Animals Were Harmed in the Making of this Film: Understanding Humane Hollywood Guidelines

Jun 18, 2020

"Cruelty isn’t a personality trait. Cruelty is a habit."
-Rick Yancey,
The 5th Wave

Rules vs. Guidelines

"Animals appearing in film and television are testaments to the human-animal bond, through their interaction with their trainers, their cast and crew members, and ultimately through their effect on audiences."[1]

I'll admit that for most of my life, that's what I believed. I felt reassured to see the AHA stamp of approval with their "No animals were harmed" slogan following the end credits of a movie or show. It wasn't until I learned more about veganism and animal rights that I realized it's all BS, so to speak. In order to understand why using animals in film goes against the values of veganism (even if they're treated "humanely") and why these guidelines aren't as squeaky clean as they'd like consumers to believe, I'll be breaking down some of the myriad problems with the American Human Association's Guidelines for the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media.

Introduction

It wasn't until researching for this post that I realized I'd never actually heard of the American Humane Association; I always assumed it was the Humane Society or the ASPCA that accredited films with the "No animals were harmed" stamp of approval. "At its most fundamental level, the American Humane Association’s role is to prevent legally defined cruelty to animal actors," including in pre-production, on-set, post-production, and marketing. Their "mission on the sets of filmed productions is to protect those animals and to ensure that they are treated humanely."[1] However, despite those pleasant sentiments, the most important idea to understand before moving forward is that the only thing a piece of media acquires from partnering with AHA is the end-credits certification that animals weren't harmed in the production process for movies, television, music videos, commercials, and computer images.

Unsupervised

I'm not sure why I found this so shocking, but animals can still be used without the American Humane Association being present or overseeing any part of production. All they lose is the "[t]rademarked 'No Animals Were Harmed'® end-credit certification, which reassures audiences."[1] For some reason, I always thought it was a legal requirement for film productions to have some kind of authority present to oversee the use of animals, but it's not. It just makes them look better to their animal-loving consumer base.

Because of this, we have movies that not only use animals, but intentionally harm and/or kill animals in production instead of using props or other animal stand-ins. (This is most common with independent films and other low-budget projects.) Take the original Friday the 13th, for instance, in which a snake's head was chopped off. You may ask yourself, Why did they need to kill an innocent snake for a cheap slasher film? The Friday the 13th series is basically just an Oedipus complex with a hockey mask and a machete -- snakes are completely irrelevant to the story. The answer to that, whatever it may be, is entirely unacceptable.

Another example is the infamous case of Cannibal Holocaust, one of the first-ever "found footage" films that is (unsurprisingly) supposedly as disgusting as it sounds, in which seven animals were filmed while killed (and I mean brutally murdered), six of which made it into the movie. (But who cares about some monkeys and a turtle, right? At least they weren't puppies!) These are by no means the only productions that killed animals for the sake of "art" -- another well-known example is the water buffalo from Apocalypse Now -- and these are, in Western media at least, more extreme cases of animal cruelty.

In my opinion as a viewer, learning about this kind of animal abuse in the film industry has made me lose the little bit of trust and faith I had in the idea that animals have at least some level of protection. It breaks the unspoken contract that I am going into a movie or show with the expectation of fiction. If I'm going to watch something that documents actual violence or death -- whether it is against humans or nonhumans -- I deserve the right to make the choice to watch that for myself. The reason I can enjoy violence on screen is because I am aware that it's fake, but when it comes to using, abusing, and killing animals, now I don't know what's real or not. I have no assurance that animals weren't harmed in production.

Semantics

Just like other exploitation industries, the film industry also uses certain words and phrases to make their use of animals seem normal and ethical. For instance, they call the animals they use "animal actors," as if the animals chose to be there and participate. (They can even perform their own stunts, as long as they are "adequately trained, conditioned and prepped for stunts and/or intense animal action"!)[1] Obviously, animals cannot give their consent to humans so voluntary participation is impossible, meaning that this term is an insult to them, mocking their enslavement as they're forced to perform for human entertainment. We think of it as a compliment to put them (almost) on the same level as human actors, but all we're really doing is making ourselves feel better about using them for our own amusement. Additionally, our use of this term makes unassuming consumers feel better about it all, treating the animals as if they were human and chose to become actors.

AHA also uses the term "humane" quite often (heck, it's even in their name) and proudly boasts that they are the only animal welfare organization "[a]ble to document a production’s humane care of animals."[1] However, from what we've seen in other industries, this word is solely used for the purposes of making people feel more comfortable with using animals however they want. Because forcing animals or bribing them to "perform" doesn't actually fit the definition of humane, which is to show compassion or benevolence.[2] Certainly, we would never accept the same kind of treatment animals receive for human actors. (Adult humans, at least, as babies and children are often thrust into the industry without much choice in the matter.)

But the most damning of all is that the animals are considered property. The Guidelines indicate how "owners" and "handlers" should treat the animals, as well as how other humans on set should interact with them. Most of what's included in the Guidelines are steps that need to be taken to ensure animals are "used" in a way to prevent harm as much as possible. Because of this, there are some restrictions as to what kinds of things animals can/can't do, including that "[a]ll animal fights (such as dog, bull and cock fights), hunting and fishing scenes, and scenes depicting the death of an animal, shall be simulated."[1] That sounds great, but it doesn't mean you can't put two dogs in a pen and make it look like they're fighting; it's only wrong to make them actually fight. But anyone that has worked with dogs before, especially in a stressful environment (as a film set would be), knows that it's impossible to completely control their actions, and at some point, feigned fighting will turn real. Then, it's nearly impossible to break it up, and injuries are inevitable.

Lastly, the most telling indicator of AHA's view of animal use comes from their "[b]asic principles for the safe use of animals in filmed media": "Animals are not props (even if they are supplied by the props department)!"[1] Basically, they're not props...but they also kinda are.

Forgotten Victims

Let's not forget that only a very small percentage of the population is vegan, so only a very small percentage of the filmmaking population is also vegan. This means that every time we watch a movie or tv show, we are supporting a group of people that are directly involved in animal exploitation, both through their work and their personal lives. This includes (but is not limited to) food and drinks, clothing and other accessories, furniture and props, and makeup and beauty products, in addition to the animals used in production. Animals are abused in nearly every economic sector, whether it's directly or indirectly, and it's nearly impossible to get away from that.

Additionally, the AHA condones the use of carnivorous animals, and they have to eat something. Of course, an animal isn't less valuable just because of their necessary diet, but because these animals are often bred for the sole purpose of becoming performers, that's when it becomes unacceptable. And since we're on the subject, there are no regulations in the Guidelines against "breeders/animal suppliers" and only encourages productions "to reject those suppliers who have recent and/or repeated incidents of animal abuse and/or neglect, or other USDA violations related to animal care and treatment."[1] Just watching the section on dogs in Dominion is enough to make you want to destroy the entire dog-breeding industry, but with the dozens of species specifically bred for the film industry, you can be sure that there is little to no welfare enforcement.

Even using dead animals just for the sake of film is acceptable. "If dead animals or animal parts are purchased from or provided by a taxidermist, an animal shelter, a slaughterhouse, a food supplier or another source, American Humane Association must be provided with documentation that demonstrates that the animals were destroyed in the normal course of the source’s operations and were not killed for the production." Basically, it's ok to "destroy" animals and use their corpses as long as you aren't the one doing it. (You know, I don't think I've ever heard a genuine animal lover ever use the term "destroy" when it comes to taking an animal's life. It just doesn't sound very "humane.") In fact, they even encourage the use of dead animals and animal body parts (as well as fake animals, animatronics, and CGI) in place of live animals when it comes to "the depiction of dangerous action."[1] You'd think that this kind of organization would care at least a little bit about animal wellbeing, but there's absolutely no regard for animals that are killed and purchased in the film industry. It's all just words to them.

Certification Standards

As I mentioned earlier, everything included in this massive 132-page Guidelines document is exactly what it's called: guidelines, not rules or laws. These are just a set of standards to follow according to this organization whose primary purpose is to oversee "humane" animal use in film productions. They claim that the Screen Actors Guild requires AHA supervisors to be on-set for all animal use in domestically-filmed media, but this only means all animal use on each specific project, not in all filmed media.[3] (It took me a few reads to actually understand what they were saying, as the wording seems intentionally vague, making it sound as if they are present on all film sets.) AHA overseers are not present on every American film site; when they aren't, the filmmakers simply have to follow animal welfare laws and aren't eligible to receive the "No animals were harmed" accreditation.

That being said, when productions do involve AHA, there are different levels of certification they can receive: Monitored: Outstanding, in which all standards in the Guidelines were met or exceeded, resulting in the "No animals were harmed" disclaimer; Monitored: Acceptable, in which some (but not all) scenes involving animals were monitored and deemed to properly abide by the Guidelines; Monitored: Special Circumstances, in which an accidental animal injury or death occurred but was not as a result of intent or negligence; Monitored: Unacceptable, in which the Guidelines were not properly followed; Not Monitored: Production Compliant, in which the filmmakers appeared to follow legal requirements concerning animal use; and Not Monitored, in which AHA cannot attest to the welfare of the animals used.[3] Even in cases where film sets aren't monitored or receive an Unacceptable certification, as long as animal cruelty laws weren't broken, there are no repercussions.

Conclusion

The film industry is just one of many that routinely exploits animals for their own monetary benefit. It can feel nearly impossible to enjoy any kind of filmed media, knowing that, in one way or another, animals were abused. But you don't need to give up bingeing your favorite show on Netflix or stop watching movies entirely, either. We just need to be aware of the problem, make others aware of it, and encourage the industry to move toward more ethical practices. Luckily, with the rapid development of computer imaging, animals are being used less and less.

be conscious, be kind, be vegan

Sources

[1] Guidelines for the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media

[2] "Humane"

[3] "Certification Definition: An Explanation of Our Certification"