Your Mommy Kills Animals

Bet that got your attention, eh?

This is the name of a new documentary film that analyzes animal welfare, animal rights, and animal liberation groups. With the news on Michael Vick and his indictment for dogfighting, I thought it was worth checking out the film and getting a more in depth look at what motivates these very different groups. I wanted to get a sense of the issues they deal with, that we as busy pet owners, may not be aware of past the press releases or high level news reports.

Well. The film delivers that plus a whole lot more. Here are the thoughts that are uppermost in my mind since seeing the film:

• Right up front, and especially if you want to see it, you need to know that while this film works very hard to be balanced, it contains very violent scenes of animal abuse. If you are sensitive to violence as I am, you should be cautioned that there are images that will haunt you hours and days after you've seen the film. You walk out wondering how some idiots think it's ok to inflict such extreme abuse on animals. You wonder how widespread it is and you worry that's it much more than you fear. More thoughts on this at the end of this post...


• The title of the film comes from a comic book PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) put together in 2003. Be Warned: the comic book and the accompanying video are also violent.


• So, being a past PETA member and a mother, I watched the entire film thinking PETA must regret this particular "PR" campaign. But then I came home and checked out the PETA Web site. The comic book and video are not only easily obtainable on the site, but they get double billing via their "Fur is Dead" site. In the blog commentary that introduces the video, linked above, the PETA team sees this effort as "full brilliance." I shudder.


• PETA is not the only group that comes under scrutiny in the film. Most of the big organizations are examined, and I was reminded how important it is to understand how contributions are used within a particular organization. As a contributor to the Humane Society of the United States, I realize there's a role for their work in lobbying for better laws and regulations for animal welfare, which is how they are described during the film. The controversy comes in just how much on-the-ground service they provide. The content on their website can be interpreted as being hands on, or it can be interpreted as providing training and support to those who are hands on. You should research and make a decision on what is important for you and follow through with that. For me, this next bullet was extremely eye opening...


• The film interviews those who were on the ground rescuing pets during Hurricane Katrina. The interviews show it was the US military, proceeding without orders (a significant action), and small, private groups and organizations of people - many within the community, and most we've never heard of. One group highlighted was Pooch Heaven, based in Encino, California. It occurred to me that this is what happens in many crisis situations: the unsung heroes of the day are barely known because the big PR machines are blasting out their messages and overshadowing these extraordinary community efforts.


• Interesting tidbit and sidebar: the SPCA laws (Society for the Prevention of Cruelity to Animals) were in place before child abuse laws. So the first child abuse case used the SPCA laws to gain conviction.


• The groups fighting for animals rights and liberation are, for the most part, very young (late teens to early twenties) men with an extreme depth of passion for their issues. They articulate an absolutist mentality, along the lines of "no action can be immoral" when fighting for what they so strongly believe in. It's a little bit scary. Some groups interviewed were ALF (Animal Liberation Front), SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Abuse Campaign), and Hugs for Puppies (no kidding).


• I'm aware that thoughout our history, it's many times the extremists of the day who push the envelope of change forward (think of the Vietnam protests), so I believe there's a role and a benefit to having a wide variety of voices being spoken on an issue, however...


• We have become a nation of political extremes. Animal rights and animal liberation are now in the heart of the battle by being declared the number one domestic terrorism threat from the other extreme. Political vilification happens both ways, and no reasonable middle voice is being heard.

Which makes me think: is it time for the "Reasonable Middle" to speak up? I think of myself and my friends as part of this demographic. We care deeply about many issues, but are unsure how to participate where it will make a difference. In the case of animals, it's noted in the film that all factions have the same core value: a love of animals. But if only the extremes are being active in the debate, do we shortchange what we could be doing overall for animal welfare? During the California Healthy Pets Act debate, I watched the CVMA (California Veterinary Medical Association) very closely in their participation and opinion of the bill. They were my "Reasonable Middle" - if the vets were happy, I'd be happy. In the larger animal rights issues, I'm not sure such an entity exists. And that makes me worry, for ourselves and our pets...