Animal Hoarding - A Serious Threat

             We may know of a "dog lady" down the street who hides away the animals she "saves". We turn a blind eye and perhaps think - what harm can it do? We may even think of her as a kind person. But if she is an animal hoarder she can not only harm - she can kill, maim, and cause unspeakable torture for generations of helpless animals. Even purebreds are not immune, for the animal hoarder may also be a breeder. Animal hoarding is far more prevalent than most people realize. Up to 2,000 cases of animal hoarding are discovered in the United States every year - which adds up to the suffering of many thousands of animals - and that may only be the tip of the iceberg.

According to HARC, the Tufts University Veterinary Medical School Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium, animal hoarding, previously known as collecting, is a poorly understood phenomenon which transcends simply owning or caring for more than the typical number of pets, and affects every community in the US. It has serious consequences for people, animals, and communities. New cases are reported in the media each day, with dozens of others unreported, and still more undetected. Animal hoarding is a community problem. It is cruel to animals, can devastate families, be associated with elder abuse, child abuse, and self-neglect, and be costly for municipalities to resolve. Without appropriate post-intervention treatment, recidivism approaches 100%. Increased awareness, leading to more comprehensive long-term interventions, is needed. Animal Hoarding is not about animal sheltering, rescue, or sanctuary, and should not be confused with these legitimate efforts to help animals. It is about satisfying a human need to accumulate animals and control them, and this need supersedes the needs of the animals involved. Animal hoarding is becoming a growing problem since it is becoming more recognized. Animal Hoarding was first identified and researched in 1997 by Dr Gary J Patronek, DVM, Ph.D., and his team through HARC at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, Massachusetts. Dr Patronek and his associates were the first to use the term animal hoarding and to write a definition of the phrase, thus, an animal hoarder is defined as:

Someone who accumulates a large number of animals, fails to provide even the minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation and veterinary care, and fails to act on the deteriorating condition of the animals (including disease, starvation and even death), or the environment (severe overcrowding, extremely unsanitary conditions) or the negative effect of the collection on their own health and well-being and on that of other household members.

Hoarders can fool you. In public they may appear to be well dressed, productive members of society. They often take great care with their appearance and may present a polished, even superior image which belies the filth and degradation in which they live. Perhaps the most prominent psychological feature of these individuals is that pets (and other possessions) become central to the hoarder's core identity. The hoarder develops a strong need for control, and just the thought of losing an animal can produce an intense grief-like reaction. This may account for the difficulty this causes some observers of hoarders who misunderstand the grief reaction for a real concern for the animal's welfare when, in fact, hoarders are concerned with their own needs and not the condition of the animals at all. One of the main points made by HARC about the disease of animal hoarding is that while hoarders may view themselves as saviors of the animals, they are driven by a need to control. Hoarding is not about loving or saving, it is about power and control- the power to control a helpless creature. Animal hoarding is a form of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) - the rationale is that nobody could possibly care for the animal as well as they can, nor, more importantly, love them as much as they do.

It has also been suggested that animal hoarding is a form of passive cruelty. Hoarders typically profess a great love for their animals and yet, by everyone else's standards, the conditions under which the animals live are nothing short of barbaric - homes are usually cluttered and unsanitary with feces all over the house, debris, rats, fleas and other parasites and, in many cases rotting corpses of the very animals that these people profess to love so dearly. Conditions in a lot of these homes are often such that even the Animal Control officers who are ultimately called to deal with these cases have been known to vomit at the sights that greet them when they finally gain access. The stench of rotting debris, of feces and ammonia from pets that do all their 'business' within four walls make it not only a dangerous and unhealthy proposition for these case workers, but also for the residents who live with the animals, and of course the animals themselves.

Studies suggest that in hoarding cases, for the most part, there will usually be one person involved, or perhaps a couple. Typically, animal hoarders tend to be female, older and solitary. They concentrate on one or two species of animals and fail to acknowledge the extent of the lack of sanitation and animal suffering. They may also be on disability, retired or unemployed.

Hoarding, by definition, is a condition in which animals are deprived of even minimal standards of care. The consequences of this deprivation vary in each situation, depending on how far it deteriorates until discovered. In some cases, particularly in the early stages, the visible signs of suffering are few - perhaps mild weight loss, poor hair coat, and parasites. Despite whatever physical afflictions do or do not develop, the psychological suffering from intensive confinement will go even more unnoticed. As conditions deteriorate and / or crowding increases, irritating levels of ammonia develop from the accumulated feces and urine, infectious diseases may spread, injuries develop and are not treated, sick animals are ignored, and the early stages of starvation may begin. As conditions spiral downward, animals die from lack of food or water and untreated illness or injury. It is not unusual for dead animals to be found among the living, with some animals cannibalizing the corpses of others. In some cases, this may involve only a few animals, in other cases, homes or farms become literal graveyards, with bodies scattered where they fell.

Even when confronted with the obvious - feces piled a foot or more deep, dead animals in human living spaces, a home not fit for habitation by humans or animals, the hoarder will deny that anything is wrong or will minimize the interpretation of events.

The Role of Excuses in Animal Hoarding

One of the most exasperating parts of dealing with an animal hoarder is the wide range of excuses that are offered for the behavior and the substandard condition of the animals and environment. Hoarders are almost always in a state of complete denial. Typically they may say that the house is just a little messy or the animals are fine, when you may have to pick your way through rotting corpses. A hoarder's excuses are driven by attempts to maintain a positive self-image and self-esteem. Self-images are developed for both internal and external audiences. External audiences are those people who may be in a position to evaluate a person's actions. Maintaining a positive image is important, and perhaps even essential, to enable a person to continue certain types of behaviors and avoid certain consequences. For animal hoarders, HARC's work suggests that animals may be an important identity-building device, and that the animals may be critical for the hoarder's self-esteem.

The Role of the Law in Relation to Animal Hoarders

Perhaps the biggest problem in trying to stop animal hoarding is the lack of strong animal laws. There is NO Federal Law which regulates the care of pet animals by private owners or animal shelters. However, every state in the US has animal cruelty statutes which prohibit cruel treatment and/or require an owner to provide proper shelter, adequate nutrition and clean water, a sanitary safe environment, and necessary veterinary care. Thus, on a very simple level, it seems that hoarding would be an obvious violation of the most basic provisions. In actual practice, establishing a violation of the law is more difficult than it might appear from reading the statutes, for a variety of reasons, one being the way the laws are written. The language in the legislation is often vague and antiquated, leaving ample room for interpretation. The hoarder can provide a loophole for defining what is necessary. An additional problem is that much of the cruelty which arises in these situations is psychological suffering from chronic neglect, intensive confinement in small cages, and lack of opportunities to socialize with either people or other animals, or being confined in close proximity to animals which may be aggressive or threatening. These are factors which might best be described as Quality of Life issues, something which is almost uniformly absent from existing statutes in any explicit sense. Therefore, each court is left to its own combination of expert testimony and prevailing community standards. Even when statutory husbandry standards exist, often they apply only to specific entities such as pet stores, shelters, kennels, and catteries, leaving individuals such as hoarders untended by the law.

Despite these obstacles, investigation under the cruelty to animals statutes is often the only way to begin an intervention in hoarding cases. Such an investigation should be conducted by, or with guidance from, a highly experienced humane investigator. From start to finish, the collection of evidence in these cases needs to be airtight to get a search warrant that will stand up and lead to either a conviction or the possibility of a favorable negotiated agreement or plea bargain.

What happens when the hoarder is also a breeder?

It may be easy to spot the "dog lady" down the street who has too many dogs, but what happens when an animal hoarder is also a breeder? This area should be of great concern to purebred dog fanciers. Because hoarders can pass for normal people who are well dressed, polite, and well spoken, they may be easily able to hide their dark secret. In general, hoarders do not allow anyone to visit their homes or kennels. The hoarder may present a very charming exterior when appearing at public dog events. Misguided people may wind up enabling hoarders to continue their slide into mental illness and their cruelty to the animals because they do not understand animal hoarding. Animal hoarding often is only apparent in its entirety when one enters the home of a hoarder and sees the astoundingly filthy conditions in which they live. In fact, the homes of animal hoarders are sometimes so appalling that the premises have to be burned down or bulldozed. Reputable breeders and rescue groups can ensure that their animals will not fall into the hands of a hoarder by not only doing extensive interviews, but also making a visit to the premises before placing a dog in any home.
Summary

While animal hoarding is relatively unknown to the general public, it is a very real mental illness which affects entire communities and takes the worst toll on its animal victims. Hoarders have chameleon-like abilities to present themselves as charming and functioning members of society while living in the most appalling conditions and causing the animals in their control to live a hellish existence. Laws are antiquated and ill equipped to deal with the problem, and there is currently no effective medical treatment for the condition of animal hoarding. Hoarders are highly likely to hoard again even if they are convicted within the legal system because the system fails to monitor their activities. The burden for preventing and stopping hoarders lies with each and all of us who love our animals. We must speak out to update the laws and stiffen penalties for convicted hoarders to at least include monitoring; we must keep our eyes and ears open within the community for signs of local hoarders. And, if a hoarder is suspected, we must follow specific, well documented steps to close them down.

Signs of an Animal Hoarder:

•Hoarders are most often older women who live alone.
•Hoarders typically no support network of family or friends.
•Hoarders are typically on disability, retired or unemployed.
•Up to 2000 cases of hoarding are known to occur in the U.S. each year.
•While hoarders profess their love for animals, hoarding is not about love but about control.
•Hoarding is considered a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Hoarders are mentally ill.
•Hoarders are usually in a state of complete denial; they do not see the destruction they cause.
•Hoarding is defined not by the numbers of animals, but by the way they are kept.
•Hoarders put their personal and community health at risk.
•Hoarders fail to provide even minimal standards of care or sanitation.
•Homes of hoarders are usually in such filthy condition that the premises have to be destroyed.
•Even if convicted of hoarding, hoarders are usually able to move and begin the cycle again. There is almost a 100% rate of repetition.

javascript:void(0)

No Animals Were Harmed - All About Animal Actors

      ANIMAL ACTORS: Interview with Sandi Buck, American Humane, Certified Animal Safety Representative

Q: What is the American Humane Film & TV Unit?

A: American Humane (AH) Film & TV Unit is based in Los Angeles and we monitor the use of animals in media. American Humane is a national organization with headquarters based in Denver, Colorado. I'm one of the Certified Animal Safety Representatives who go on set and monitor the use of animals in film and television. We award the "No Animals Were Harmed® in the Making of this Movie" disclaimer seen at the end of the credits in a movie.

Q: How did the American Film & TV Unit start?

A: Back in 1926, AH set up a committee to investigate abuses of animals in the movie industry. At that time, horses were the most at-risk animal actors. But, then, as now, animals have no inherent legal rights, so we couldn't mandate the safety of the animal actors. In 1939, for the film "Jesse James," a horse and rider were sent hurling over a 70-foot cliff into a raging river for an action shot. The stuntman was fine, but the horse's back was broken in the fall and it died. Outrage over this sparked a new relationship between AH and some motion picture directors and producers and caused the Hays Office to include humane treatment of animals in the Motion Picture Code. The following year, AH received authorization to monitor the production of movies using animals. We worked on set for quite a while after that until the Hays Office was disbanded in 1966, ending our jurisdiction and excluding us from sets. This was a pretty dismal time for animal actors who were being used in some brutal ways. Then, in the early 1980s, another incident caused another public outcry and American Humane was added to the agreement with SAG that mandated that union films contact us if they were using animals. This agreement now includes any filmed media form, including television, commercials, direct-to-video projects, and music videos. A more detailed history is on our website. Right now, we monitor about 900 films a year, maybe more. That's not counting commercials.

Q: Did you say animal actors no have legal rights?

A: That's correct. Animals have no "legal" rights in the sense that humans have. But because of our SAG agreement, animal actors in SAG films have "contractual" rights because the AH office must be contacted by productions using animals and an AH Film & TV Unit representative be on set during the filming.

Q: What about nonunion productions?

A: Nonunion productions are not contractually bound to contact us, but we find that a lot of people want us there anyway. I've worked with several productions that say - "We want you here. We want that rating at the end of our film and we want people to know what we had you on set."

Q: So people on set are happy to see you?

A: Generally yes, but sometimes no. Actors always love seeing us there. They look at the AH patches on my jacket and come up to me constantly on set and say - "Oh, you're here for the animals. That's so great, I'm so happy you're here." That's what we want. We want people to look for us, to know we're there, and why we're there. As for production, it depends on their perception of us and if they've worked with us in the past. People we've worked with before love having us there. The ones who haven't worked with us before sometimes think "oh, no, here comes the animal police to patrol us," like I'm going to stand there with my hands on my hips telling them what they can and can't do. It's not like that. We're not there to criticize. We're there to work with filmmakers, not against them. If we see a problem, we'll address it and work it out together. In Florida, for instance, one of the big concerns is heat. During one production, the producer wanted a dog to walk back and forth across the pavement. I told the director there was a problem with this. I already knew he didn't like having me on set, but I told him anyway, "You take off your shoes and walk across that street." He went out to the street, put his hand on the pavement, and said - "Yeah, you're right." He wasn't trying to harm the animal, he just wasn't thinking about the animal, the heat, and the pavement. That's part of the reason we're on set. We don't expect filmmakers to also be animal experts. Even producers who personally don't care about animals usually realize it makes sense for them to have us there. Many people say they won't watch a movie in which they think or have heard that an animal was injured or killed. People look for the AH disclaimer at the end of movies saying - "No Animals Were Harmed® in the Making of this Film."

Q: How do filmmakers get a "No Harm" disclaimer for their movies?

A: The process starts when production contacts our Los Angeles office to let us know that they plan to use animals. We direct them to our Guidelines which are available on the internet and we request their script. We review the script and arrange to come in and observe the animal action to ensure that the conditions in which the animals are working and kept is safe and comfortable. This doesn't cost the union production anything - that's part of the arrangement with the SAG office.

Q: What about nonunion productions? Can they get this "No Animals were Harmed®" disclaimer?

A: The process to get the disclaimer is the same, only there's a $30 an hour fee for the hours we're on set. The time we spend in pre-production script evaluation and then screening the films and writing up reviews is included in that $30 an hour on set fee.

Q: Can student and independent filmmakers get your disclaimer?

A: Definitely, if they meet the guidelines for it. If they have questions, all they need to do is call our LA office and ask. Our LA office is happy to help young and aspiring filmmakers with guidance and information on safely using animals in their films. If they're in the process of writing a script, they can call us and ask if certain scenes are feasible and for advice on how to get the scenes and action they want. Productions who can't get an AH representative on set because of cost or scheduling conflicts can write down what it is they plan to do, document the filming of the animal action with a little video, a behind the scenes - this is how we did it, kind of thing - and send it in. We review it and though we can't say we were actually there, we can say that through our review, it looks like the production followed the Guidelines. That rating is called: "Not Monitored: Production Compliant."

Q: How many ratings are there?

A: We have several ratings which range from our highest "Monitored: Outstanding" and receiving the "No Animals Were Harmed"® disclaimer which appears in the end credits of the film, to "Not Monitored," to our lowest rating which is "Monitored Unacceptable" - where our guidelines and animal safety were disregarded and or negligence caused the injury or death of an animal. Striving for a good rating helps ensure that the production will go well. If a production is half way through shooting and an animal that is key to the movie gets spooked and gets loose or injured, it's like losing a lead human actor. What's the producer going to do? Re-shoot the animal scenes with another animal actor? Rewrite the script? Scrap the movie? Professional trainers have several different dogs with different talents that look alike. One's a really good barking dog, one's a really good jumping dog, another does something else. That helps in the event one dog gets sick or injured, it won't halt filming. A lot of the worst scenarios can be avoided with planning. I look for potential problems and to keep everything as safe as possible for everyone. There can always be accidents, there's no way to prevent that. That happens in life. You can work to make things as safe as possible, but there can still be accidents. We understand that. The bottom line is at that any time filmmakers plan to use animals, even their own pets, they should contact our LA office.

Whether or not one of us comes out to your set, they should refer to our Guidelines For the Safe Use of Animals in Filmed Media so they know what they need to prepare for, to say to themselves - this is what I need to prepare for if I'm going to use an animal on my production. Am I prepared to do what I need to do to make sure that everything is safe for my animal? Having us involved benefits the production in that if there's ever any question as to how a stunt was done the filmmaker can say - call AH. Filmmakers with the reputation of abusing animals for the sake of producing a film or commercial won't get hired and people won't want to watch their movies. We are the only organization authorized to make and uphold these standards and people look for it. When people see animals in films, they look to see that no animals were harmed. If they have any questions on how things were done, they can go to our website and read about it. They can see that this stunt that looks absolutely horrible was actually done with computer graphics, a real animal wasn't even involved.

Q: Are personal pets allowed to be in movies?

A: Our Guidelines recommend that filmmakers use professional animal actors obtained through trainers, but we know that filmmakers, especially small independent and student filmmakers are going to use their own pets or the pets of friends and family in their movies. We understand that, that's a reality in this business. But even if it's no more than filming their own pet cat or dog sitting in a chair or walking across the room, filmmakers should get in the habit of contacting our office. When producers choose dogs, for instance, they should look for dogs with outgoing personalities, dogs that aren't afraid of people. Fear can cause a disaster. The dog can bite someone out of fear if they get in a situation in which they're not comfortable. If more than one dog is to be used on set, the dogs should be used to being around other dogs. If one dog shows aggression toward another dog on set, the aggressive dog must be removed. Dogs that live together and are accustomed to being with each other are good choices.

Q: You mentioned education as being part of the goal of AH. Would you talk some about that?

A: We'd like to work more with film schools developing programs where as part of the curriculum, students take a course or attend a seminar held by an AH representative about using animals in film. If the school can't put us into their program yet, just having our Guidelines available at the school or distributed to students will help educate them. The earlier we reach the students, the better. These filmmakers will grow in their careers and will eventually be involved in large productions where they might end up working on films with large animals. That's the point where you really worry about safety, so the earlier we can educate students, the better.

Q: What can you advise students or aspiring filmmakers wanting to use pets? Your Guidelines can look daunting.

A: If filmmakers choose to use a pet instead of trained animal, we have no control over that but we still recommend they review and adhere to our Guidelines. If the Guidelines seem overwhelming, call our LA office with questions, say - "All I want is for my dog to sit in a chair or walk across the room while we're doing our filming, what are the guidelines?" Most of it is just common sense. Know that the animal you're using is friendly and completely safe to be around people and other animals. You don't want an animal on set that's aggressive, skittish, or snaps. Think about what you're going to do with this animal while you're setting up shots. How many times do you actually need the real animal? Can you use a stuffed animal if there's any concern about using a real animal? You don't want a real dog sitting under hot lights while you're setting up. Go to a toy store and get a stuffie look-alike of whatever animal you're using. Make sure the animal won't be in the way of a moving dolly and that she won't be in area in which she can get stepped on. When she's not being used on set have a suitable place for her to hang out, that she's not running around loose. There needs to be a safe area like a crate or separate room for the animal. Make sure the pet has breaks and gets to lie down and rest or get something to eat and drink. If the pet isn't kept in a crate, make sure it's on a harness or leash so that should she get spooked by a loud noise or quick movement, she can't jump down and run away. Plan ahead and prepare for all possible scenarios. That's critical. If an animal won't do what you want, what are your options? Have back up plans. How far should you go to try to get an animal to do something? If the animal won't or can't do what you want him to do, forcing him is inviting disaster. Even if the animal normally does something, an animal is an animal. You can never predict what it's going to do or not do. It's like working with a child. The producer has to be prepared.

Q: Who is responsible for the safety of a pet during filming?

A: The ultimate responsibility lies with the owners as they will suffer the anguish and grief if something happens to their pet. I recommend that pets not be passed around to people on set to play with. That can be overstimulating to animals, and if they're all excited, they may not be able to perform the action you want them to perform. Many trainers make a general announcement on set - don't touch animals while they're working. Obviously, with the exotics, people are pretty good about asking before touching them but a lot of times, with dogs and cats, people just walk up and pet them without asking.

Q: Does AH have a problem with certain action shots?

A: If filmmakers wonder if a certain action shot can be obtained safely, call and ask us. If a filmmaker wants a dog to run off the end of the dock and jump into a lake to get an exciting shot, they should make the obvious choice. Pick a Labrador Retriever who loves to swim and run and jump off the dock and has actually practiced this. They shouldn't choose a little Chihuahua that's never been in the water.

Q: How did you get into the field?

A: I grew up in Michigan in a very animal-oriented family. We had the house with the invisible sucker sign hanging on the front of it - animals could see the sign, but we couldn't. Animals constantly showed up at our door and people dumped their puppies and kittens off in our barn. We had dogs, cats, horses, guinea pigs, and hamsters, and just about everything else. As a teenager, I raised and trained a working Seeing Eye dog. After that, I raised a wonderful Doberman for obedience. After college, I tried a few careers, but didn't really care for any of them. In the early 1990s, I moved to Key West, Florida. That was about the time the series "Key West" with Fisher Stevens and Jennifer Tilly was being filmed as a pilot. I accidentally met the medic on set and we started talking. He learned that I was a dive master with dive master medical training and said they'd been looking for someone else to work on set when they went to series. He asked if I was interested and I was. So, I went and got EMT certification and worked on that series as the medic when the other medic wasn't available. After the series ended, I worked fulltime as an EMT paramedic and part time as paramedic in film. I also volunteered with my dog in the education department at the Humane Society of Broward County. We went around to schools and taught pet education to the kids. Through that, I began working as a surgical assistant for the shelter. I was basically done the same things for animals that I was doing for humans. It was hard working for the shelter, for obvious reasons, but it was also very rewarding and I loved it. One day I was watching a movie through the credits and saw the "No Animals Were Harmed® in the Making of this Film" disclaimer and that a representative was on set to monitor all animal action. A light went off in my head - "Hey, that's a job. If somebody was on set that means it's an actual job." I sent my resume to the recruiting office in LA and got an interview. My background with horses and dogs, and dog training, and medical and film experience worked well together for the position. I then went through the AH training which basically teaches film and set etiquette, which I already knew from my experience on set, and learning report writing and the Guidelines. Right now, I live in Virginia. As my husband is in the military, we move around a bit, but as my job requires a lot of travel, I can do it from wherever we're based. Though most of my work is in this area, I've traveled all over the country. I've been to Mexico, Canada, Wyoming.

Q: What films have you worked on locally?

A: Susan Jackson, our representative based in Richmond, and I have worked independently and, in the case of large films such as "Dreamer," we've worked together. During the filming of "Dreamer," producers wanted something that looked like ointment to slather on an animal and they didn't know what to use. Susan suggested a solution of milk and water. So they mixed the milk and water and said - "oh, that's looks really good." Another instance on "Dreamer" was a barn scene. The crew needed the barn cats out before they could start filming. Susan came up with and organized a plan to catch the cats and send them off to be spayed and neutered. By the time filming was done, the cats could come back. It helped everybody. These are simple solutions that have helped producers get the scenes they want. We don't expect filmmakers to be animal experts; that's why we're there. We've been in this business a long time and have a lot of training behind us. A lot can be done with camera tricks, computer graphics, stuffie stunt and photo doubles and some creative solutions. Most recently I was one of the Safety Reps on "Evan Almighty." "Birds and Animals," a huge animal company for the film business supplied the animal talent. They have offices in Florida, California, New York, overseas and have all kinds of animals and I've worked with them for years since I started at AH seven years ago. They're great to work with and have excellent trainers who very concerned about the safety and welfare of their animals. Another huge part of our job is perception. It's often the perception of actors who aren't familiar with animal training. For example, when I was on "Evan Almighty" there was a scene with all these different small animals. One way to lure small animals like skunks, rats, and porcupines from point A to point B is with a buzzer. These little animals can't be trained to come like dog or even a cat. These little animals are taught that when they walk across the room to the buzzer, they get a food reward. One of the actors watching this came over and asked - "Are these animals being shocked?" I said, no, and explained the whole buzzer thing. Without someone like myself being there to ask, this actor could have walked off set thinking that the animals on set were being shocked. It was amazing to watch the whole process on "Evan Almighty." A huge ark was built in Charlottesville, VA, and they had a special camera that exactly replicated every single move of the animals. Animal were brought in one at a time, so if there were forty animals in a scene, they did that take forty different times at least, each time with each different animal. Sometimes there were pairs of animals, sometimes there was only one - the same animal walked across the room twice. It was all put together by computer to look like all these pairs of animals were in the same room, even though they weren't. That was a lot of fun to work on.

I also do the "Puppy Bowl" in Silver Spring, Maryland, at the Discovery Channel which airs on the Animal Planet at the same time as the Super Bowl. A little stage is built that looks like a football field and puppies go out there and play. They have "Kitty Half Time" and a "Tail Gate Party" for the dogs that didn't get into the game. It's hilarious. Initially, they were a little wary of me, but now we have a great relationship. It's nice when you walk off the set and the people you met when you first came in were looking at you like - "here she comes," then say - "thank you so much for being here, we want you back next year."

American Humane was founded in 1877. It is the oldest national organization dedicated to protecting both children and animals. Through a network of child and animal protection agencies and individuals, the American Humane Association develops policies, legislation, curricula and training programs to protect children and animals from abuse, neglect and exploitation. The nonprofit membership organization, headquartered in Denver, raises awareness about The Link® between animal abuse and other forms of violence, as well as the benefits derived from the human-animal bond. American Humane's regional office in Los Angeles is the authority behind the "No Animals Were Harmed"® End Credit Disclaimer on film and TV productions, and American Humane's office in Washington is an advocate for child and animal protection at the federal and state levels. American Humane is endorsed by the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance and has been awarded the Independent Charities Seal of Excellence.

Animal actor "Angus," Actor Ken Kline's black Labrador Retriever was cast as "Dog with Man" in "Capitol Law," an ABC Pilot filmed in Washington, D.C., and also on "Shooter" as a quadedestrian in Baltimore's Federal Hill. Ken met American Humane Film & TV Unit representative Sandi Buck on the set of "Evan Almighty" in Richmond, Virginia, where she was overseeing the use of wild animals like bears, wolves, and mountain lions on set. Angus decided stay to home for that particular film.

Common Misconceptions About Forensic Animations

     There seems to be many preconceived notions about forensic animations and their overall use in litigation. Many times, lawyers or accident reconstructionists will say that "An animation can show whatever the animator wants" or "Animations are difficult to admit in a court of law". However, to a forensic animator, this is also like saying, that your accountant can "fix your books". In reality, it is far from the truth.

Misconception #1 - "An animation can show whatever the animator wants"
Perhaps it is the fact that so much of what we see on television and in films is altered with lifelike special effects that we tend to associate anything with 3D visualization with more than a hint of skepticism. Ironically, much of the same software used to animate films such as "Spiderman" or "Lord of the rings" is also less known to be used in scientific visualization, research and forensic animations. People may associate the fact that an experienced special effects animator is capable of creating surreal, yet realistic looking effects. Therefore, it must not be accurate.

The greatest difference between a forensic animation and just any other type of animation is the "forensic" part. This implies that there is a large effort in understanding the details of what is being animated and that there is a large emphasis ensuring a high level of accuracy. An animator can spend more than 70% of his time on activities related to the verification of data and ensuring accuracy in the animation.

An experienced and qualified forensic animator would tell you that a large effort goes into building and checking each step of the animation process to the correct and accurate dimensions. In fact, very little is left to the imagination since most recreations are based on accurate data typically provided by the expert witness. A simple example is the terrain data of a particular scene. This can be obtained by means of a total station along with the positions of important features such as signs, traffic lights, debris or tire marks on the roadway.

Even the animation and motion of objects in a 3D recreation is typically based on information or data provided by the expert witness. This data is often obtained through careful calculations or through the use of simulation software. In the case of simulation software, the data can be directly converted or imported directly into the 3D animation software, leaving little room for error.
There may be cases where the forensic animator is provided with less than ideal information, however, even in these rare instances, an experienced forensic animator will have enough knowledge to ensure that the basic rules of geometry and physics (i.e. motion) are applied and adhered to.

Misconception #2 - "Animations are difficult to admit in a court of law"
Somewhere along the way, there have been animations which were so poorly constructed or erroneous they simply could not have been allowed in court. It would seem that these cases tend to stick in the minds of litigators and cause reluctance for future use of what is a perfectly acceptable and effective use of technology.

Normally, it is an inexperienced animator or lawyer which does not follow some of the basic rules of demonstrative evidence.
Some key points to consider when considering a forensic animation are:

1. The animation needs to support the testimony of the expert witness and should be considered an extension of the witness' report. The expert witness should be directly involved in authenticating and reviewing the animation.

2. Disclose the animation well in advance of the trial date. Evidence needs to be disclosed in a timely manner and the opponent requires time to cross examine the evidence.

3. The animation fairly and accurately conveys the data or matter that it purports to convey or depict. The animation should not be prejudicial in that it outweighs the probative value.

4. The animation should be relevant.

5. The forensic animator should be prepared to testify that the works created are based on sound technology, process and algorithms such that the final works are a reflection of the expert witness' opinion.

There are, of course, many other factors to consider which may be case dependent. Further materials and references are available for review including a paper entitled "The Admissibility of Demonstrative Evidence in Jury Trials:" Written by Barbara Legate of Legate and Associates and available at the AI2 forums (www.ai2-3d.com/Forums).

Today, most forensic animations are admitted into court since there are greater considerations and groundwork taken into account to ensure the accuracy, validity and quality of the animations. By choosing an experienced forensic animator and by adhering to the rules of demonstrative evidence, the risks associated with inadmissibility are greatly reduced.

Misconception #3 - "Animation and Simulation are the same thing"
There are two distinct ways to develop an animation and although the end result may try to achieve the same thing, they are fundamentally different in the means by which they are created.

A simulation is typically the output of a program which is operated by a qualified accident reconstructionist. The program has a set of key behaviours (i.e. mathematical equations) which define the movement of objects when given a set of known parameters. It is up to the accident reconstructionist to define all the input variables and ensure they are accurate. Once this is complete, the program is initiated to calculate all the positions of objects through some specific time.

The simulation software may also output the motion of objects in the form of exportable tabularized data and/or animation. However, most manufacturers of simulation based software programs have not been able to achieve the same level of realism as most animators are able to do with 3D visualization software. There may be a number of reasons to this which deal with further complicating already complex software or that perhaps the time spent on development is in the mathematics behind the simulation software and not primarily in the visualization or presentation of the data.

Another important issue which is common with simulation software is the validity of the data available. The old saying "garbage in, garbage out" is applicable. Since a simulation would typically be used as substantive evidence, it can get difficult to prove something is accurate without having solid data to back the animation up.

Animation
Demonstrative Evidence - illustrates how something works or how something happened based on the testimony of the expert or eye witness. The animator, not the software is responsible for accurately moving and positioning objects over time.
Does not try to prove anything, but just facilitates the account or testimony of a witness.

Simulation
Substantive Evidence - Takes actual dynamics and physics into account. The objects are not animated by "hand", but by software based on calculated inputs or data.
Tries to prove that something may have occurred a certain way.
Visually, an animation is more eye catching and realistic.
Simulations are improving in their presentation, but are still lacking realism.

On the other hand, an animation may be based on an eye witness testimony, calculations of the accident reconstructionist or from data output by a simulation package. All the events of an animation in a typical 3D visualization package are calculated and setup by the animator. Animations are almost always disclosed as demonstrative evidence and they do not try to "prove" anything. They are merely another form of expressing the opinion of the expert witness and are always presented as demonstrative evidence.

Misconception #4 - "We need it yesterday".
There have been many advances in the technology that forensic animators use which has improved the speed and efficiency of their work. Computer processing speeds have grown exponentially and the advances in software have allowed animators to do things which were simply not possible several years ago. There are even tools provided to animators which allow them to write custom scripts for repetitive tasks and specialized functions.
These advances in speed and ability would make one think that the time to complete an animation should also have been greatly reduced; however, this is not the case.

Part of this reason is simply the nature of the animation process. Much work needs to go into the understanding of the case, reading reports, taking measurements and verifying accuracy. This part alone can take a large part of the man-hours to create the animation.
Also, creating the 3D models ("scene assets") necessary to populate the animation is still a time consuming process. There are some advantages when a "library" of standard models is used (i.e. stop signs, light poles, traffic signs), however since each case is different and the specific details need to be reflected in the animation (such as the scene topography or specific damage to the vehicle), time must be spent to customize or create models from scratch.

Technology has effectively brought many more options to the realm of visualization which means that more work is being done in a similar amount of time. If one were to compare the time to produce an animation which was done 15 years ago to the same animation done today, there would be a noticeable decrease in the time to complete. However, the overall quality of presentation would certainly not be as appealing to the eye.
Due to media such as television and film and video games, people have become accustomed to a higher level of realism. The same animation which was used 15 years ago in a court of law, may not be as appealing or credible to an audience today.

It is important to leave as much time as possible to get a high quality animation and to allow time for the opponents to cross examine the animation. On average, a typical animation from a reputable forensic animator requires anywhere from a few weeks to months to complete depending on the availability of information, number of scenarios/views requested, level of realism and complexity of the animation. Unfortunately, there are still no "magic buttons" to do the manual work of a forensic animator.

Misconception #5 - "It's much too expensive"
Perhaps the most important piece of advice is to use a reputable and experienced forensic animator. There are some animation houses which specialize in advertizing or graphics which like to take on forensic work, but without a qualified and experienced forensic animator, there is a higher risk that the entire animation may be inadmissible.
A qualified forensic animator will bring to light all the options available, provide sound advice and set clear objectives up front. Setting clear objectives is possibly one of the most overlooked points. Without knowing the expectations, the goals of the animation are often missed or not well communicated resulting in last minute changes and edits which further increase the cost.

It is important the lawyers and accident reconstructionists understand the animation process and where the amount of man-hours are typically invested. Most forensic animators estimate or charge based on an hourly rate; however there are some which still prefer to quote by the case/project.

The general rule of thumb is that as the level of realism, complexity, number of scenarios and camera views increases, then so does the cost. This is why it is important to understand what is being requested of an animator. For example, changing a camera view slightly has a smaller impact on cost than does adding different animation scenarios with objects in different locations.

By taking a second look at forensic animations and their misconceptions, it is clear that there needs to be some understanding of the animating process by the client. Having an up front and open discussion about the objectives of the animation are imperative to having a positive impact on the case.

Drawing on the experience of a professional forensic animator who can explain the options available to a client and can discuss their associated costs removes the risk of falling short of the goals and ensures animations will be admissible in court.

Eugene Liscio is the owner of AI2- 3D Animations which specializes in forensic animations for litigation support. AI2 actively promotes the use of Forensic Animations, 3D Virtual Models, photogrammetry and other visual strategies for the courtroom. Eugene is a registered engineer in the province of Ontario, Canada

Decorate Your Desktop With Animated Screensavers Free of Charge

     When it comes to decorating your workspace, many people first think of cute little figures or pictures of their loved ones. Posters may even be hung in an attempt to bring a little humor into the workspace. The thing that many people are missing out on is that they can decorate their space with an incredible screen saver. It could be funny or serious but as long as it is animated it is sure to grab a lot of attention. But before you start dishing out money for such screen savers, make sure that you are really looking over all of your options.

There are many different kinds of animated screensavers free of charge out there, just waiting for you to grab them up and make use of them. Of course, there are also a lot of animated screen savers that cost money but there is no reason to go that route since you do not have to. Even if it is just a few dollars here and there, over time, which can add up to be a lot of money that would be better used somewhere else. Instead of paying for something that is really available to you free of charge, make sure that you are looking for the right screensavers.

Even though one would think that the animated screensavers free of charge would not be as good as the ones that you pay for. This is really not the case though as many of the same screensavers that can be found with a price attached to them, can be found free of charge of another site. What this means is that those who are paying for their animated screensavers are really getting ripped off. Instead of just going with the first thing that comes along, make sure that you are going with the animated screensavers free of charge and put the money that you would have spent into a savings account. Even though it may not seem like a lot of money, over a year's time that will grow to be a good chunk of money.

Make sure that you are also advising your friends and family on where you found the animated screensavers free of charge so that they too can enjoy them. With so many options and a diverse selection of animated pictures, there is no reason you, and everyone you know, will not be able to find something that fits the bill. You can make yourself smile with a clever screen saver or secretly add one to your co-workers computer so that when they return they will have a nice little surprise waiting for them.

Pick a new one every week or every day. Wait for special holidays and find some festive animated screensavers free of charge. Whatever the occasion is or whatever your mode is, there are going to be animated screensavers free of charge that will sum up what you are feeling, thinking, or enjoying at the moment. So start looking right away and find the perfect screen savers for your personal or work computer.

Humans Are Animals But Animals Are Not Human

          Introduction:

It seems that there is a lack of understanding and more than a few misconceptions when it comes to the subject of animals. This article will discuss some of these misconceptions and the realizations that we need to make if we are to avoid deaths and animal attacks. The problem seems to lie in our misconceptions that animals are driven by emotions rather than by pure survival instincts. This causes us to attribute an animal attack to the human emotion of anger or revenge. I know that all people do not hold these misconceptions, which would be presumptuous. What I am saying is that a majority of people do, simply based upon the evidence. The evidence I refer to includes television shows on Discovery, Animal Planet, TNT, etc. It also includes the news media, and even Academia. Again, some shows are guiltier than others, but the fallacies range from the small to the absurd.

The main point the reader needs to take from this article is that animals are animals, driven by basic instincts necessary for their survival. They do not feel anger, jealousy, love, or plot revenge. Although some animals may contain the capacity for these emotions, I doubt those senses are as highly developed or reasoned through as ours seem to be. So, when we attempt to attribute human emotions to animal motivations we are making a silly mistake. We need only try to look at the situation from the animal's point of view. This shouldn't be hard, because we have the ability to reason. We need only attempt to return to a state of mind that we haven't had since we rubbed sticks together and drew on cave walls.

The Main Issues:

The tree hugger is as much to blame as the hunter. When a nature lover is attacked brutally by an animal and survives they usually make the statement; "It didn't know what it was doing". This is not true. The animal knew full well what it was doing. They would also make the claim that they should not have put themselves in that situation. That statement actually is true, to an extent. When we venture out into nature we cannot expect that we will not be attacked by a wild animal. What we must expect is that there is a possibility, and we must accept responsibility for this if we are going into the woods anyways.

Animals are finding their natural lands threatened by housing developments, businesses, and other activities that bring human beings into areas where animals used to roam. Their territory is shrinking. So, when we go out into the woods than it is our responsibility. If a person enters the forest for any reason, and is attacked by an animal, whatever the reason; it's their fault. Why? Because they know in the back of their mind that it is a possibility. If you go into the woods with your children and they are attacked, then it is the parent's fault. Why? Because they knew it was a possibility. You have every right to take the risk, but when and if something bad happens, you can't blame the animal.

There are people out there who believe that animals are of no consequence. The only thing that matters in this world is the human race. If an animal is hit by a car, shot, or killed by anything other than natural means; so what. This is a very ignorant viewpoint to have for one reason. We live in a world that is governed by balance. One thing affects another and if one species disappears it will affect other species. Sometimes it can be in a good way for that species and sometimes it can be in a bad way. If all predatory birds were to go extinct than it would be great for rodents. It would not be so good for whatever the rodents feed upon and it most certainly would not be good for us. Granted some species can go extinct without greatly upsetting the balance of things. It's when multiple extinctions occur that a major problem will arise. These individuals that do not hold animals in high regard, when attacked by animals, usually are quick to anger. That animal attacked me and therefore must die! I doubt that they would even consider the possibility that they bore any responsibility whatsoever for entering the woods that day. The bottom line is that if people enter the woods, we must be aware of the dangers. This goes for any natural environment that we consciously enter, knowing full well that we could be attacked by a bear or a shark.

I will never forget an episode of Worlds Most Amazing Video or maybe it was the Most Extreme, where an elephant was rampaging through the streets of Mexico. If I remember correctly, this elephant was performing in a circus, turned on its trainer (killing him), and then began running through the streets. This elephant ended up being shot to death in the street. I had no problem with that, it was clear the animal had to be taken down. What I did have a problem with was the statement made by the bonehead commentator of the show. He stated, "This is a tragic event, but let's not forget why this was necessary." That may not be his statement word for word, but the point is clear. The elephant had to die because it was a rampaging monster! How ignorant is that? In my opinion that was an extremely ignorant statement that had me cursing out loud at my television set. It is true that the elephant did kill his trainer. It is also true that the elephant was out of control. Why are these the only valid points? Did anyone stop to think that the elephant should not have been there in the first place? Elephants do not belong in circuses and they do not belong in zoos. The only purpose a zoo should serve is to rehabilitate injured animals or to shelter animals that are endangered.

Animals are wild, the only mistake made in the elephant situation is that "WE", thought we could tame or control this animal. Can we do it? Yes, we can, but should we, NO! Personally, if an animal that is in a zoo or a circus attacks a person then I do not want to hear about it. No sympathy will be found with me. The bottom line is that animals belong in the wild. I do not care how tame or domesticated we think that they are. The chance will always remain that they can attack for reasons that really do not matter. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out why people do some of the things they do. The last thing I want to have to do on a daily basis is try to figure out what an elephant, bear or a shark was thinking.

When I was younger, I went to zoos. The last time I visited a zoo I was 21 years old, and it was at Busch Gardens and Disney's Wild Kingdom. I am 31 years old and I have not been to a zoo since. I will never go to a zoo again simply because I do not believe in them. To take a wild animal and stick it in a cage for our amusement is simply ridiculous. How many of us would like to be stuck in an enclosure, I don't care how natural or comfortable that it is, and then told we can never leave? Not many, but since we are not talking about people than it does not matter. Animals do not belong in cages. They are meant to be out in the wild. So, when we place animals in situations that they instinctually do not belong in then we cannot hold them accountable for their actions. The only people that can be held accountable for animal attacks occurring in zoos or a circus are we. Not just the owner of the zoo or circus, but the person that was attacked as well. After all, they are the ones paying the fee to enter an area where dangerous animals are kept. Its all about responsibility and too often are we not willing to accept our share of the responsibility in this day and age.

Animals are not governed by the same things that we are. If a person wrongs us then we get angry. If a person loves us then we love back. Human beings are capable of an array of emotions including, jealousy, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc. We also have the ability to plot and scheme. If someone makes us extremely angry or jealous then we may wish to do harm against that other person. Animals do not think this way and yet whenever I hear, or read of an animal attack; I always hear someone try to attribute human motivations to why the animal behaved the way it did. Real life is not Lady and the Tramp, or Over the Hedge. Animals do not reason like we do. The only activities that animal are concerned with are eating, sleeping, pooping, peeing, and reproduction. From the day they are born till the day they die, they are only concerned with life processes.

Our way of life along with our highly developed brain allows us to move beyond these simple processes. They are still there and will forever remain the focal point of life, but they will never consume as much of our lives as it does for animals. Humans still need to eat, sleep, poop, pee, reproduce, etc. We have more free time that allows us to focus on other things. We work for food and recreational things. We get water from a well and live in houses and apartments. This allows us to apply our energies elsewhere. Animals are not afforded this. Mainly because they have not evolved to the extent that humans have. This is nobodies fault, its just how it is. With this evolution comes responsibility on our part. We have to realize that we are responsible for our actions because we are aware of our actions. It is different with animals, they are not aware of their actions.

If I am walking in the woods and a grizzly bear attacks me, it does not do so out of anger. The grizzly may simply see me as an easy target. If it is hungry then it will look for food. It is wrong to say that human beings are not part of what they eat. A bear will eat just about anything if it is hungry. We know that bears eat meat. In fact, bears have been known to eat everything from berries to bucks. I think the reason that we say things like, "They don't normally eat people", or "We are not part of their diet", is because we are rarely in contact with bears. Since our evolution we have put ourselves in contained environments called houses, which are surrounded by towns and cities. No bears here, although in rural areas, residents can catch glimpses of bears in their back yards. The bottom line is that we are meat. Yes, human beings are meat. We are. You can slice us, dice us, stick us in a frying pan, and eat us. You will not starve either. I'm sure we are packed with tons of protein and fat, perfect for surviving long winters. We don't normally think of us as food, because we tend to frown on cannibalism. We eat chicken, beef, pork, lamb, duck, lobsters, crabs, etc, etc. There is very little on this earth that we don't eat.

Why is a bear eating a person any more appalling than a human eating a bear? I think the main reason is that we then imagine if it were we getting eaten, and then we conclude that it would suck. Whether it sucks or not does not matter. What does matter is that we are edible just like any other animal on this planet. To say that a bear is blood thirsty, or got the taste for blood is a ridiculous statement as well. From the time they are a bear cub; they have the taste for blood and they eat plenty of it. What they mean by "have a taste for blood" is that they have tasted human and like it. Here is a good example. If I had never tasted Chinese food before and then I try it, and then it turns out that I love it. I am going to want to eat Chinese food as often as possible. In reality I love Chinese food, and would eat it everyday if I could. The same may be true for bears. How do we know what we taste like? We don't eat each other so how do we know whether or not we taste good? For all we know human meat could be the greatest freaking tasting meat on the face of the earth. I will bet it is very tender, given the less active nature of our society.

So, if a bear attacks me, and he gets a taste; it may just be that he likes it. It is only natural for the bear to seek out some more of that tasty meat. So, it is not that a bear is blood thirsty, it just means that he has tasted human, likes it, and continues to seek it. Human beings make nice targets. Look at us, we have no claws, no long sharp teeth, we are not very big, and have lost the ability to protect ourselves in the wild without a club, knife, or a gun. The only thing we have going for us in that situation is our higher intelligence. Since we can't kill the bear with our bare hands we are forced to try and outsmart it by playing dead. Incidentally we are not the only animals that employ this tactic.

Another very important piece the grizzly bear attack puzzle is human expansion. We are constantly expanding into new territories that were once inhabited by these animals. How can we be sure how they view this activity? As I said before, I doubt they exhibit any rational human thought to the situation, but they do recognize change. Some animals may be able to associate humans with this change that threatens their home. This may trigger a natural instinct to attack. This may lead an animal to kill for the sake of killing. It is not out of anger or jealousy. All the animal knows is that we are responsible for the changes, they feel threatened, and they attack. This is much the same as a young male lion challenging the older lion for control of the pride. During rutting season, bucks lock horns for the right to mate. These are instinctual actions that may be triggered by human encroachment into an animal's territory. This would then cause an animal to see us as a threat, and in the animal world you only do two things with a threat: you either drive it away or you kill it. This behavior may account for some of the animal attacks that occur in this country and around the world.

Of course; It depends upon what animal you are talking about. Bears, deer, big cats may exhibit this behavior but it is highly unlikely that a shark or a crocodile would. In the case of many shark attacks it is either a case mistaken identity, or they just don't care, because it looks edible and they are going to eat it. It can't say for sure about crocs, but I would assume that the majority of attacks are about food with a handful about territory.

Conclusions;

The bottom line is that many of the animal attacks that occur in this country are simply a matter of an opportune meal. Human beings wander into environments where animals live and they simply view us as an easy target. Animals see us as food, nothing more. How often do we think twice before cutting into a steak or eating a burger? This is much the same way, as a predator would view us in their environment. They don't see us as a person; they see us as a nice juicy steak...for arguments sake. We need to keep this in mind before we venture out anywhere that we can come into contact with these animals. Even if you don't think of some of these animals as dangerous, you still have to be cautious. Just ask anyone that has been attacked by a deer! Many of us would not assume a deer would pose a threat, but they can do damage. In the end we cannot ever really comprehend why the animal attacked us. The fact remains that animals can and do attack. Sometimes we live and sometimes we die. If we choose to enter the woods then we much accept this consequence. We must also keep this in mind when moving into a new housing development. It will take animals time to let go of old territories and seek out new territories. Unfortunately they may not always be able to and this brings humans and animals into contact more and more. As much as we like to think that we rule the earth, it's only an illusion. It is an illusion that can cost us dearly if we are not careful in the future.

I am not saying that if a bear kills a person or a child that it should not be killed. Personally, I believe it depends upon the circumstances of the attack and the wishes of the family members. Ultimately, whether or not the animal is put down I assure you that the animal has no sense of right or wrong. If an animal such as a bear eats a person, than in all likely hood it will try to eat another. We must taste good to them, or else the statement, "That bears got a taste for blood", would not have survived as long as it has. So ,what do you do with an animal like that? I guess the only thing we could do is try not to give them the opportunity to get a liking for people meat. We need to be more aware about how the world works beyond the confines of our cities and towns. There is another world that we left long ago called the wild. Knowledge is power. We need to be aware of the possibility of an attack when we enter the woods. We must always be aware that if we live in rural areas that the possibility still also remains. We should familiarize ourselves with the animals that pose a threat in our region and find out what measures we can take to ensure our safety.

As far as zoos go, we should take full responsibility there. If an animal in captivity eats one of us then oh freaking well! It's our fault the animal is in that situation in the first place. Elephants belong in Africa, polar bears belong up north, and lions belong in Africa, and so on and so forth. We can't expect them to suppress millions of years of natural instincts simply because we want to train them to entertain us. That is simply absurd. The same can be said for a circus or any other form of entertainment that utilizes wild animals. No matter how well trained we think they may be, they can still attack us for whatever reason. The bottom line is that we would not get attacked if we did not put animals in the position to attack us. If we had left the elephant in Mexico in Africa where it belongs than that trainer would still be alive today, hopefully in a different profession.

Even the most domesticated animals on the planet can still be unpredictable. A dog can turn on its owner in a heartbeat. It may have never done so before and it may never do so again. Still, it is not that animal's fault; it is the fault of the person with the animal. I have had more than my fare share of cats and dogs in my lifetime and I have had a few scars to prove it. As far as I am concerned it goes with the territory. If I am willing to have a pet then I must be willing to bear the consequences of that animal's action

What is Anime

         Anime is an abbreviation for the word animation.

In English, main dictionary sources define anime as "a Japanese style of motion-picture animation" or "a style of animation developed in Japan". Since anime or animçshon is used to describe all forms of animation, Japanimation is used to distinguish Japanese work from that of the rest of the world.

In more recent years, anime has also frequently been referred to as manga in European countries, a practice that may stem from the Japanese usage: In Japan, manga can refer to both animation and comics (although the use of manga to refer to animation is mostly restricted to non-fans).

Anime often draws influence from manga, light novels, and other cultures. Anime can be broadcast on television and is widely distributed via any form of media presentations, such as DVD, video and the internet. Anime is sometimes referred to as Japanimation, but this term has fallen into disuse

When it comes to the countries that are outside of Japan, the word is known to most popularly refer to the animation that originates in Japan.

However, if you travel to the west you will find that the word anime is not always considered as referring to animation but it is thought to be a subset of animation.

Anime is available outside of Japan in localized form. Anime has also been a commercial success in Asia, Europe and Latin America, where anime has become even more mainstream than in the United States.

Anime features a wide variety of artistic styles. There is some anime that is drawn by hand however there is also some that is computer assisted animation which has actually became very popular over the years.

Anime or manga tends to be targeted at teenage or young male adults. Anime is often considered a form of limited animation. When it comes to anime, it is just like any other entertainment medium in which the actual story lines are used to actually represent the major genres of the actual fiction.

There are many ways that you can watch anime because of the fact that it is broadcasted on television as well as distributed on media that is often known as DVD as well as VHS and it is also included in the video games that are played by adults as well as children.

There is some anime that is even produced as motion pictures that are full length. It is known that anime actually draws its influence from what are known as manga as well as light novels and certain other cultures as well.

There have also been some anime storylines that have actually been adapted into what is known as live action films as well as television series.

The actual history of anime is known to have begun in the very beginning of the twentieth century. This was the actual time that the Japanese filmmakers were experimenting with the techniques of animation. This type of animation was also at that time being experimented with in other countries such as France and Germany as well as Russia and the United States as well.

As a result of this work and that of other pioneers in the field, anime developed characteristics and genres that are fundamental elements of the art today.

Anime became very popular in Japan because it provided an alternative outlet for the art of storytelling. In sharp contrast when compared to the undeveloped industry of live action that was currently being used within Japan.

In the United States as that time the live action industry had a generous budget, whereas the country of Japan had a small market and they also suffered from budgeting problems as well as location and not to mention the restrictions that were placed on the casting.

Anime-influenced animation refers to non-Japanese works of animation that emulate the visual style of anime. Some authorities say that Anime is closely related to the Japanese comics, called manga. Anime also tends to borrow many elements from manga including text in the background, and borrowing panel layouts from the manga as well.

Many anime series got their start as popular manga. Anime is often thought provoking and provides an excellent foundation for raising important issues with your children. Some anime storylines have been adapted into live action films and television series

Anime burst onto the scene in September of 1963, when NBC syndicated a dubbed version of the Japanese series Astro Boy. Robot anime like Gundam and Macross became instant classics in the 80s, and the robot genre of anime is still one of the most heard of in Japan and worldwide today.

In the 1980s, anime was accepted in the mainstream in Japan, and experienced a boom in production (It should be noticed that, manga has significantly more mainstream exposure than anime in Japan). The mid-to-late '90s, on into the 2000s, saw an increased acceptance of anime in overseas markets.

There are many books available that can help in perfecting the anime drawing style. Such books come complete with information and instructions on the styles used in anime.

A common approach is the large eyes style drawn on many anime and manga characters, credited to the influence of Osamu Tezuka, who was inspired by the exaggerated features of American cartoon characters such as Betty Boop and Mickey Mouse and from Disney's Bambi.

Although not all anime have large eyes many western audiences associate anime with large detailed eyes as many shounen or boy comics and shoujo young girl comics depict their characters with large eyes.

Other stylistic elements are common as well; often in comedic anime, characters that are shocked or surprised will perform a "face fault", in which they display an extremely exaggerated expression.

In anime the lines are often influenced more from a stylistic look from brushwork, rather than that of the calligrapher's pen. This is best demonstrated in the anime Karekano.

The anime may also be edited to alter cultural references that may not be understood by a non-Japanese person and certain companies may remove what may be perceived as objectionable content.

Anime also provides a window into another culture. Anime seems to function very effectively as a cultural ambassador.

Anime has a dedicated fan following in English speaking countries, particularly active on the Internet, and at conventions regularly held throughout the US and UK.

Jim Moore comes from a background in engineering and financial services software. Jim has spent the last 20 years as a professional writer