropomorphisation of non-human animals in general, especially in children’s literature, cartoons, games, and other media, believing young and impressionable minds are susceptible to the dangerous belief that wild animals are approachable or make good pets. Misinterpreting the actions of wildlife is another concern.⁽¹⁰⁾ Kids are often smarter or have an ability to learn more than we give them credit for.

While we agree excessive anthropomorphising and romanticising of animals can blind us from the realities of nature, we also accept that there is more to life than “book smarts”. We believe it is unreasonable to deprive people of their creativity and imagination, when a more flexible and proactive alternative would be for parents or children’s programs to provide children with prior or subsequent education about animals and basic animal safety either side of their introduction to fictional content. In fact, many people who contribute to this website became first aware of and interested in mustelids because of fictional media like the Redwall and Welkin Weasels series. With education, it is possible to immerse oneself in fantasy while still acknowledging reality.

All in all we have observed two extremes on the subject of anthropomorphising: Adults who are reluctant to acknowledge even the most basic realities about animals and rather construct a permanent fantasised view of them, and those who seemingly discourage any form of creative anthropomorphising. Both in their own way can limit the spread of knowledge and the general public’s potential interest in underappreciated animals. Of course, outright demonisation of animals in media can be harmful. While we may support creativity, we hope to discourage such content by helping the public have a better understanding of mustelids.

---

They are often misidentified and overgeneralised

Mustelids are not as well-known as canids and felids, and as such are frequently misidentified, especially on social media platforms. While mistaken identity of mustelids is usually reasonable owing the small amount of exposure the average person may have, we have also encountered several instances of educational content on the internet mistaking the identity of species with vastly different characteristics. We see this all the time in YouTube thumbnails, news articles, and even book covers.

AI-generated media is making matters worse

Mass-produced animal “facts” websites put together by content farms are especially problematic, since they often look professional, but are likely created with AI-generated programs. They tend to misidentify even the most distinguishing species (examples 1 and 2). To give another example, this site will have you believe that the European badger (M. meles) is found in the US state of Virginia, which is completely false. Even the North American badger (T. taxus), which is the only badger species found on the continent, is not established in Virginia. The Allegheny woodrat (N. magister) is also not a mustelid, as claimed by the website.

Many of these low-effort websites will also use AI-generated images of animals, rather than one of the many available public domain photos of a species (an example of one about ferrets). Not surprisingly, the art is often inaccurate, which spreads more misinformation regarding species anatomy and identification. Unfortunately, these types of websites are on the rise and are often taken at face value, since many viewers are not aware of how to identify most mustelids.

AI-generated videos are arguably the most problematic, since they have the potential to deceive individuals about specific animal behaviours. This can be dangerous if a wild animal is portrayed as more threatening or approachable than they actually are. Here is an example of a video short on YouTube showing wild otters approaching humans. Judging by the comments, it is clear that many viewers are not aware the otters were created using AI or visual effects (VFX).

We should first try to perceive their differences before assuming they are indistinguishable

Mistaken identity may not seem like a big deal, but it can lead to harmful misinformation and hasty generalisations about the behaviour of a species—resulting in some mustelids being falsely accused of preying on domestic animals or wildlife, or causing damage to property that is typically performed by a different relative or an animal of another family entirely. This is why it is important for us to always check the facts and never adopt the nonchalant motto, “It looks close enough,” or “Well, they’re all from the same family” as excuses for misidentifying or misrepresenting species.

Admittedly, many mustelids can look similar (some even identical), but too often we hear people on social media seemingly just echoing that even species like the Eurasian stoat (M. erminea), European polecat (M. putorius), and Eurasian pine marten (M. martes) superficially look too similar to distinguish from each other in high-quality photographs, before even trying to take notice of their physical differences. If many can agree that the red fox (V. vulpes) and grey wolf (C. lupus) do not look identical or alike, we can try a little harder for these mustelids.

In order to better identify mustelids, we must first acknowledge and respect that nearly every species has distinctive characteristics—such as colour pattern, body size, snout length, and ear structure, and not solely focus on their short legs or elongated bodies. In most cases, one does not need to be an expert or even that interested in mustelids to notice their key differences, so long as they take time to exercise a few basic visual perception skills. Sometimes an animal’s behaviour or the location they were spotted can be even more telling than their appearance. We will attempt to make all of these differences clear on this website. The most practical advice we can give for now is if one is unsure about an exact species it is best not to assume.

We should be clear what species we are talking about

This is something even many professionals struggle to acknowledge or practice. Given that modern society is more connected than ever before, using vague local names to refer to a particular mustelid (e.g., simply “badger”, “marten”, “otter”, or “weasel”) can be confusing or misleading to an international audience, especially for educational purposes. For instance, in North America a “marten” may refer to the North American marten (M. americana), while in Europe the term can apply to either the Eurasian pine marten (M. martes), beech marten (M. foina), or even the sable (M. zibellina). They are all completely different species with unique traits.

It is best to be specific when possible by providing a mustelid’s scientific name, or at least their more distinguishing common name(s). Also, be consistent with names. Avoid referring to Mustela erminea as a stoat, then a weasel, next an ermine, and later a short-tailed weasel. This just creates confusion if readers assume these are names for different species.

---

Some are falsely rumoured to habitually attack humans

“Two typical tactics used by manipulative news media, content creators, influencers, and sensationalists of all sorts: Make rare incidents appear common, or employ performative empathy for one tragedy while strategically overlooking similar incidents that occur daily.” — N. Goff

Some people get a kick out of making others who are sheltered from nature afraid of animals they will likely never see, let alone come into close contact with. They will inject a sense of danger despite usually having no prior encounter or evidence indicating a species is a threat to humans. Some of the most sensationalist talking points we hear about mustelids is that they are “angry” and “ferocious” animals, simply because they have sharp teeth and claws, surplus kill, and will attack prey or defend themselves against those above their weight class.

These characteristics and behaviours are not unique compared to most other mammalian predators, including domestic dogs and cats. Unfortunately, if you attempt to explain that sensationalist language can spread unnecessary fear, you may be accused by some of thinking wildlife is “harmless” or “approachable”. From our experience, such strawman arguments are all too common, and tend to come from individuals who merely regurgitate rumours or poorly-investigated incidents as if they were widespread.

It is important to remember that just because a wild animal has sharp teeth and claws that does not automatically mean it is “out to get us”. For one, mustelids are not cats—most primarily use their claws for climbing, digging, and gripping, not to attack or defend themselves. They prefer to use their teeth for that. And their sharp teeth are, once again, not unique compared to other mammalian predators, including domestic dogs and cats. Mustelids are no more dangerous based solely on these physical traits.

In fact, a 2012 study showed that in the United States for example, the average person is far more likely to be injured or killed by more familiar and often less-feared mammals like cattle and dogs than any mustelid. They were not even singled out as a threat among “other mammals” in the study.⁽¹¹⁾ Even in other countries, there are no reliable reports of mustelids being a major threat to human safety. This is because in reality, wild mustelids have a natural caution of people, usually avoiding direct human contact and fleeing at the sight of us than going out of their way to cause harm without provocation. There would be something severely amiss with our conduct if we managed to be regularly attacked by these animals that want nothing to do with us.

We should keep in mind that some people will mistake an animal’s bluff charge for an attack, or in a broader sense, sometimes stretch the truth and misuse the word “attack” to make an otherwise reasonable or harmless situation sound worse than it was. Not to mention, many mustelids were historically (and in some cases still are) trapped for their pelts, and it was probably a lot easier for trappers to gain support to trap an animal if the public was conditioned to fear it. It is also not unusual for some people to tell half-truths or fantasies of courage whenever they are bested by a wild animal, in the interest of protecting their ego.

Always observe wildlife from a respectful distance

On the other hand, at times we forget that almost any animal (even a harmless-looking chipmunk) would become aggressive if someone were to trap, corner, provoke, or otherwise make the animal feel threatened, especially when protecting their young. In regards to wild mustelids, of course unprovoked attacks can happen if they are suffering from injury, distress, or illness, but in most cases simply respecting their “personal space” and exercising common sense will prevent injury. Like most wildlife (and even us humans) mustelids are very territorial, and we sometimes recklessly assume we are entitled to impose on, alter, or destroy that space without consequence.

An example of a mustelid (a beech marten specifically) that is clearly sick or injured not having their space respected and being portrayed as the aggressor. This is how egregious myths and rumours about unprovoked animal attacks can start. Irresponsible dog owners who do not keep their pets on a leash and allow them to harass or attack wildlife can also contribute to “unprovoked” attacks. Contrary to how they are often portrayed in popular media, wild mustelids are not like some people or domestic animals that exhibit minimal to no instinct for self-preservation. Part of the reason they are good at surviving is they tend to avoid or flee from unnecessary conflicts rather than initiate them.

Rare exceptions are usually wild mustelids that are inappropriately or illegally hand-reared. They can escape from captivity, and—if they have lost their natural fear of humans—may approach people. Insufficient food supply can also cause some to engage in higher-risk behaviour, such as being nonchalant about the presence of humans while searching for food. That does not mean that the animal trusts humans nor should an inexperienced person try to approach or touch it. Too often human ignorance leads to animals being euthanized when they bite out of defence. If you have concerns regarding your safety or property in this situation, call your local animal control officer for advice.

Beware of rushed or dishonest journalism: Always read the full story, provided it is available

Sometimes a news headline will give the impression that a specific wild mustelid was being aggressive towards someone, only to mention halfway into the story that the animal’s species was never confirmed.⁽¹²⁾ Others will leave out this detail entirely, and even use headlines that misleadingly imply it is unnatural for the animal to exist in their habitat.⁽¹³⁾ When there is a confirmed attack, sometimes the ensuing details clarifying the reason for the attack can go unnoticed by the public, because the viral initial story can overshadow the follow-up story. This was the case with a European badger named Boris in 2003.^(14)(15)(16) Unfortunately, sometimes news outlets will not bother to issue a correction whenever they get a story wrong, simply leaving most of their followers misinformed and misled.

Ultimately, whenever someone makes the vague claim that mustelids are “dangerous”, we should be critically asking what that even means and in what way. If attacks on humans by these animals were common we would likely hear about them much more frequently, instead of only a handful of worst-case reports, where any reasonable explanation for these attacks tend to be carefully overlooked for the sake of a shocking story. Confirmed or suspected attacks only ever make headlines because such incidents are extremely rare.

---

We sometimes forget that they are just trying to survive

Unlike most of us, wild predators do not have the luxury of purchasing a pre-killed meal when hungry, so they must be bold and proficient hunters and scavengers to survive. This is especially true for the smaller species of mustelids, since they have both a high basal metabolic rate (BMR) and short gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Unlike us humans and many other larger animals, these mustelids cannot depend on long-term fat reserves, so they must eat more frequently.⁽¹⁷⁾ However, hunger is not the only reason they hunt, and their dietary struggles are sometimes misinterpreted and anthropomorphised as killing for “sport” or out of “spite”.

Commonly referred to as surplus killing or henhouse syndrome, many mustelids are known to kill more prey than they can possibly eat in a single sitting. This has historically been troublesome to poultry farmers, backyard poultry owners, and gamekeepers—leading to a variety of measures being taken to prevent loss by those in the field. While we do not blame people for taking issue with these animals or protecting their fowl, it is important to acknowledge that surplus killing is not simply malice, nor is the act unique to mustelids.

Many of the smaller mustelids like weasels have evolved to hunt rodent families and other animals in burrows and surplus kill to build food caches to survive winter, and chicken coops, for example, recreate the same prey-dense confined conditions as rodent burrows. The sound and movement of many prey panicking repeatedly stimulates their hunting instinct, which is presumably why they will sometimes kill entire groups of prey at once and not immediately consume anything. So while surplus killing may not always be motivated by hunger, it is unlikely due to “sport” or “spite” and instead an instinctual response to a stimulus. It is also possible that killed chickens were left behind because the weasel was either scared off, or the hole it came though may not have been large enough for the chickens to be pulled through. If the hole was large enough, we would argue the coop was poorly constructed or maintained, in which case a number of different predators could have gotten in. Blaming predators in this situation would betray a lack of accountability and competence, as many people have found methods to safeguard their fowl while coexisting with wildlife.

The term “surplus killing” may be regarded as a fuzzy concept, because if you were to ask 3 different biologists what the term means you will probably receive 5 difference answers. The behavioural phenomenon is shared by many carnivorous mammals under the right conditions, including foxes, coyotes, hyenas, bears, shrews, and even dogs^(18)(19) and cats.^(20)(21) Similar to how we humans tend to hoard more food than we can eat when we have the means or how squirrels gather and store nuts, when presented with an abundance of food, these animals will sometimes kill multiple prey and cache the carcasses for later consumption.^(22)(23)(24) The exact reason for this behaviour in some species may still be inconclusive, but it is presumably triggered by an evolutionary survival instinct since food resources in the wild can be unpredictable.⁽²²⁾

On the other hand, when it comes to mustelids, surplus killing is sometimes seen as beneficial to control rodent and rabbit numbers. However, this is not necessarily the case, since there are many factors to consider—such as predator versus prey reproductive rates, density of prey, and food resources for prey.⁽²⁵⁾ Throughout history, humans have attempted to manipulate nature by introducing certain mustelids to new environments in the hope of controlling rodent and rabbit populations. The results were rarely successful and have at times catastrophically backfired.⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

In conclusion, while we do not claim that mustelids are all innocent little angels, there is more to the truth than what many simply perceive as reckless carnage. This also applies to rare instances where some species have been witnessed attacking other animals for seemingly no reason. Rather than fabricate truths about these phenomena by anthropomorphising, we should acknowledge that when it comes to some non-human animal behaviours our understanding is limited at best and things are not always what they seem. [Further reading on this subject…]

How can we help reduce the spread of disinformation and misinformation?

Do not take at face value every shocking thing you read, see, or hear on the internet. In an age where disinformation is easily created, shared, and replicable on social media, critical thinking is paramount to avoid being misinformed. Unfortunately, too many people are quick to assume whatever “fun fact” or rumour-of-the-week they come across on platforms like X (formally known as Twitter), YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, or Facebook is true, or someone with a lot of views, likes, or followers is immune to inadvertently spreading misinformation. Mustelids are a very complicated family and we too occasionally make mistakes.

Whenever someone makes generalised or dramatic assertions (e.g., wolverines habitually attack humans or weasels suck blood) always ask for the source of their claims—indicating if they are coming from a publication, their own work, a random person on social media, or some other source which may or may not be credible. At the very least, they should be willing and able to provide compelling arguments beyond passed down myths or baseless rumours.

If they respond with hostilely, resort to ad hominem attacks, or tell you to “do your research” without offering evidence that they conducted theirs, this should be a sign that the person anticipated you to accept their claims without question and that their assertion is likely baseless. Be sceptical of claims from such people and independently check the facts yourself. Regardless of what some people may say, asking for sources does not automatically imply that you are dependent on others for answers.

Remember that not every zoologist is knowledgeable about mustelids

We have occasionally come across dishonest zoologists on social media who try to flaunt their supposed degree to suggest they are experts on mustelids, and some of them at times actually end up spreading misinformation. A zoologist is simply a person who studies animals, and there are millions of different species of animals. So it is highly unlikely one single zoologist will have a comprehensive understanding of all of them. In other words, being a zoologist does not explicitly make one an expert on mustelids or any particular species within the family, unless they have taken the time to study them specifically. In fact, a layperson who has taken the time to study mustelid-specific material will often have equal or greater knowledge of mustelids than a zoologist who is a generalist.

Tips to avoid being mislead by seemingly authoritative educational content

Do not assume that every educational content about mustelids on the internet was created by someone who actually cared about the animals enough to do thorough research. This includes the Q&A section on websites like wikiHow—just because you received an answer to your question, that does not mean the person who gave it is an expert on the topic or is aware they could be perpetuating a myth. When it comes to Q&As, articles, blogs, YouTube, etc., if you are genuinely interested in learning about these animals, avoid or be sceptical of those that do the following:

• Never give attribution for nonpublic domain images or videos they share. Without this information, sometimes important context can be lost.

• Never provide credible sources for any information they give, especially regarding “fun facts”, memes, or shocking stories that attempt to generalise a species’ behaviour or psychology based on one or a few incidents. If they say, “according to researchers and other experts” yet do not list them, this should be another red flag.

• Use content that appears automated (e.g., robotic grammar, descriptions of animals that do not match the photos they are assigned to, or numerous different animal “facts” being posted practically 24/7). These may have been primarily created by artificial intelligence programs and are typically offenders of #1 and #2.

• Describe mustelids as “cruel”, “torturous”, “bloodthirsty”, or other similar labels. Typically, content creators who use such language have little to no interest in educating or gaining a deeper understanding about the animals, and are more interested in superficial facts or pandering to sensationalist, hysterical, or anthropomorphised beliefs for shock value or entertainment.

• Similar to above, constantly express how “cute” or “vicious” a wild animal is by way of speech, music, or imagery—their content being more focused on telling us what our emotional reactions should be by pandering to our misconceptions and biases, rather than being about the animal and inviting us into their world.