No Animals Were Harmed … 




” A THR investigation has found that, unbeknownst to the public, these incidents on Hollywood’s most prominent productions are but two of the troubling cases of animal injury and death that directly call into question the 136-year-old Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit’s assertion that “No Animals Were Harmed” on productions it monitors. Alarmingly, it turns out that audiences reassured by the organization’s famous disclaimer should not necessarily assume it is true. In fact, the AHA has awarded its “No Animals Were Harmed” credit to films and TV shows on which animals were injured during production. It justifies this on the grounds that the animals weren’t intentionally harmed or the incidents occurred while cameras weren’t rolling.

  The full scope of animal injuries and deaths in entertainment productions cannot be known. But in multiple cases examined by THR, the AHA has not lived up to its professed role as stalwart defenders of animals — who, unlike their human counterparts, didn’t themselves sign up for such work. While the four horse deaths on HBO’s Luck made headlines last year, there are many extraordinary incidents that never bubble up to make news.

  A Husky dog was punched repeatedly in its diaphragm on Disney’s 2006 Antarctic sledding movie Eight Below, starring Paul Walker, and a chipmunk was fatally squashed in Paramount’s 2006 Matthew McConaughey-Sarah Jessica Parker romantic comedy Failure to Launch. In 2003, the AHA chose not to publicly speak of the dozens of dead fish and squid that washed up on shore over four days during the filming of Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Crew members had taken no precautions to protect marine life when they set off special-effects explosions in the ocean, according to the AHA rep on set.” 


    This appears to be another case of the all-pervasive progressive establishment covering each other’s backsides with what constitutes a willful pattern of lies and deception aimed at propagating the liberal myth of moral superiority . The fact that the very organization that brags of being for animal rights over all is willing to offer it’s endorsement , in the face of blatant violations of it’s core principles , to the Hollywood media establishment leaves one scratching one’s head in wonder . Wonder at the hypocrisy of it all and wonder at what sort of quid pro quo takes place behind the scenes that makes the American Humane Association facilitate movie maker’s recurrent animal abuse .

   We suspect , but have not found any proof that the donor lists of the AHA are heavily populated by the likes of Weinsteins , Spielbergs , and other such Hollywood movers and shakers thus fending off undue criticism and/or bad publicity for any animal mishaps that might occur . For those who possess a more acute financial mind and would care to dig deeper into the matter here are links to AHA’s 2012 annual report , audited financial statement and IRS form 990 as well as a link to their home page .


The catalogued list of AHA ignored animal abuse and fatalities goes on , read the whole thing .








About these ads