Exposing the Insufficient Protections of Animal Actors in Filmed Media

Animals have always played a crucial role in film and television, enriching plots and deepening emotional connections with the audience. Whether they are main characters like Buddy in A Dog’s Purpose,¹ secondary characters like Stella the French Bulldog in Modern Family,² or background characters used to add realism, animals are essential to shaping the cinematic experience. However, despite their popularity, the United States lacks specific laws directly protecting the welfare of animal actors.³ 

The Illusion of Protection 

Currently, animal actors rely on a patchwork of general laws that fail to address the unique circumstances animal actors face both on and off set. 

• The Animal Welfare Act (AWA): The AWA is a federal law that regulates the treatment of animals.⁴ The AWA is limited in scope and species, excluding cold-blooded animals like reptiles and fish.⁵ Under the AWA, the only entities that must comply with AWA licensing and registration requirements are dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, and transporters.⁶ Parties with “animals on display to the public (including television, movies, internet, social media) or conduct performances featuring animals, must become licensed as an exhibitor, unless they fall under one of the listed exemptions.”⁷ Nonetheless, the "Class C" exhibitor licenses required for filmmakers are shockingly lenient; a three-year license costs just $120—less than a US passport or the LSAT. 

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA): The ESA is a federal law that provides a framework to conserve and protect endangered species.⁸ While the ESA prohibits the "taking" of endangered species, filmmakers can shirk these prohibitions by obtaining "enhancement permits," allowing them to use these animals if it allegedly "enhances" the species' survival through public education. 

• State Anti-Cruelty Laws: There are no state laws that are specifically tailored to protect animal actors. Instead, there are only general state anti-cruelty laws. There are two primary issues that plague state anti-cruelty laws: (1) state anti-cruelty laws vary significantly in each state,⁹ and (2) state anti-cruelty laws are routinely underenforced.¹⁰ For example, North Dakota is ranked the worst for animal protection because it lacks possession bans for convicted abusers,¹¹ whereas Oregon is ranked the best for having dedicated animal cruelty prosecutors.¹² 

The Failure of "No Animals Were Harmed" 

The only “direct” protection available to animal actors is the American Humane Association’s controversial certification program “No Animals Were Harmed.”¹³ However, this program is plagued by issues and fails to adequately protect animal actors: 

• Optional Participation: Only Screen Actors Guild (SAG/AFTRA) productions are required to register with the AHA. Non-SAG/AFTRA productions—such as documentaries, independent films, and international projects—are not obligated to follow these guidelines or have any AHA oversight.¹⁴ 

• Permissive Guidelines: The AHA manual is often permissive, with the organization stating it merely "advocates" for standards, which makes them essentially optional. The AHA manual uses discretionary language like "should" and "recommended" rather than mandatory requirements.¹⁵ 

• Lack of On-Set Oversight: The AHA requires a Certified Animal Safety Representative on set for filmed media to be eligible for the “No Animals Were Harmed certification.”¹⁶  However, a Certified Animal Safety Representative is not required to be on-site if the production team does not seek the certification.¹⁷ 

• Conflicting Interests: The AHA monitors the same industry that funds them, creating a significant conflict of interest that often results in the AHA downplaying and underreporting animal actors' injuries and deaths.¹⁸ 

• Underenforcement: Films have received the "No Animals Were Harmed" credit even when animals died or were injured during production, such as a horse’s death in War Horse and a husky being punched in Eight Below.¹⁹ 

Proposed Solution 

To address these insufficient protections, a comprehensive three-part solution is proposed to ensure the ethical treatment of animal actors. 

1. Create the APHIS Film Division 

Congress should grant the USDA authority to create a dedicated APHIS Film Division to replace the AHA. This division would be led by a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and would require filmmakers to obtain an Animal Film License. The application would require detailed plans for housing, veterinary care, and ethical sourcing. By increasing the license fee to $500 and charging daily or hourly fees for on-set APHIS agents, filmmakers may be encouraged to use ethical alternatives, such as CGI or animatronics. 

2. Promulgate Improved Rules 

The APHIS Film Division should conduct informal rulemaking to adopt mandatory animal welfare standards. Unlike the AHA's suggestions, these would be legally binding rules. This process would include a notice and comment period, allowing animal welfare organizations and the public to help develop the best possible protections for animal actors. 

3. Address Enforcement Issues 

To fix the AWA’s history of inadequate enforcement—where warnings are the primary tool even for repeat violators—APHIS should promulgate an internal rule. This rule would follow a "two-strike" policy: an APHIS Film Division agent may issue only one warning. Upon a second violation, the agency must use stronger measures like license revocation or criminal penalties.  

Because this internal rule would have a binding effect on agency discretion, it is considered a substantive rule and requires a notice and comment period.²⁰ The internal rule thus becomes a legislative rule, triggering external enforcement.²¹ Specifically, the Accardi principle applies, obliging an agency to follow its own rules and authorizing a court to invalidate agency action that does not comply with the agency’s own rules.²² Because of the Accardi principle, by adopting a legislative rule, if the APHIS Film Division were to violate its own rule, it can be externally enforced by litigants or the judiciary.²³ 

Conclusion 

Animal actors are essential to the entertainment industry, yet their welfare is currently not a priority. By establishing a dedicated USDA division, implementing mandatory guidelines, and ensuring strict enforcement, we can create a safer environment for the creatures that bring our favorite stories to life. 

Sources

[1] Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2159 (2018). 

[2] Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544 (2018). 

[3], [20] Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 170–73 (5th Cir. 2015) (The Court explained that rules that are interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice are exempt from the notice and comment period. "In contrast, if a rule is 'substantive,' the exemption is inapplicable, and the full panoply of notice-and-comment requirements must be adhered to scrupulously. The APA's notice and comment exemptions must be narrowly construed.” The Fifth Circuit explained that a rule is substantive if it denies the decisionmaker discretion and the statement creates rights or obligations).

[4] David A. Fennell & Sarah Coose, Animals in Entertainment, in 1 Routledge Handbook of Animal Welfare 176–89, at 176 (1st ed. 2023). 

[5], [21], [22], [23] Gillian E. Metzger & Kevin M. Stack, Internal Administrative Law, 115 Mich. L. Rev. 1239, 1284 (2017). 

[6] Juliet Iacona, Behind Closed Curtains: The Exploitation of Animals in the Film Industry, 12 J. of Animal & Nat. Res. Law 25, 26, 32 (2016). 

[7] M.B. Rodriguez Ferrere, Animal Welfare Underenforcement as a Rule of Law Problem, 12 Animals (Basel) 1, 1–2 (2022). 

[8] Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv., Licensing and Registrations Under the Animal Welfare Act, 9 (2023), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/graybook.pdf. 

[9] Genevieve K. Croft, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47179, The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues, at 2 (2022). 

[10] Am. Humane Ass’n, Reality Programming, https://humanehollywood.org/guideline/reality-programming/. 

[11] Am. Humane Ass’n, Working with Us, https://humanehollywood.org/working-with-us/. 

[12] Gary Baum, Animals Were Harmed, The Hollywood Reporter (Nov. 25, 2013), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/animals-were-harmed-hollywood-reporter-investigation-on-set-injury-death-cover-ups-659556/. 

[13] North Dakota Ranked Worst State for Animal Protection Laws, Animal Legal Def. Fund (Jan. 28, 2025), https://aldf.org/article/north-dakota-ranked-worst-state-for-animal-protection-laws/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20North%20Dakota%20does,in%20domestic%20violence%20protection%20orders. 

[14] Oregon Raked Best State for Animal Protection Laws, Animal Legal Def. Fund (Jan. 28, 2025) https://aldf.org/article/oregon-ranked-best-state-for-animal-protection-laws/#:~:text=SAN%20FRANCISCO%20%E2%80%94%20For%20the%20second,legal%20advocacy%20organization%20for%20animals. 

[15] PBS News, Why the ‘No Animals Were Harmed’ Movie Disclaimer Doesn’t Mean Much, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/why-the-no-animals-were-harmed-movie-disclaimer-doesnt-mean-much#:~:text=The%20investigation%20by%20The%20Hollywood%20Reporter%20reveals,shows%20where%20animals%20were%20harmed%20during%20production.&text=Baum%20reports%20that%20the%20AHA%20is%20in,monitoring%20the%20same%20industry%20that%20funds%20them. 

[16] U.S. Dep’t of Agric., State and Local Animal Welfare Laws, https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/state-and-local-animal-welfare-laws. 

[17] Vincent Rizzo, Detailed Discussion of the Legal Protections of Animals in Filmed Media, Mich. State U. Coll. of Law Animal Legal & Hist. Ctr. (2012) https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-laws-concerning-animals-film-media#google-search. 

[18] A Dog’s Purpose (Universal Pictures 2017). 

[19] Modern Family (ABC Television Sept. 29, 2010).