Social Media Influencer or Rancher?

By viewing thewhistleblower.ca you have explicitly agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions of Use.

Michael Lares presents himself and his family online as a ranch operator living “off-grid” in a remote, cinematic setting depicting wild horses, hard winters, rugged work, and a tight family unit in a vast landscape. That image isn’t incidental. From the available public material, it appears to function as the central brand environment from which a multi-platform social media operation raises money, sells access, and mobilizes followers.

This article assesses a narrow question: based only on what Michael and his family publish online, is it reasonable to conclude that his primary mode of operation is “social media influencer” rather than “rancher”?

A working rancher’s public footprint typically centres on ranch outputs and operations: livestock production, sales, contracts, agricultural activity, and industry networks. A social media influencer’s footprint centres on audience-building and monetization: content volume, platform diversification, brand story, paid access, and recurring calls-to-action (donate, subscribe, buy, share).

Michael’s public ecosystem appears far closer to the latter.

This isn’t a definitive statement about what work might, or might not be, done off–camera; it’s an assessment of what their public-facing ecosystem emphasizes and monetizes.

» The family itself credits “social media following” as the engine

An International Business Times article (May 17, 2024) highlighted the central role social media platforms play for Flying “L” Ranch, Michael, and his family:

They have amassed several hundred thousand followers and subscribers via their social media platforms, rallying support for various projects and aspects of horse care and therapy that only a few short years ago were impossible to achieve.

In two Williams Lake Tribune articles dated October 17, 2024 and October 26, 2024 written under their own bylines, Michael and his daughter Lara describe a deliberate progression: after a TV docu-series they say:

To further share their day-to-day, the family went to social media. Through their various accounts and most recently their SVOD platform, they enjoy sharing the real-life unfiltered trials and tribulations of their off-grid life.

They then state it plainly:

Supported by their social media following, the Lares family cultivated numerous ways to achieve the ranch mission…

Taken together, this is a direct admission that the audience is not incidental — it is the enabling resource. Such framing matters because it’s an admission of operating logic: the “mission” is enabled by the audience where the social media following is treated as a functional resource, not merely a storytelling outlet.

The Flying "L" Ranch website explicitly markets the ranch as a media property with an international audience, noting that after being featured in a docu-series, the goal is to “share our experiences with an international audience.”

That’s not ranch commerce language; it’s audience language.

The family has built a paid subscription platform they call the Flying "L" Ranch Exclusive, offering monthly and annual pricing for “exclusive access to all content.” That is classic influencer infrastructure: paywalled content, membership tiers, and recurring revenue tied to ongoing production.

They also route followers through centralized funnels. Michael Lares’ Linktree page foregrounds support and purchasing pathways (“Help support… by donating,” plus merch shops and links back into the ranch brand).

Put plainly: this is an audience business model.

Compiled “Fundraising Campaigns” material describes continuous fundraising campaigns and notes that donations are solicited “largely via Instagram” alongside GoFundMe, Patreon, LinkTree, Facebook, the Flying "L" Ranch website, and family social media. Flying “L” Ranch is not a registered charity - it is a for-profit company.

The inventory of fundraising campaigns depicts repeated donation appeals and fundraising mechanisms - feed asks, sponsorships, “adopt a horse or pet”, PayPal asks, GoFundMe drives, gift certificates, and raffles framed as “win a trip to the ranch” (these raffles were identified as illegal gambling in BC and a "stop immediately" letter was issued by the GPEB).

Importantly, none of this requires speculation about what “really” happens day-to-day on the ranch lands. The point is narrower: the public-facing operational centre of gravity appears to be audience monetization and fundraising.

The presentation of ownership directly strengthens the “influencer-first” conclusion.

On the Flying "L" Ranch website, the ranch is described as "Owned and Operated by the Lares family". The site’s "About Us" page says:

Hello! We are the Lares Family, owners of the Flying L Ranch.

A GoFundMe fundraising campaign states:

I’m Michael Lares, founder and owner of the Flying L Ranch in beautiful British Columbia, Canada.

Micheal and his family do not own the ranch. The ranch is completely owned by a corporation called Flying "L" Ranch Ltd., not Michael Lares or his family personally. As noted in the link above, the company was incorporatedin on June 3, 2019 and has two shareholders, each holding 50% of the shares, and both are the company's two directors. Michael is one shareholder/director. In Canadian corporate law a shareholder does not personally own the corporation’s land simply by holding shares.

So when public-facing materials present the ranch as personally “owned by the Lares Family”, that isn’t a harmless stylistic choice — it can reasonably be seen as a branding claim that increases intimacy, authority, and donor confidence.

In other words: the “we own this ranch” story reads like influencer narrative positioning (clean, direct, emotionally resonant) rather than legally accurate communication. That mismatch undermines credibility and supports the view that brand-building is taking priority over precision.

Put together, the pattern is consistent:

• A picturesque off-grid setting functions as the backdrop and hook.
• Content is distributed across multiple platforms and family accounts.
• Followers are repeatedly funnelled into action: donate, subscribe, buy, share.
• The “mission” is described (by the family) as being supported by the social following itself.
• Ownership language is used in a way that appears inconsistent with the documented corporate reality.
• The public-facing ranch narrative also operates as a marketing vehicle that draws and facilitates third–party product promotions, from which the Lares may benefit.

None of this proves Michael does no ranch work. It doesn’t need to. The reasonable conclusion is more modest and more defensible:

From the available public material, it appears Michael Lares’ primary mode of operation is that of a social media influencer who uses a ranch lifestyle narrative as the stage for audience growth and fundraising, while any ranching activity is presented mainly through the lens of content and monetization.

When a for-profit company runs persistent donation appeals “for the horses”, and simultaneously markets itself with personal “ownership” language inconsistent with the verifiable corporate and land-title records, the public is entitled to ask hard questions about transparency, accountability, and whether donors are being led by story rather than facts.

That is not conjecture. It is the unavoidable implication of the family’s own published strategy of building “numerous ways” to fund the mission “supported by their social media following.”