Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Dennis Quaid thinks ‘A Dog’s Purpose’ controversy is ‘fake news’

Like us on Facebook:

Remember back in January when the US release of the film ‘A Dog’s Purpose’ was coupled with a frightening clip of a dog being forced into turbulent water, and subsequently, a shit storm of negative publicity? Well, Dennis Quaid wants you to forget about that in time for the UK release of the film this week.

Sky News spoke to the actor in hopes of getting the gossip on what set-life was really like for his animal co-stars. Naturally, Quaid calls on the negative results of the American Humane Organization investigation into animal mistreatment, and points his fingers overzealously in any direction away from animal use.

Quaid told the publication “They did an investigation and found there was no mistreatment of dogs at all and that was just a scam fake news story for somebody to make some money on. Somebody put together a couple of pieces of tape and switched them around, and made up a story. It’s funny how they held on to their story for nine months until the movie was just coming out. If they really cared about dogs I think they would have come out immediately if they were telling the truth. But they weren’t.”

The use of animals on screen and on-set of the production of this film is not ‘fake news,’ but the promotion of it’s necessity is quite fraudulent. Once again, we are made to believe that people who profit off of the use of animals, in this case for entertainment, have an animals best interests in mind.

The entire situation only acts as another clear example of the compartmentalization society juggles for which forms of animal use are acceptable and which are not. Hercules, the dog in question, should not have his interests (ie. to not go in the water) determined by others as being necessary for human entertainment or not (ie. because they really wanted a swimming scene in their film). His wants and needs should not be subject to how “important” our stripping of them is deemed, or how “kind” we lable our treatment of him. Same goes for the countless other animals sacrificed in this production for food, clothing, and other purposes. It’s bullshit to argue the justification of animal use because it ignores the victim, and that goes for all animals and all uses.

Quaid goes on (foolishly) to say the film is about unconditional love, and how animals are in our care while simultaneously taking care of us. The only way to truly care for animals is to go vegan, to foster, and to adopt. An animals purpose, dog or otherwise, is not about what we can benefit from them. Loving our pets while exploiting other animals just like them is wrong.

*Edited to replace the Winnipeg Humane Society with the American Humane Organization

Like us on Facebook:
  • Smupa

    Hello to you and thanks. Amercian and other one UK have to make sure to treat it the animal like it the human too. One time a cricket punjab cricket happen on plate with food. Before I was vegan human I eat it the cricket punjab cricket. I have it a bad to smell gas for many day. Now it not to happen with vegan and I feel it right not be cruel to animal.

  • AnnaEm

    “but the promotion of it’s necessity is quite fraudulent.” “it’s” is the abbreviation for “it is”. You mean “its”.

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.