PHUKET, THAILAND – After uproar over a viral video, Thailand’s conservation agency inspected a lion café in Phuket and found it operating legally, with three properly registered lions and conditions that met official standards.
Viral video sparks questions
Social media footage showing a café with lions in Phuket Old Town had circulated online and triggered intense doubts about the animals’ origin and welfare. According to the authorities, they responded because public debate focused on whether the big cats had been obtained illegally or were living under questionable conditions.
Officials said they moved to clarify both the legal status of the animals and the way they were kept. The viral clips placed the lion café at the centre of a wider discussion about how wild animals were used in attractions.
Inspection led by regional parks office
The inspection was led by Surasak Anusorn, director of the Protected Areas Regional Office 5 (Nakhon Si Thammarat) under the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. He stated on 17 March that officers had carried out a targeted check of the business after the online discussions.
The aim, he said, was to verify both the animals’ origin and how they were being cared for.
“Officials specifically inspected the operation after the debate, in order to clarify the origin and the care of the animals.”
said Surasak Anusorn, director of the Protected Areas Regional Office 5.
Three lions held with valid permits
The business in question was the Lion Phuket Café in Phuket Old Town, which, according to the authorities, legally kept three lions. Their possession was based on permits issued under the Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019), which regulates the ownership and trade of protected wildlife in Thailand.
Officials concluded that the café’s paperwork complied with the legal framework. The case highlighted how this national wildlife law governed not only trade but also long‑term possession of protected species.
Microchips and documents match official records
During the visit, officers found that one lioness and two male lions were registered with valid microchips. The data on these chips matched the information held in the official records.
They also reported that the documents presented by the café were consistent with government databases. This alignment, they said, made the identity and allocation of the three lions traceable and verifiable.
Welfare conditions examined, not just papers
The agency stressed that the inspection went beyond a simple document check. Officials said they explicitly assessed the condition of the facility and the circumstances under which the animals were housed and cared for.
According to the authority, an earlier inspection on 24 December 2025 had already found that the enclosures and care met the required animal welfare standards. The latest review confirmed that these standards continued to be fulfilled at the Phuket café.
Agency announces continued monitoring
Surasak Anusorn underlined that his department would keep a close watch on the possession of protected wildlife. He said this ongoing oversight was intended to enforce rules and ensure transparency for the public.
“Our department continues to closely monitor the possession of protected wild animals in order to enforce the regulations and ensure transparency.”
said Surasak Anusorn, director of the Protected Areas Regional Office 5.
At the same time, he called on the public to place trust in the inspection system.
“We ask the public to have confidence in the controls while the authorities continuously keep compliance with the requirements under review.”
said Surasak Anusorn, director of the Protected Areas Regional Office 5.
Public debate over rules and social media pressure
The controversy also fuelled a broader debate over wildlife attractions in Thailand. Commentators questioned whether cafés and similar venues with wild animals needed stricter rules and more frequent inspections, even when documents and microchips formally appeared in order.
The case raised further discussion about the impact of social media and public pressure on official decisions. Online users were invited to debate what role viral posts should play when authorities assess animal husbandry, permits and transparency around wildlife tourism.