Legal Niches

Animals in the entertainment industry ? deception and cruelty

By jennifer

Gary from AnimalWritings sent me a link to this fascinating video on animals used in the entertainment industry. Aired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada’s public broadcasting network, the film is a follow-up to an investigation done in 1982. The 1982 video explored the systematic problem of deception in “wild” nature videos.

The film on the new investigation has three main focuses — the harm that occurs to animals used in the film industry despite the “oversight” of American Humane; the continuing deception in many nature films; and the conditions endured by chimpanzees used in entertainment.

This investigation was eye-opening. I assumed that all films these days meet the “no animals were harmed in the making of this movie” standard, but that’s certainly not true. For example, the film describes the excruciating, preventable death of a horse in the making of Flicka (2006). American Humane was involved in the production of that film, and the movie didn’t receive the organization’s unapproved rating. In addition, a local prosecutor who was investigating the incident for potential animal cruelty had difficulty getting information from American Humane, who cited (legally irrelevant) confidentiality reasons for not turning over information.

The investigation’s debunking of many “nature” documentaries was also fascinating. It turns out that many nature films use trained animals to portray “wild” or “natural” behavior. For example, Animals of Montana, a wildlife-casting agency, has a list of their customers, including National Geographic and the BBC.

The final part of the investigation was perhaps the most sad, since it focused on chimpanzees used in entertainment. Despite the chimpanzee’s status as an endangered animal and despite welfare regulations, they are still subject to physical and mental abuse during their training. And perhaps worst of all, only very young chimps are “suitable” for entertainment use. After working till the age of, approximately, eight or so, the chimps face another 50+ years in captivity. Many are sent to roadside zoos; many end up in medical research facilities. Some do have a better life in sanctuaries, but the cost of keeping a chimp in that type of institution is over $14,000 per year. Thus, the entertainment industry gets the financial benefit of the chimp during his “career,” and the private sanctuary is left to raise money for the rest of the chimp’s life.

Each of these issues raise legal questions, but today I’d like to focus on the financial inequities of the chimpanzees-in-entertainment problem. The chimps work for several years, and they reap no rewards from their hardship. They are slaves — they’re taken from their families when they are still babies; they’re forced to work; and they’re kept alive by their owners so that the owners can get an economic benefit from their work. None of this is done for the benefit of the chimpanzee. Then, when the owner has squeezed all the possible financial gain from the chimp, the chimp is sold to the highest bidder — hopefully a sanctuary. (That’s right, the sanctuaries have to BUY the chimpanees.)

What if the chimpanzee was entitled to some of the money he’s making for his owner? That would be fair — it’s the chimp’s intelligence and appearance that are making the money. It would be practical — the original owner isn’t going to pay for the chimp’s upkeep during its 50+ year-long life. Currently, the owner is creating a burden on society when he creates a captive, trained chimp. He knows he won’t be paying for the chimp’s upkeep throughout its whole life, so he doesn’t save the money that the chimp is making. He’s creating what economists term “negative externalities” — hidden costs that other people will have to pay. One goal of the law is to reduce negative externalities — to ensure that the price of an activity reflects the true cost to society. (For example, cigarette taxes — smoking creates health problems that society will have to pay for later, so the taxes (when they’re put into healthcare) make the cost of the cigarette better reflect their ultimate high cost to society.)

To reduce negative externalities in the chimp’s case, the owner (and the movie producers who use chimps) should be required to put money into a trust fund for the chimp’s future upkeep. This would allow the chimp to keep some of the money that he’s making for the owners and the movies, and it could fund chimp sanctuaries. More importantly, by imposing the actual cost of using chimps in entertainment on the people who are allowing it to happen — i.e., the owners and the movie producers — using chimps would likely be cost-inefficient. A producer would then decide to not use chimps in his film, since the chimp’s “salary” would cut into his profits. Thus, the demand for chimps in entertainment would decrease and the numbers of chimps used in movies and commercials would plummet.

Other animals may fit this model as well, but chimpanzees probably make the best case for this type of “trust fund” set-up, since their “productive” years are so short, their lifespan is so long, and the cost of keeping a chimp in good conditions is so expensive.

Full post as published by Animal Blawg on January 23, 2008 (boomark / email).