Aubrie Kavanaugh
When I first heard about this film, I thought it might be a feel good story related to animal welfare. It claims to be based on a true story and I thought it might add to my education as an animal welfare advocate. It did not. I consider myself fairly well versed in subjects related to animal welfare and regarding puppy mills, thanks to my Paws4Change work and my contacts across the country whom I consider subject matter experts. I told myself I would be neutral about the movie in spite of having heard some pretty terrible things about it. In the end, I just found it to be a waste of time and money. I am sure that most animal lovers who see this film without the benefit of understanding the agenda may very well be confused. The film was produced by Protect the Harvest. The name alone should tell you a lot. In this movie, the big bad national animal welfare organization loses, the dog breeder loses, the dog lover loses and worst yet, the dogs lose. This topic is far too complex to be crammed into 90 minutes of fiction and be of any value at all to our dog loving society. What a terrible disappointment.
vegicat
This movie is based on puppy-mill breeder Dan Christensen. It is financially backed by "Protect the Harvest", a front group for dog- fighters, dog-breeders, cock-fighters, which is vehemently opposed to any animal cruelty legislation or humane restrictions on the use of animals. The breeder whose "story" is being shown in this story is far from being a victim, and the movie is filled with lies and distortions of the facts. But, breeder Dan Christensen claims that "It's 95 percent accurate; I mean I couldn't have hardly told them any better. It was really done professionally". That should tell you a lot about this movie, which most certainly is not 95% accurate at all -- it's complete fiction created as propaganda for breeders to smear animal rights activists and anyone who truly cares about animals beyond profiting from them. There was no "Sara Gold, rising star of some animal rights organization", in fact, there was no college intern who "went undercover" to expose his puppy mill at all. That means that a major chunk of the movie is false, right off the bat. Nobody snuck around the property placing hidden cameras and taking undercover surveillance or lying about their motives. No sneaky animal rights activists. Nobody had a secret agenda to frame "Daniel Holloway" (real-life Dan Christensen), his arrest and subsequent forfeiture of his puppy mill dogs did not result from undercover surveillance of him killing a dog to defend his granddaughter, and there was no photo/footage "manipulated" to frame him... because there was no intern and the event never happened.In fact, there was no conspiracy against him, no undercover intern, and no manipulated footage. In addition to all those fabricated scenes, there was no secretly taped recordings of the animal rescue organization admitting to purposefully conspiring or tampering with evidence, and a male animal rights volunteer did not admit to photoshopping the granddaughter out of the images -- because the people didn't exist, so it couldn't happen. About the only thing that was factual about the entire film is that the breeder was accused of being a puppy mill that committed abuse and neglect against 173 animals, and that they were removed from his property. Beyond that, the film has no basis in the truth. What isn't mentioned in the film is that the breeder had been reported numerous times for suspicion of cruelty, neglect and violations of breeding ordinances. That he had previously been told to clean up his facility, and had agreed to. That he was operating illegally without the proper state licensing. That he was arrested for the misdemeanor of operating a business without a sales tax license, to which he pleaded guilty. He was eventually charged with 173 counts of animal cruelty. In addition to the breeder himself admitting that law enforcement found a dog skeleton and dog head on Christensen's property on September 2, 2009, the court affidavits stated that "pictures of the kennels contained deplorable conditions: "dogs, debris, and water dishes containing discolored and dirty water; surrounded by outdoor chain- link kennels with overgrown vegetation and in some instances large amounts of dog feces; indoor kennels boarded up where windows had once been but contained holes through which dogs could pass from the interior of the building to the kennels, which were ragged and dangerous to the dogs. Additionally, another photo showed a dog skeleton outside one of the buildings. The dogs were in poor health, and suffered from poor coats, malnutrition, intestinal parasites and Parvo. Veterinarian documentation of each seized animal detailed their poor health. Conveniently, none of this is shown in the movie. The breeder was not found innocent of animal abuse and neglect. "The charges against Christensen were dismissed after the evidence supporting the state's case was suppressed. Suppression of evidence does not demonstrate Christensen's innocence of the underlying charges. Rather, it is a technical determination that the proper procedures for acquiring a warrant were circumvented. In short, because the proper procedure for a warrant was not obtained, the court allowed the breeder to request the evidence the prosecution had be suppressed, meaning no charges could be brought.The breeder did not get his get his dogs back the way the movie shows. And, no animal rights activist "saw the error of her ways" and ended up helping him. In fact, he ended up selling the dogs and puppies that he got back for $100 each, all the while whining about how he should have charged $350 each. The breeder attempted to sue the HSUS, the animal rescue charity, the prosecutor and pretty much anyone else he could think of, claiming some massive conspiracy, and he was not successful. Probably because he can't seem to tell the truth. Protect the Harvest, the backer of this film, was established by Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to bankroll the opposition to Proposition B in Missouri, which voters approved to set common-sense standards for the care of dogs in large-scale commercial breeding operations, spent more than a quarter-million dollars opposing Measure 5 in North Dakota, which sought to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty to dogs, cats and horses, lobbied against a local ordinance in Harrison County, Indiana, to promote the spaying and neutering of pets and help reduce pet overpopulation, and fought against providing adequate shelter for dogs and protect them from the elements in Crawford County, Indiana.In short, everything about this movie is a lie, and everyone involved in its' production is involved with the promotion of and defense of cruelty to animals. Shame on them.
