PETA urges Samsung to re-shoot commercial without buffaloes after animals escape

What absolute garbage. The animals were hardly being mistreated. So what PETA is saying is that all animals should never appear in TV, ads or movies? As for the comment “(water buffalo) spend most of their time submerged in tropical Asian waters. Forcing them into confusing and stressful situations is not only cruel but also endangers public safety” – what about elephants at Taronga zoo? Polar bears at Sea World? Horses on a movie set? Dogs sniffing for drugs at airports? These aren’t their natural habitats either, but to suggest there’s cruelty involved is plain stupid. Talk about trying to flog your brand on a non-event!

Fully support what DS says.

Would Peta not use animals if they were shooting a TVC?

The point here (which both PETA and others are missing) is that there are very strict laws around how animals are to be handled on a set including the presence of an animal welfare officer (which they did not have). Whoever was responsible for these buffalo failed in their duty of care and that is how the animals were able to break free in the first place. Whatever ad goes to air as a result of this shambles is totally irrelevant to that issue.

DS, every single one of those situations you listed ARE examples of animals being put in situations where they don’t belong and should not be. Elephants in zoos? Polar Bears at Sea World? Horses on movie sets (that worked out well for HBO’s Luck, didn’t it). These are blatant examples of animal deprivation and ones that the general public are turning their back on. Why do you think zoos, circuses etc are so controversial? Why do you think ‘Blackfish’ made such an impact?

As for your statement that “The animals were hardly being mistreated” – no one would know that, there were no animal handlers on set to ensure their welfare. Plus the fact that they escaped into an inner city suburb of Australia’s largest city indicates otherwise.

Perhaps all these clever advertising brains should try innovative thinking instead of relying on the exploitation of animals to sell their products.

This info gram, complete with sources, always puts PETA in perspective for me.

http://i.imgur.com/dXAO2.gif

DS In any case, elephants in zoos are typically handled by zooologists who won’t let them run down the busiest street in Sydney. Trained sniffer dogs are different animals than water buffalo. A cat is different than a fish. A is for apple…

It was lucky it was a non-event, no thanks Cheil Worldwide.

The water buffalos were not treated cruelly in fact at the wrap up party they were delicious!!!

Ah Adgrunt, throwing out the old ‘PETA kills animals’ argument with misleading sources ay. Just in case anyone cares, the reason they kill shelter animals in america is because 6-8million per year are left on the street. Take emotion out of and do some maths… it’s just not possible to keep them all.

Buffalo soldier, since you are at the wrap up I’m assuming you work for Cheil Worldwide or Samsung… I think its clear why they had issues in the first place. Glad you enjoyed yourself though.

@ BeavDog 83 – if the animals in zoo’s don’t try and escape why all the cages? And don’t even start start on that Danish zoo that just killed the four lions and Marius the giraffe.

Well actually Beavdog68…PETA is not the authority on shelter animal care and when many other large animal shelter management programs achieve less than 10-15% deaths, it is perfectly legitimate to question why their kill rate is so high.

Further, the argument that you cannot keep them all is a furphy. For example here in Australia, 200,000 cats/dogs (not including Greyhounds) are killed each year because homes are not found (Notice I said ‘not found’, rather than ‘can’t be found’). Meanwhile, 600,000 new pets are purchased each year. In other words, if 1/3 of those new pets were sourced via shelters, there would be next to no killing of these healthy animals. The ratios in the US are similar (remembering they have a vastly greater population).

This is, as you require, an unemotional analysis based on the maths.

Thanks Rachael. Can I suggest you check your data sources?

This from RSPCA in nice news.com.au friendly format – http://www.news.com.au/nationa.....6480386569

And this uglier but harder data: http://www.deathrowpets.net/PD....._Feb10.pdf

The reason why some shelters have achieved low-kill statistics is because they turn away animals. The shelter that have ‘open door’ policies see kill rates sky rocket. As you can see form RSPCA and actual council data the kill rate in Australia is much higher than your math claims. By all means, prove me wrong if you have the data please. PETA is not the authority on shelters… not sure if I even claimed that at any point?

Anyway, this is about water buffalos…. and possibly Samsung.

Hey Fred! I’m not a big fan of zoos lately. They kill too many animals for the purpose of education for me http://www.independent.co.uk/e.....55722.html

However, there is a key word there – education. Also zoos undertake conservation. I would not go down the zoos/water buffalo comparison road if I were you. The water buffalo situation will look far worse for those involved than what is happening in the zoos, and as you sad… don’t even bring that up as we all know how people reacted.

And the film company was….???

Cheil simply stuffed up!

They had wild animals (not tame ones) on a shoot in a suburban park without animal handlers and quite obviously without sufficient fencing or restraints to ensure the animals did not escape.

It is the agency’s role to ensure offshore production companies (who are not aware of local requirements) comply as required.

Letting a Koreans production company to run riot and simply ignore local requirements is a recipe for disaster. Did they even get permission to use a park that is an on-leash park for dogs at the most

I’m sure the “Water Buffalo’s Not Permitted” signs are being installed at the moment….hopefully paid for by Cheil!

Who was the production house?

PETA are a bunch of fanatics that should not have any say on animal rights.

You should have used this opportunity to discuss the RSPCA or AA opinion on this matter, not increase the profile of a group that raises money to support convicted bombers.

The ad probably should be buried, but so should this media release as soon as you received it.

Completely outrageous behaviour by the agency and production company. I hope they are fined for such reckless behaviour and fined severely. Their conduct posed substantial danger to crew, the public and obviously the animals concerned. I just can’t believe an Australian agency didn’t employ an animal handler or welfare person. Did the production company obtain permits from council to film on public property?

Thanks Beavdog…you have managed to conflate two issues and quote data at me that does not refute the point I made. I didn’t claim the kill rate was low at either the RSPCA or council pounds. In fact it is far too high. And the old ‘we’re forced to kill more animals because we accept them all’ is a myth that has been proven false by studies in the US, the UK and here in Australia. Its an excuse based on outdated management practices. Look at the AWL. They also accept all comers, yet their kill rate is significantly lower. The difference is effort and culture. There are pounds (Geelong is one) and divisions of the RSPCA ( SA is a good example) who have made an effort to modernise their approach and have significantly reduced killing as a result. So yes your data may be correct, but it doesn’t mean you are right.

@Rachael, just for the record I support AWL and Get2Zero strategies. I see that you’re coming from a place where you’re trying to advocate better treatment of companion animals, so apologies for any insult I have caused as I’m coming from the same place.

http://www.awlnsw.com.au/lost-and-found-pets.html – “If you find a stray dog or cat it will need to be surrendered to your local council pound.” – They do not accept all comers, and the majority of misplaced and euthanised animals are strays. If AWL were forced to accept strays through legislation, we would see euthanasia rates much higher (circa 45%), even in AWL shelters (and they are one of the best of this type). This is refuting the 15% kill rate point you made.

So going back to my initial comment about ‘PETA kills animals’, you can perhaps see why this is technically true but deceptively misleading. No sane person wants to kill a healthy animal if you ask me. If you really look into those PETA shelters there are other factors.

My original, point about ‘PETA kills animals’ – I thought this was done but obviously not here. Just check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....er_Freedom who started the highly successful anti-PETA movement (and probably it was so successful because of existing US-centric tensions about PETA, who are agitators remember). CCF lobby “on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries.” What a surprise hey.

@Rachael, sorry meant to add your points about effort, culture and (earlier) about people adopting pets instead of buying is definitely a big step in the right direction. This to me should be a long term strategy approach.

Animals should not be used as tools or toys for humans. simples