Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Injuries, Animal Cruelty, and a Lawsuit Against History Channel’s ‘Hatfields & McCoys’

Injuries, Animal Cruelty, and a Lawsuit Against History Channel’s ‘Hatfields & McCoys’

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The cast of History Channel's miniseries <i>Hatfields & McCoys</i>

An actor who fell off a horse while on the set of the History Channel’s Hatfields & McCoys is, according to Deadline, suing the show for all kinds of legally-defined stuff, like “suffering” and “anguish” and “punitive and exemplary damages”. Apparently, it’s partially about the permanent damage to the actor’s body and his career, and partially about the generally unacceptable conditions on set.

And this is what insurance is for, folks. When you do a dangerous job, and when you make a dangerous production that you know may result in your staff getting injured, you get insurance. Simple enough. Studios have money. It sounds like this guy’s counsel has a convincing argument to make. He’ll probably get his money, if he’s willing to wait the years and years it’ll take to settle this.

My question is, who’s suing on behalf of the horses? I know that might sound dumb at first, but the legal filing also states in no uncertain terms that the animals on set were subjected to “violent mistreatment” by “improperly trained handlers”. Not cool, guys. Not okay. Especially with horses. If you know anything about horses (this documentary is a great start, if you have even a passing interest in horses and the human-horse relationship), you know that they are sensitive animals. They need patience, compassion, and a calm, confident trainer. The chaos of a normal production set is already hell for these kinds of animals – animals that thrive in quiet, peaceful environments. Add criminal-level mistreatment by people who don’t understand horse psychology to the already questionable circumstances (less-than-expert riders, dozens of staff milling about, all the noise and big machinery, the moving vehicles, the long hours of waiting around, the heat, the confinement, etc.) and you get something disastrous. It’s just not okay. Where’s the Humane Society? Where’s the SPCA? Where’s the government of whatever country has jurisdiction with their animal cruelty laws?

Animal suffering has always been an emotional hair-trigger for me. I remember crying till I retched during movies like Free WillyBabe, and My Dog Skip. I don’t think I ever made it all the way through Black Beauty. I never even attempted Old Yeller. So this is a topic that gets me particularly riled. But c’mon – animal cruelty is never necessary, and is always avoidable. There’s no excuse for mistreating animal talent, especially in an industry as completely gratuitous and privileged as TV production. Animal cruelty is especially wrong in TV production because none of it is necessary. If you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all. When you’re making TV, you’re never making something that society can’t do without. Do it well, and honestly, and with integrity and value, or just don’t bother.

By the way, can you imagine being the sucker who pulled the short straw and had to read through the 38-page legal filing to write that Deadline article? Hoo boy. No thanks. But seriously, those horses. Just not cool at all, guys.

Powered by

About Hannah McIlveen of Click Watch Write

Hannah McIlveen is a university graduate with a serious television obsession living in Sydney, Nova Scotia with her husband, Kevin, and their insane puppy, Levi. She blogs daily at Click Watch Write, and has contributed to publications such as Bitch Magazine and Lydia Mag.
  • Mandy Southgate

    Great post! I remember when the HBO show Luck was cancelled due to horse deaths and mistreatment. I think the use of animals on sets should be heavily monitored and licensed. As you say, the studios have money. Let them think twice before abusing and using animals.

    • Hannah M.

      Right?! They’ll spend thousands for a single dress in wardrobe, but skimp when it comes to the animals. Doesn’t make sense to me! (But I’m definitely a bleedin’ heart when it comes to horses.)

  • Val Grant

    Great blog! My comment isn’t about horses, but fits in with animal cruelty nonetheless. I watched CNN’s production of “Blackfish” – a documentary about whales kept in captivity for the sheet enjoyment of humans. The documentary sought to prove that improper handling by trainers and crowded conditions led to the deaths of said trainers. SeaWorld claimed that the whales already had “issues” before they began their lives in captivity. Really?? Who was there with them before they got to SeaWorld? Humans kept in captivity (prisons, slavery, etc.) also develop issues – they call it PTSD. And whales, having the largest limbic system, display a huge amount of emotion. When mother whales in captivity had their young removed from them, they mourned for a very long time. A more painful cry I have never heard in my life! If you haven’t watched it Hannah, please do and let me know what you think. More information available at:

    • Hannah M.

      Wow. There’s definitely a right way and wrong way to care for animals, and unfortunately the wrong way is often easier, so it’s often what gets done. I’ll keep that doc in mind, though to be honest, I’m not sure I could make it all the way through without just giving up on life and crawling into a hole and staying there forever.

      I was also just reading this article on The Hollywood Reporter about how that American Humane Association disclaimer on movies (“No animals were harmed”) means basically nothing:

      The system is corrupt, people are lazy, the organization is understaffed, and the whole thing is just garbage. WHY?! Why do people still not realize that this is NOT okay?