**Content warning: potentially disturbing information and strong language
Confusion on the rise, as the debate over the controversy involving fursuit maker Don’t Hug Cacti’s co-owner Lucky Coyote’s alleged misconduct cools down.
Since September last year in 2020, Lucky and her fursuit making business has been under fire in the community over a document released online, a large part containing anonymous testimonies claiming she engaged in various misconduct.
- This tweet was deleted. http://web.archive.org/web/20211113174531/https://twitter.com/qutens_/status/1309627916611850245
- But Qutens still has the tweet with the same content. It is dated one day after their original. https://twitter.com/qutens_/status/1309627916611850245
Lucky denied the allegations, though she has received criticism for her responses, with many furs saying that she is ‘avoiding responsibility’.
The community received their own share of criticism afterwards, with some furries commenting that, as right now there is a lack of confirmation, the community assumed unverified allegations as facts.
Counter-critics in response argued this is a ‘defence of Lucky’s misbehaviour.’
Another party enters
As the storm over the situation went on, a third party soon came into the picture – when a furry YouTuber called Shi Okami began to cover the controversy.
In two of her recent videos she brought the document’s legitimacy into question, saying she wanted more ‘substantial evidence’ in view of the testimonies and items in the document she says are ‘out of context’.
Subsequently, Shi and another YouTuber named Brony Inspector announced a live podcast with Lucky and Skuff Coyote, intending to go through the document and clarify the statements directly. According to Shi, this came after Skuff reached out to her.
In the podcast, under much questioning, both Lucky and Skuff consistently denied the allegations written in the document, suggesting the statements are a part of a smear campaign.
They also stated they would not be pursuing on the cease and desist letter sent to Qutens.
Reception to Shi Okami’s coverage of the controversy was mixed.
While some furs praised her for getting both sides of the story and ‘not following the mob’, critics say she sided with Lucky and pointed out that her tone, specifically in her first coverage video was ‘condescending towards potential victims,’ and even said she did the podcast for clout.
Throughout, a number of furs repeatedly remarked that Lucky and Skuff were being dishonest.
It is worth noting that since the release of the live podcast, some furs concluded that Lucky is guilty, to which Shi Okami said she is glad a consensus is made.
And now with something to cross-reference with, other people can ‘come to a conclusion they’re comfortable with.
Building on that, since the podcast’s release, some points of contention became clearer.
Among them are, Lucky’s handling of her rescued animals, and her allowing someone under the local drinking age to drink alcohol. That which Lucky has received additional criticism for:
- “Anonymous Horse” claimed Lucky, in view of one of her rabbits developing a life-threatening bloat, ‘physically (crushed) it to death with her hands.’ Lucky denied; saying she euthanized it using cervical dislocation, admittedly as a ‘novice’ breeder.
Now, in her home state of Arizona, cervical dislocation as an euthanisation method can only be conducted by trained individuals, according to guidelines under the AMVA (American Veterinary Medical Association).
There is currently no proof she was trained before. On that basis, she was criticized for not possessing the necessary skills and expertise to do so in the first place.
- “Anonymous Fox” claimed Lucky allowed her to drink while in her (Lucky’s) house. According to the DLLC (Arizona Department of Liquor), those under 21 years of age are allowed to enter bars under the supervision of their ‘spouse, guardian, parent of legal drinking age,’ that said, led to more criticisms on this part as well.
Other claims of her alleged sexual assaults, zoophilic behaviour, racism, animal abuse and inappropriate activities with minors in the document have been consistently denied by Lucky in the podcast.
‘More questions than answers’
In the mixed ocean of support and opposition towards the notion that Lucky is guilty, confusion arose.
For one, many furs including Shi Okami remarked inconsistencies in Lucky’s narrative and pointed out especially Skuff’s ‘controlling’ posture.
That refers to how he behaved at various points of the podcast, where he’s reportedly uptight on the flow of the conversation.
Building on the doubt, suspicion towards both DHC and Qutens rose moreover, with some furs saying both parties are still ‘hiding something.’
The podcast’s co-host Brony Inspector also echoed this sentiment, stating the interview brought him ‘more questions than satisfactory answers.’
To conclude, though the authors of the document may have some backing in their statements, without clearer evidence as warranted by critics, their claims could be very weak.
On the other hand, with Lucky and Skuff now speaking up, reported lapses in their behaviour especially during the podcast lowered their credibility at the same time, thus leading to the current confusion.
Don’t Hug Cacti争议——情况降温，困惑加剧；对双方的质疑态度开始上升
随着指控兽装制造商Don’t Hug Cacti的业主之一Lucky Coyote从事不当行为的争议降温，混乱的局面也在加剧。
随后，Shi和另一位名叫Brony Inspector的油管UP主宣布将与Lucky和Skuff Coyote一起直播，打算直接翻阅文件并澄清陈述。据她称，这直播是在Skuff联系她之后而决定制作的。