They are the first to do so publicly. Here is their article:

(Beth Clifton collage)

The Wild Truth about wildlife videos & lack of humane jurisdiction

That matters, especially because much larger organizations, many of which claim to care deeply about animals, have declined even to respond to what we have shared,  let alone engage with it seriously.

Merritt and Beth did something simple but increasingly rare:  they looked at the material, asked questions,  and followed the evidence where it led.  Their article was not a reflexive endorsement,  but an independent editorial judgment based on scrutiny.

Their article also recognizes something central to this story:  this is not just about one disputed wildlife sequence.  It is about trust.  If wildlife scenes can be staged and presented as natural behavior,  and if animal suffering may be involved,  then the credibility of wildlife filmmaking itself is at stake.

And if organizations dedicated to protecting animals will not even assess credible concerns when they are put before them,  that raises difficult questions too.

We are grateful to Merritt and Beth for refusing to look away.  When larger institutions stayed silent,  they were willing to examine the evidence and speak publicly.

They were first.  We hope they will not be alone.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

(Beth Clifton collage)

Who gives a damn?

The short version of what ANIMALS 24-7 is being praised for by The Wild Truth is just plain giving a damn––about the animals involved,  of course,  and about doing our work as investigative journalists with a sense of responsibility and pride in doing our job well,  whether any given article attracts tens or tens of thousands of readers.

The specific topic addressed by the allegations issued by The Wild Truth,  the use and misuse of animals in set-up predation sequences in documentary film making for popular entertainment,  may soon become a moot point,  as applied artificial intelligence evolves to replace much and perhaps most use of animals in screen productions.

But,  as The Wild Truth about wildlife videos & lack of humane jurisdiction pointed out,  the use and misuse of animals in screen productions has been an issue recognized by the humane community for at least 90 years now,  with relatively little being done about it recently by the national and international advocacy and regulatory entities that are paid to give a damn by donors and taxpayers.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Money talks

ANIMALS 24-7 understands that the $120 billion-a year global screen industry may look too big to monitor,  and sometimes fight in legislatures and courtrooms,  to the decision-makers at the big national and international animal advocacy groups.  The total cumulative net worth of the entire animal advocacy sector,  worldwide,  is somewhere under $1 billion.

And the lives and suffering of just a handful of rodents and reptiles,  inflicted by what appear to be at most just a few dozen screen production companies,  may not seem worth fighting for,  in cold,  hard cost/benefit calculations,  especially when the animal suffering involved in alleged staged predation sequences is compared to the suffering of 77 billion land animals per year slaughtered by the food industry,  plus many times that many fish.

The global meat,  fish,  and dairy industries,  worth $1.3 trillion per year,  is more than 1,000 times the size of the screen industry.

But that would appear to make problematic screen productions a relatively soft target to the largest players in the humane industry,  whose entire fundraising business model is structured around emotive appeals to prospective donors directed at what are––often erroneously––believed to be soft targets,  likely to yield quick “victories” to tout in follow-up appeals to the same donor lists.

Humane World for Animals president Kitty Block is at left, Donald Trump at right, with Humane World Legislative Fund president Sara Amundson directly behind Trump.
(Beth Clifton collage)

“Crush” videos vs. staged predation

Such strategic calculations were involved in the campaigns by several of the largest U.S. animal advocacy groups against so-called “crush” videos,  in which small animals are torturously killed for the gratification of sadistic perverts.

These campaigns brought the eventual passage of the 2019 PACT Act,  misleadingly billed by both the first and second Donald Trump administrations as a national humane law.  The PACT Act in truth exempts practically every possible use and misuse of animals for food,  sport,  or science,  including in screen production,  except for making or distributing “crush” videos in areas where there is some federal jurisdiction.

(See HSUS, Donald Trump, & the PACT Act: The Art of the Deal.)

From the animals’ perspective,  there is little difference between being tortured to death by and for sadistic perverts,  and being fed alive to a predator.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Does the gratification of sadistic perverts matter more than the mis-education of children?

From the humane perspective,  though,  the audience of sadistic perverts is fortunately very small,  compared to the audience,  including generations of children,  who may be mis-educated about animal behavior and nature by staged predation scenes.

Logically,  therefore,  the latter should be of at least equal concern.

Enough concern,  anyway,  to get humane executives to respond to serious,  documented allegations such as those issued by The Wild Truth with inquiries,  including referrals to film,  video,  and AI experts who can either authenticate or refute the claims made about what is shown.

Beth & Merritt Clifton.
(Daniel Leventhal photo)

Currently,  the many entities contacted by The Wild Truth and/or ANIMALS 24-7,  either or both,  appear to have just been passing the buck.

Which is what the makers,  distributors,  and broadcasters of the alleged staged predation scenes are counting on:  that the only place the bucks will ever stop is in their own pockets.

Please donate to help our work:

www.animals24-7.org/donate