Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Despite AHA assurances, animals ARE harmed or killed on movie sets...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Despite AHA assurances, animals ARE harmed or killed on movie sets...

    http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/anim...170847678.html

    This is one of the longest, and most important, articles I've seen on Yahoo, about the death and injuries to animals on movie sets - DESPITE the American Humane Association's banner at the end of films - "No animals were harmed during the filming." Turns out a lot of being kept under wraps and the public is being lied to. And it's not just the 100 horses killed during Ben Hur, but modern films like ""Life of Pi", "Eight Below", "Narnia", etc.

    I was so hoping that film banner meant something...
    Home of Caesar (from Alaska) and Cookie (from the Yukon).

    Remembering Boo (2002-2018), Latte (2000-2012), and Bali (1998-2011)

  • #2
    It's clear from the article that this is very complex. But does it mean that they're wantonly hurting animals? No. That much is pretty clear. Things may be rough, but it's not like it was when Ben Hur was being filmed and so many horses were killed in the filming. But there may be negligence, or splitting hairs about what constitutes "no animals harmed in the making of this movie" - which is a shame. While you can't fault a director for the negligent treatment of animals used in the production while they're off set (they're being hired like an actor - once off set, the director has no responsibility and little say in their care), at least there is still some level of responsibility while the animals are on set, barring accidents, of course. Are these accidents preventable? Yes, but many human stars end up injured, and even killed, in movies and tv shows, too - accidents are, after all, accidents that were not expected to go in the direction they went. Yes, the human actors chose to be there, and the horse or dog did not, which make it worse. But, their trainers and owners DID chose to have them there - and an adult animal, trained to act on camera or at least tolerate an untrained actor interacting with it, is expensive. So it's them I've really got the beef with. If I had a dog who was injured in a movie, I'd have to seriously think about why I was providing animals to a movie. Now, you think, "yeah, how likely is that?" but you never know - a friend's ex-boyfriend is currently working with a movie studio in Virginia, as he trains very good disc dogs and does a lot of trick training. And I couldn't imagine him ever putting one of his dogs in harm's way. My experiences with him all indicated he was very concerned about his dogs' wellbeing and safety - he gave me some great pointers with Elsie's flyball training, all focused towards safety (we were all not sure whether it was a good thing or a bad thing when they broke up - we, the flyball team, LOVED him, but she had her reasons, so we all supported her... but were a little sad to see him go... of course, now, we're ok with him being out of the picture, as we think he picked her out a genetic reject of a puppy when he helped her find a new border collie, we're all pretty ticked at him about that... but that's a story for another day).

    It's definitely a complicated issue. Good to see that it's getting some awareness.

    -Mary
    Mary
    ----with Sadie, Elsie, Saffron, Peaches & James ----

    Comment


    • #3
      Like so many things, a lot depends on the integrity of the individuals involved, both with the film makers and the AHA monitors. Most may not be wantonly harming animals, but it's clear that some are if it means getting the job done and they can get away with it. I don't know what the answer is, but it's clear that more monitoring is needed. And I wouldn't depend on the trainers to protect their animals when not doing so means money in the bank. Not all are in it for the love of animals.
      Diane and Cicero - Sr. Manager:

      Comment

      Working...
      X