Mar 25 2010
Cameras Don’t Lie, but Some Activist Videos Do
In the Washington, DC world of public affairs, spectators will constantly see campaigns built around the idea of creating media hysteria and “spin.” Some of the worst we’ve come across involve undercover animal rights operatives who apply for a job at a farm—often omitting their employment with their true masters from their resumes, or just plain lying about it. Then they secretly record hours and hours of footage, which is later spliced into a few moments of bad press.
Here’s a suggestion for anyone faced with this sort of mean-spirited tactic. Why not refuse to comment, or even acknowledge the legitimacy of a selectively assembled video, unless the animal rights group behind it agrees to share every bit of video shot on your property? One New Mexico case involving the Humane Society of the United States is a perfect example of why you might need to stick to your guns.
On June 25, 2008, HSUS issued a press release and released video footage supposedly showing the abuse of livestock at the Portales Livestock Auction in New Mexico. The footage was shot by an undercover HSUS activist. HSUS even claimed that workers abused “downer” cows because they couldn’t walk on their own. Filled with righteous indignation, HSUS said that it had already taken its case to the proper authorities:
In advance of today's public release, The HSUS also provided information on the investigation to the New Mexico Livestock Board and the USDA, as well as to national industry leaders.
Is all of this on the level? As usual, the devil’s in the details. Let’s take a closer look.
The New Mexico Livestock Board (NMLB) acts as a “law enforcement agency” that oversees the state’s livestock producers and traders. NMLB is older than the state of New Mexico itself.
Weeks after HSUS’s press release—after the media had managed to get the public all riled up—NMLB released an official report describing what happened in this case, and analyzing HSUS’s claims.
The NMLB’s report says that five days before HSUS put out its press release, a meeting was held at the NMLB’s main office about alleged abuse of downer cows at the livestock auction. At the meeting was Michael Markarian (then HSUS’s vice president) along with NMLB’s director. Here’s what the report states (emphasis added):
At that meeting, Mr. Markarian indicated that HSUS undercover investigators had identified and filmed a number of animal abuse violations at PLA [Portales Livestock Auction]. Lengthy discussion followed regarding downed cattle, the appropriateness of euthanasia, and HSUS's recommended mitigation. Mr. Markarian was unclear as to any recommendation on how to reach the decision point for determining when euthanasia would be appropriate, other than to immediately shoot them using a hollow point bullet. […]
[NMLB] Director Culbertson asked Mr. Markarian to immediately provide their video in order for the agency to commence an investigation. He agreed to provide it right away. NMLB did not receive the subject video immediately as promised.
A letter from Mr. Markarian, dated July 24, 2008, was received by the agency citing a number of accusations regarding treatment of animals at PLA. On June 25, 2008, HSUS distributed video footage along with press releases and public statements directed toward the incidents in question. That same week, HSUS met with USDA Secretary Shafer and provided a video to him, presumed to be the same as that received by the NMLB. By the time the NMLB received the video it was already in the hands of the news media, and various press statements had been issued by HSUS. As a result, the investigation was hampered and delayed by at least a number of days while perceptions and reactions were being formed among the public, as well as the USDA, the American Veterinary Medical Association, members of congress, and elsewhere without the benefit of objective assessment.
So, Markarian promises on June 20 to immediately share its videos with authorities. Five weeks later, the NMLB simply gets a letter in the mail. By that point, HSUS had already generated a public controversy—and probably a heap of donations.
The actual follow-up investigation by NMLB concluded that HSUS’s claims were not justifiable based on the video evidence. A team examined the nine cases of purported abuse in the HSUS video and came to the following conclusions:
- Four instances “indicated no evidence or legitimate suggestion of abuse”;
- Three others “involved situations in which the employees were attempting to extricate cows from dangerous, damaging, or life threatening situations”;
- Another showed “apparent non-malicious behavior of the employee” who may have been justified in using the prod;
- And in the final situation “too little is known or presented by the HSUS ‘undercover investigator’ as to the circumstances.”
That’s not all. The NMLB report notes that on at least one occasion, HSUS’s investigator had the opportunity to help relieve the suffering of an animal but “apparently chose not to assist, in order to take compelling but nevertheless misleading video footage.”
In the end, the report concluded, “perceptions created by the HSUS media releases and press conferences of malice, extreme cruelty, or illegal marketing of downer cows are not found to match the reality of the subject video.”
This report wasn’t written by a cabal of evil New Mexico ranchers, or by McDonald’s shareholders. It’s the official report of a state government agency. The unfortunate problem, of course, is that the NMLB didn’t finish its report until August 8, a full six weeks after HSUS had poisoned the well with its agenda-driven spin on the situation. When Mark Twain observed that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its boots on, he was ahead of his time.
So HSUS has a huge incentive to go full steam ahead with media briefings and cherry-picked movie segments. When you’re looking for emotional reactions, there’s no point in subjecting your claims to actual experts whose analysis might be based on (gasp!) evidence and logic.
We don’t know if you’re coming away from this story thinking what we're thinking, but this kind of willful duplicity is bound to make New Mexicans (if not all Americans) less likely to believe their own eyes the next time HSUS fires up its camcorders.
Image: New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Related Documents
Related People
Related Organizations
Posted on 03/25/2010 at 08:37 AM by the HumaneWatch Team
The Best of HumaneWatch • Animal Agriculture • (10) CommentsComments
I would like to wear my camera sunglasses and film at the World Animal Conference with HSUS and various other animal rights group who meet in secret, unencumbered high, on a mountain top in Italy. Wonder if they ever discuss filming techniques as they do at the HSUS site…...“take the picture to tell a story” and that would be a crouching, sad eyed, frightened dog I would presume to elicit public sympathy. Watch out farmers, it is just not for dogs and cats anymore, seems to be any animal that humans have any contact with. Watch out for the summer help on farms…they usually wear thick rimmed sun glasses to accommodate a camera or carry a ball point pen in their pocket. What a shame that a social movement has to go to these extents. By the way all the outcry over “mad cow”, H1N1, and avian flu that fizzled out but Michael Gregor of HSUS is trying his best to keep it alive. Let it go Michael. USA beef is one of the safest in the world.
The only way we can protect ourselves from unscrupulous operators who stage scenes of animal abuse is to:
1) Ask for the full, uncut film footage, with sound. Any individual or group offering video but unwilling to meet this requirement is most likely hiding something.
2) Ask that all people in the film be identified by name.
3) Require sworn statements from the filmmaker and crew in the case of footage of illegal activities, attesting to the time, place and other circumstances relating to the illegal activity.
For more on the history of the misuse of video/digital images, visit http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm
Sounds exactly like what happened to PeTA Germany when they did an ‘undercover’ investigation and tried to hammer the Ag industry over it. Unfortunately, after reviewing the entire video, one of the companies whose reputation was sullied sued PeTA Germany in court…and won!
It’s time for that to start happening here with HSUS. A couple of expensive smackdowns in court and the public embarassment of revealing their “facts” are actually “fakes” would be most helpful to continue removing Inhumane Wayne’s anamatronic mask so everyone can see the evil borg beneath.
(My ‘fortune cookie’ Captcha phrase for posting this: “is forseen”. How cool is that?)
There is an animal rights activists who does the same thing at high school and pro rodeos. He is always taking stuff to authorities to have it investigated. I have yet see where anybody he accused was charged with anything.
My question has always been: Do the taxpayers of those areas have to pay for his actions based on edited videos?
Don’t the authorities have actual crimes they need to be investigating?
Pics dont dont like and OF COURSE the ag depts are going to cover up for their farmer friends. USDA wouldnt know animal cruelty if it hit them in the face,....as is the case here. You dont need much of a brain to figger it out. L@@k at the vids and ask yourself, how can any of their be “taken out of context?” Impossible. It is what it is: animal cruelty….and, BTW, a bullet to the head IS better than letting the animal suffer.
You can’t undermine the work that PETA and such orgs have done over the years. Because of that there are animal protection laws exist. Having said that the subject of “staged videos” is very interesting, but everyone would agree that cruelty of some kind kind is still happening and mentally ill people are still are employed on fur farms and slaughter houses. The only way to avoid fake claims and allegations and disable animals rights groups from lying sometimes, is to install CCTV on every slaughterhouse, fur farm etc… And those cameras must be monitored by independent organisations who do not benefit from eighter animals rights org nor meat/fur industries. I think that is the only way to know the truth, because orgs like PETA will always tell us little bit of lie for the reason of our donations, and the meat and fur industries will always tell us some lie as well to protect their business and profits.
Christine, Lana, and Carol,
Our farmers have to care for the animals or the animals would not be productive. Lana - this is America where we believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I am offended by your painting all farmers as abusers.
There are horrible examples of child abuse by parents. This does NOT mean we should film all parents 24/7. It means we need to identify and rectify problems as soon as they are identified.
I find it despicable that a cameraman who is supposed to be mentally healthy would film and sit on it for weeks while an obviously mentally ill person is abusing animals. That cameraman is an accessory to the crimes.
When HSUS does things like this for political expediency, it is easy to see they really do not care about the animals.
search for this on YOU Tube
:Animal Righteousness: The Terror of the Animal Rights Movement
it is long .. but well worth the watch.. an undercover “operative” tells all.. watch them steal animals.. and “plant them” to excite the public.. and more.. and YES Wayne Pacelle is on the video
“Pics dont lie ...”
@ CHristine A Jubic - yes, pics and video do lie, which is what I think you are trying to deny. There are so many ways they can be manipulated there isn’t room enough to cover them all here. The easiest way, of course, is just not to shoot anything that doesn’t look bad. If you shoot one fresh dump in a kennel run from twelve different angles and show them all, it won’t matter much that the other thirty five runs were clean as a whistle, will it? And that is exactly what they do.
@Lana M - nonsense. There have been animal abuse laws everywhere I have lived for the last 40 years, though some were not well enforced. However, passing more laws when existing laws aren’t being enforced, particularly when they are not funded for enforcement accomplishes nothing, and all the new laws have, in any case, addressed not animal cruelty but animal ownership.
If you have personal knowledge of any animal being abused, call your local animal control or sheriff’s office. If you are objecting to a facility under USDA oversight, call them.
Abused animals aren’t useful to us for meat, and certainly not for service. A case can be made that the kind of intensive confinement used by Agribiz to raise meat is inhumane, but targeting all animal ownership and particularly small operations (which is what these laws do) gives the industrial meat factories a bigger share of the market - which would seem to defeat the purpose. The same is true for their ‘puppy mill’ laws which target small breeders. Unless, of course, you are trying to eliminate livestock farming and pets altogether.
No animal rights organization has done anything useful for animals in the forty years I’ve been watching them. HSUS and PeTA are both vegan organizations, and are not in any way friendly to animals. The vegan goal is to eliminate all animal products and animals from human lives. All ... food, clothing, companionship, exhibition, working anÃmals. All.
The people who run these organizations know nothing very much about animals and don’t want to learn more, they just want to eliminate animals from your life and mine. They don’t care how they do it, if it takes lies and heavily edited and doctored video and images, and images drawn from other times and other places, well, so be it. They are willing.
Their position is that animal ownership = animal abuse. In which case, if you keep pets, YOU are an abuser, and you can expect them to come knocking on your door, too.
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
Sadly too many people, including those who work with animals daily, were beguiled by the many video clips that HSUS and ASPCA put out there to create a frenzied emotional response. These clips seemed to always conveniently arise just before and shortly after a new piece of legislation that they have written and found an unsuspecting legislator to sponsor. Then of course there is the photo op of the legislator “doing good things” for animals. Meanwhile, the victimized animal owner is fined, shut down, and loses all his or her animals while HSUS packs up and leaves town for yet another campaign.
The never ending story, after repeated playbacks, is finally being recognized for what it is—bully tactics directed at anyone who is vulnerable and owns an animal.