MovieChat Forums > The Dog Lover (2016) Discussion > Big Ag propaganda piece defending puppy ...

Big Ag propaganda piece defending puppy mills and animal cruelty

posted 10 years ago by johndopp
11 replies | jump to latest

This film is a propaganda piece funded by billionaire Forrest Lucas to gain wider exposure for his failed front group, Protect the Harvest.

Protect the Harvest is dedicated to attacking animal welfare groups, particularly those that confront cruelty in animal agriculture: factory farms, intensive confinement, and especially puppy mills.

I'm disgusted beyond belief that James Remar and Lea Thompson would help to defend animal cruelty and sell out to one of the most despicable, dishonest, destructive individuals on this planet.

And that's not even touching the issue of Lucas' racism... but I guess to some actors, money will always be more important than human decency.

http://www.whoattackshsus.org/protect-the-harvest/

http://jezebel.com/lucas-oil-founder-is-sick-and-tired-of-minorities-ruini-1642744476

[–] JamiesFanGirl 10 years ago

Remar did Persecuted, which is nothing more than a piece illustrating the distress of the privileged in the ranks of conservative Christians.

This surprises you?

=====
Who needs Jack Sparrow?  Jonah Prowse is my pirate of choice. 

[–] JamiesFanGirl 9 years ago

THE DOG LOVER is a suspenseful and provocative drama based on true events. Sara Gold is a rising star at the United Animal Protection Agency (UAPA), a major animal rights organization that conducts animal rescues and lobbies for better animal welfare laws. Handpicked for a major assignment, Sara goes undercover as a college intern to infiltrate a suspected “puppy mill” run by the enigmatic Daniel Holloway. Sara soon ingratiates herself with Daniel and his family, and learns all about the world of dog breeding but is hard pressed to find any sign of animal abuse. The UAPA teams up with local law enforcement and raids the farm, accusing Daniel of the inhumane treatment of animals. Sara finds herself torn between doing her job and doing what’s right, and she awakens to the moral contradictions of her work with the UAPA.

Sounds like it skews your way...but it also sounds like it could be pointing toward "groups like PETA claim they're doing good, but it's really a bunch of crap".

Clearly, we're expected to form our own opinion on the issue...

(Source: https://broadbandforum.co/threads/115485/)

[–] Ellie8336 9 years ago

Seriously....... I just watched the trailer. What the hell is this s**t?

Cruelty and negligence issues aside, dogs shouldn't be bred on mass like this. Hundreds of thousands of animals are destroyed every year due to oversupply. I know there are groups out there that take it too far with their shock tactics and advertising, but to paint (what is described as a respected) animal charity as the bad guy when it comes to puppy mills? Do they really think anyone is going to watch this crap and actually buy into that?

[–] michinine 9 years ago

Business is business.

Its not the problem of the business if society has to kill millions of unwanted animals every year.

Its not the problem of the business if some people think that a small cage for a dog is morally not right. They have to follow the laws that are written by their lobbyists and implemented by bought of politics. Morale is not a regal requirement.

Its not the problem of the business if people buy animals and then get bored, annoyed or anything. And then they get killed because of oversupply. They got already paid, its the stupid stupid masses who don't get it right.

And so on.

America has a long tradition of maximizing earnings on the backs of animals, privatizing profit - and socializing the cost to the masses.

Its only the first question why puppy mills are allowed to exists. The broader question is: why can businesses exists with their sole purpose is to extract a small percentage of profits, while the huge (moralistic) cost to fix their mess is put on the public.

[–] letyw 9 years ago

Hard to believe there's a actual movie defending puppy mills. I'm disgusted.

[–] teganzschering 9 years ago

This movie was just about how some of the companies that want to destroy puppy mills and save animals are not investigating enough and are causing people to lose their animals for no bad reasons. This movie is to give awareness that you should investigate before donating to a animal support group because they could be doing wrong with the way they are "saving animals".

[–] vegicat 9 years ago

Agreed. Complete crap. And, while it claims to be "based on a true story", nothing in it bears any resemblance to the real-life facts of the case against Dan Christensen, the puppy-mill breeder on which it is based.

The only correct fact in the movie is that he was accused of 173 counts of animal cruelty. The rest is made up, complete fantasy in support of the animal mill industry.

[–] bug1109 9 years ago

Here is a great, local news article that sorts out the movie and the "tru story" on which it's based: http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2016/07/12/sorting-truth-fiction-dog-lover/86985228/

The man did not/does not deserve to own dogs. This movie is bull-crap and, frankly, disgusting.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]