«Open Rescue» – Animal Liberation Unmasked

Liberating non-human animals from farms, laboratories, and other facilities has always been a part of the animal liberation movement. Animal liberations are classified into two different types of action: undercover-anonymous and open liberations. The former are usually associated with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Distinctive features of ALF animal liberation actions include participating agents wearing black, neutral clothing and balaclavas to disguise their identities. Since the mid-1990s, there has been an increase in so-called Open Rescues which, as the name suggests, are not covert. The activists reveal their identities after the action and publish the entire documentation either through conventional media, websites, or social media. Due to the disclosure of identity, Open Rescues are easier to classify as civil disobedience than covert actions, which is expected to increase the sympathy and support of the public. However, Open Rescues also bear risks. Exposing one’s identity puts activists at risk of being less efficient or even being removed from activism altogether. But not only activists are at risk of jeopardizing their freedom. Rescued animals, which may be identified through the identity of the activists, can be imprisoned again or killed. Consequently, we discuss the strategic advantages and risks of Open Rescues.

Animal Liberation Unmasked: The Origins of Open Rescues

The first Open Rescue took place in 1993. The idea emerged when Australian activist Patty Mark watched undercover footage of the Alpine Poultry laying hen factory. The footage was sent to her by an acquaintance working in the factory. The video showed thousands of hens crammed into small wire mesh cages. Those who managed to escape the cages became stuck between the cage bars or were trapped in the area below. The animals died a slow and agonizing death and the staff showed no empathy towards the suffering hens. This was not the first time Mark had learned about the appalling conditions in egg factories. Mark had already actively, but unsuccessfully, spoken out against battery farming of laying hens and participated in both legal and illegal protests.¹ Even after she presented incriminating video evidence against Alpine Poultry to the authorities, they again failed to take action and allowed the animal cruelty to continue. As a result, Mark decided to take the rescue of the hens into her own hands.² On March 5, 1993, Mark and fellow activists broke into the farm and took the sickest and weakest animals. They documented the living conditions of the hens and their liberation with extensive video and photographic material. Afterwards, the participants informed the police and the media and described the course of actions. Under the title "The Dungeons of Alpine Poultry" the images were broadcast and the egg factory sharply critizised. However, the media not only portrayed the suffering of the hens, but also the role of the activists and their decision to publicly declare their support for the action. Especially the latter led to a different perception of animal liberation.³

Open Rescues attract especially younger activists and become more popular than covert actions. The success and current popularity of this type of activism can be explained most easily by three approaches:

• Historical-strategic approach: The development of factory farming, which was not perceptible or visible for the consumers, resulted in the consumers distancing themselves with the consumed "product". Animal liberations and the documentation of their living conditions tries to remove this alienation. Various campaigns within animal liberation activism show that shocking visuals, when presented in the right way, can achieve a wide reach and provoke change. Openness allegedly leads to more positive interest in what is happening than anonymity and allows space for conversation and debate.
• Ideological Approach: Open Rescues allow activists to justify trespassing on private space as well as the illegal removal of animals as acts of civil disobedience, which is more challenging for covert liberations that involve property damage.
• Representative approach: The deliberate separation from the ALF enables Open Rescue activists bypass the negative reputation of covert actions.

All three factors are discussed below.

Patty Mark - The Founder of Open Rescues⁶

The historical-strategic approach: Education through visual media

a.) The secret and rapid rise of intensive animal agriculture

The first Open Rescues under Mark’s leadership were heavily covered by the media and discussed throughout Australia. Factory farming and intensive animal exploitation was not a familiar concept to many people and especially not something they suspected was happening in their own country.⁴ Activists took note of this general lack of awareness or ignorance towards the horrors of modern animal agriculture and increasingly utilized visual media as an effective strategy to educate. Their approach was based on the thesis that due to the almost hidden but rapid expansion of intensive animal agriculture, people have lost emotional and empathic access to the creatures that are later processed into food, and that only confrontation with reality can provoke a change in behavior.⁵

The development towards fewer, but more intensively used and larger farms continues to this day.⁷ In the example of Australia, the number of farms has decreased by a quarter in the period between 1982 and 2003, but at the same time the consumption of animal products is steadily developing.⁸ Keeping animals intensively on a small area not only allows for more efficient use of land, but also leads to reduced costs of labor, cleaning, and food. Intensive animal farming developed over the course of the 18th to 19th centuries. Free-range animal agriculture around farms and in urban areas shifted to remote, industrialized, and centralized farms. Crucial to this development was the invention of new technologies and the subsequent economically strategic utilization of space. Automated work processes replaced individual workers, and farm workers increasingly viewed themselves as producers and technicians rather than “caretakers”.⁹

From a historical perspective, the development toward more intensive animal farming can be explained to a certain extent in economic terms. Additionally, the creation of cheap and accessible animal based foods for all parts of society was a means to prevent malnutrition and improved the general standard of living, since the consumption of meat had previously been considered a status symbol and a sign of wealth.¹⁰

This multidimensional function of animal flesh – on the one hand, the economic potential and, on the other hand, the increase in the standard of living across social groups – can be illustrated by the example of the construction of the chicken industry. Until almost halfway through the 19th century, raising chickens for flesh was unusual and chicken farming served primarily for egg production. The flesh of chicken was therefore a luxury good. This changed at the end of the 19th century. New Jersey resident Joseph P. Wilson introduced a novel technique for rearing chicks by inventing an incubator that was powered by hot water and which could house up to 400 eggs at a time. Because the new incubator allowed many chicks to be raised at once, Wilson subsequently transported them over long distances by rail for the first time and was able to deliver to interested parties who did not live nearby. By 1918, there were 52 hatcheries in the U.S., nine years later there were more than 10,000. As demand grew, more competing hatcheries and nurseries opened their doors, driving the price of chicken flesh steadily lower. In 1925, 50,000 chickens were sold and killed for food in the state of Delaware, and by 1934, nearly 10 years later, the number had reached seven million.¹¹ Intensive animal agriculture, as well as advances in genetic modification of animals, was rapidly exported from the U.S. to other industrialized countries, transforming chicken flesh from a luxury good into one of the most affordable foods available.¹² Open (as well as oftentimes covert) liberations attempt to make this development transparent.

b.) Bringing the truth to light: Covert photography as an effective tool for animal liberation activism

The hidden construction of intensive animal agriculture led the animal liberation movement to make greater strategic use of image and video mediums.¹³ Visual media should help to give consumers an insight into the industry and bring them as close as possible to reality. The movement has already proven that such strategies are effective. One of the most famous examples is the publication and documentation of the release of the bear macaque Britches by ALF activists (more information on Britches release can be found at the article on the ALF). Not only organizations integrated this form of activism into their strategy. Individuals also began to release amateur video documentaries on a smaller scale. Steve Hindi, founder of the organization SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) was one of the first to single-handedly put pressure on authorities through this tactic. Hindi advocates the idea that confrontational campaigns and explicit visuals are the only way to get people to renounce animal cruelty. Similar to Mark, Hindi’s attitudes arose from the realization that authorities did not initiate investigations unless they were under public pressure.¹⁴ Video evidence is therefore strategically useful not only to influence public opinion, but also to hold certain institutions accountable.¹⁵ This is where covert and overt liberations overlap.

The ideological approach: The Pillars of Open Rescues.

The success of Open Rescues was initially great in Australia, ushering in a new era of activism for animal liberation. Open Rescues were adapted worldwide and continued to evolve. All organizations or individuals running Open Rescues share a common understanding of the integration of the following criteria:

1.) Animal liberation: one or more animals must be liberated. 2.) Non-violence: all forms of violence, including damaging property, are rejected. The only exception is when property must be damaged to get to the animals. 3.) Publicity: video or image documentation must be made public either through conventional media, activist press or social media. 4.) Disclosure of Identity: At least one person must claim responsibility for the action.¹⁶

Open Rescues build primarily on the third and fourth directives, which state that animal exploitation must be made public. It is only optional in ALF actions, or can even be disregarded if its implementation jeopardizes future activism. While there are many ALF actions that have found their way into the public domain, such as the liberation of Britches, Open Rescues must always be made public, as the essential criterion of disclosure only works if the identities of the activists are published either through conventional media or social media.

But there is another component to the unmasking: normalization. Mark's goal, in addition to freeing non-human animals, was to stage their removal as a virtue rather than a crime. Images of masked activists, Mark says, give the viewer the sense that something wrong is being done. By openly freeing animals, Mark sought to reverse this rhetoric and to debunk the "criminal" component of the actions by emphasizing the need for urgent assistance: “Clearly we were not breaking the law by giving aid to animals who were trapped and slowly starving to death and in great torment.”¹⁷ Michal Kolesár, an Open Rescue activist active in the Czech Republic, shares the same view as Mark and identifies identity disclosure not only as a means to reach larger segments of consumers, but he sees no reason to mask if his act is a morally right one:

I do not respect the status quo that protects, supports and legitimizes animal abuse. I do not run away, I do not hide my identity, I say my name to a camera, I say my ID number, I publish the recordings from the actions. It is easier to identify with the horror of the slaughterhouse (which makes my fists clenched so much I could die) when what can be seen is a real human face that shares the sheer dread with the animals.¹⁸

Laws that legitimize exploitation and violence against animals are not acknowledged by activists like Kolesár and Mark. Kolesár also points out that open rescues are strategically preferable to covert liberations because the viewes identify with the reactions and emotions shown by the activists which leads to more empathy towards the animals. Unmasking and complete nonviolence take away the militant component of liberations and allow them to classify under acts of civil disobedience.¹⁸

There are usually four criteria that an act of civil disobedience must include:

• Breaking the Law: Civil disobedience necessarily consists of an act violating the law.¹⁹ Overt as well as covert liberations satisfy this condition.
• Conscientiousness: The action serves to show that certain laws that permit or protect immoral practices are wrong. Both types of liberation can meet this criterion. Open Rescue activists can speak out and take a stand directly, while ALF activists use signatures, activist press news outlets or graffiti to express their displeasure with certain laws.
• Communication: Activists must be able to publicize their concerns and demands and take a stand. Open Rescuers often use arrests and court dates in addition to conventional and social media, to bring attention to their cause.²⁰ This aspect of communication is usually absent in covert actions because those involved cannot or will not make a personal statement publicly due to anonymity.
• Nonviolence: destruction of property almost always counts as violence in the discourse around civil disobedience. Since the use of violence undermines the civil character of the action, actions that involve damage to property are not categorized under the concept of civil disobedience. ALF activists often destroy personal property of targeted individuals in order to generate financial harm in addition to liberation.²¹ Open Recue activists reject property damage.

Open Rescue thus meets every criterion to be classified as civil disobedience.

Kolesár during an Open Rescue.²⁹

Patty Mark and other activists at an Open Rescue.

## The Representative Approach: Moving Away from the ALF

Revealing the identities of the activists allowed the media to engage with them directly, to explore their motivations, and to talk with them about the image and video evidence.²² Where ALF actions are often denoted in the media with concepts such as “terrorism” and descriptions like ”animal rights extremism” and “radicalism”,²³ Open Rescues are more difficult to demonize because activists can publicly stand up for their cause and explain themselves.²⁴

Mark felt that the reputation of the animal liberation movement has suffered from its classification as a terrorist threat. In many countries, the ALF counts as a domestic eco-terrorist group.²⁵ Mark consciously responded to this problem by not only revealing her identity and thus becoming ideologically capable of stripping animal liberation of its allegedly illegitimate character, she also rejects any use of "violence" against property.

"There is a fear of violence, a sense that these cloak-and-dagger style operations have no place in a “civilized” society. It is the activists, in other words, that tend to be envisioned as the ones causing harm in this version of events." (Keri Cronin in einem Artikel über Mark)²

The rejection of "violence" is essential for Mark to achieve the main goals that Open Rescue has as efficiently as possible. Only when no harm is done to humans, animals, or property, and thus the freedom of all is respected, it is possible to generate change in a positive way.²⁶ The combination of disclosure of identity and strict non-violence resulted in Open Rescues receiving more media attention and public responses than ALF animal liberations. They also provide less ground for the application of contemporary concepts of terrorism to Open Rescues.²⁷

Mark drew this distinction early on. At an international meeting in New York in 1999 – called the United Poultry Concern Forum On Direct Action for Animals – Mark presented her findings regarding the benefits of Open Rescues to American ALF activists. At the conference, Mark presented two videos, one of an ALF rescue of laboratory animals in Minnesota and one of an Open Rescue of laying hens in Australia. The activists watched both videos and analyzed the impact they had on them. The majority of those attending perceived Open Rescue positively, emphasizing that they sympathized with the activists and the openness. In contrast, the activists felt that the ALF rescue seemed rather threatening due to the complete covering of the participants and the fact that the footage was hastily filmed. Mark's sharp distinction between militant and non-militant animal liberation was controversial. In the discussion of the videos, the activists noted that the rather negative perception of the ALF action does not necessarily result from anonymity, but can be explained by the fact that the sterile, white laboratory and the dirty, noisy battery farm create a completely different atmosphere. In addition, the ALF and the Open Rescue movement pursue different goals. The disclosure of identity aims at media attention. However, the overarching goal of the ALF is not the publication of visual material, but the long-term liberation of non-human animals through eco-sabotage.²⁸

A Glimpse into the Future of Open Rescue: Personality Cult, Selfies with Suffering Animals and State Repression

The immediate consequences for animals caused by Open Rescues are multi-layered, but not all too far-reaching. Just as with covert liberations, the most direct consequence is a life of freedom and non-exploitation for the rescued animals. However, the amount of individuals rescued in Open Rescues is inevitably smaller than in classic ALF actions. This is mainly because the open format is most suitable for liberating smaller animals such as laying hens or rabbits. The disclosure of liberations is always accompanied by the risk that authorities will search for and return the rescued animals. Because small animals are more difficult to trace and identify, the risk that the animals will be returned to captivity is lower. Covert ALF actions are thus more likely to include the rescue of other animals such as pigs, cows, sheep and laboratory animals.³⁰ Another consequence of Open Rescues is the promotion of public discourse on the legitimacy of contemporary farming practices, the exposure of injustices, and the normalization of illegal liberations.³¹ With one exception, however, Open Rescues were unable to change the legal situation in the long term. Even after years of legal lobbying followed by illegal actions and many Open Rescues, battery farming still exists in Australia.³²

In the following, possible difficulties and problems of Open Rescues - strategic as well as ideological – will be discussed.

(1) Likability and media coverage: The media hype generated by the actions surrounding Alpine Poultry did not last. Activists depend on the favor of the media as they decide which action to cover and to what extent. It can be observed that the media either attach stories to charismatic individuals (as in the case of Mark who has national prominence in Australia)³⁴ or to provocative and controversial actions (e.g. DxE’s actions against the supposedly animal-friendly Whole Foods corporation). Creating charismatic sympathetic figures or intensifying pressure on companies allows the media to incorporate a consistency into coverage that makes actions more interesting. Rather unknown, local and poorly networked activists have little chance of extensive and positive coverage of their Open Rescue.

(2) Counter-attacks by farmers: Targeted counter-attacks by farmers are making news coverage more difficult. In a 2004 interview, Mark commented on Open Rescue’s current situation, stating that coverage of liberations is increasingly met with disinterest and that activists are having difficulty getting into national media at all.²⁷ According to certain activists, this trend is connected to the fact that farmers no longer report activists for minor offenses or drop charges before a court date is set.⁴ Since the court cases that follow the actions have been covered extensively by the media, farmers and farm organizations can avoid the negative press they receive by not giving activists additional platforms to show videos and speak out about the horros of intensive animal agriculture.

(3) The role of social media: Many young Open Rescue activists are responding to these two challenges by trying to rely less on conventional media. Younger activists predominantly use the social media platform Instagram to share pictures and videos of animal liberations. Instagram, unlike Facebook and Twitter, is based on sharing image media. Here, a user can publicly share an image or video and attach hashtags to it. This makes the image visible not only to people who follow the user, but also to those who view images tagged with a particular hashtag. In this way, activists achieve a greater reach. For example, in 2017, the Swiss animal rights organization “Pour l’Égalité Animale” (PEA), conducted an undercover investigation in chicken factories of the Optigal brand (associated with the supermarket "Migros"). PEA shared images and videos of this action via Instagram, tagging them with hashtags such as #migros #pouletsuisse #optigal and linking them to Migros’ Instagram profile.³⁵

The posts of Open Rescue activists on social media do not differ much in presentation and description from conventional hit reports of the ALF. Activists mostly post pictures of themselves and the rescued animal, followed by a commentary about the animal’s living conditions and why they are harmful or cruel. Moving the publication of animal rescues to social media seems to be a logical progression from the structure of Open Rescues because activists are able to independently provide constant coverage and are not dependent on the media’s interest in publishing.

The publication of actions via social media has its downside too. Various activists are confronted with accusations of exploiting Open Rescue as a means to self-promotion or to gain followers. An Australian model, for instance, shared videos of a piglet rescue operation with her 70,000 followers on Instagram. A day later, she posted a photo of herself and the piglet on her property. Through the post, authorities were able to track down the activist. As a result, the piglets were returned and killed.³⁶

Thus, a recurring critique of Open Rescues is its portrayal. Not only are activists accused of using animal suffering to award themselves with hero status, but they are also actively promoting speciesist norms. Open Rescue activists often argue that their presence in the footage is justified because the inclusion of humans leads to increased interest. The ALF in particular fears that animals are thus portrayed as passive props rather than active agents in their own liberation struggle. This is a similar criticsism as to the white-saviour complex, a term that refers to white people who travel to countries in Africa to stage themselves as self-proclaimed saviours. Marginalized people are often represented as backward, unqualified, and helpless – creating the illusion that only the white person is capable of bringing progress or providing help. The white-saviour complex reproduces and reinforces postcolonial power structures by not amplifying the voices and work already done by local people and focusing on their struggles, but by putting the – ironically – very unqualified white person at the center. Critics of Open Rescues see parallels to the Saviour Compex in terms of the action format, as the already marginalized group of living beings is relegated to the background and the oppressor, the human, moves to the forefront as the primary figure and head of the liberation movement. The widespread notion that animals bear no agency and are completely helpless can thus be reinforced as humans fill the role of the rescuer and liberator. Animals are also liberated by humans in ALF actions. However, many ALF activists apply a different narrative when talking about liberations. They see their role not so much as the one of a “liberator” but as a provider of assistance to the animals who daily resist individually and collectively on farms, in laboratories as well as in slaughterhouses.

The activist is posing with the rescued piglet, endangering their safety and freedom. Many ALF activists criticize how Open Rescues are executed. Activists are accused of putting their own self-image and self-promotion above the well-being of the liberated individual, or even using their exploitation as a means to an end. The image has been censored by The Animalist.

Activist Lea Doellinger at an Open Rescue. By revealing her identity and sharing her images on social media, Leah has already been arrested several times. She has over 32,000 followers on Instagram and her posts have been regularly shared and further spread.

(4) State repression: In 2006, the U.S. expanded the legal implications of illegal animal liberation activism, classifying radical forms of it (including theft, trespassing on another’s property, and animal liberation) under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).³⁷ A similar development can be observed in Australia. On August 1, 2019, the Australian Parliament decided to add a criminal law amendment to the Criminal Code Act of 1995 to protect farmers. The new law includes two new offenses. The first is trespassing on another’s land and the second is destroying, altering or stealing agricultural property. Both offenses are linked to the fact that footage of the farms is taken and shared through platforms such as social media, websites or blogs. Someone found guilty of trespassing on agricultural property recently can face 12 months in prison, and activists guilty of overt or covert animal liberation can even receive up to five years in prison.³⁸

The law does not aim to protect farmers from physical attacks, but it counteracts the damage to primary agricultural production businesses caused by the publication of illegally obtained videos and images.³⁹ The repressions in Australia can be explained by the increase in illegal actions, as well as by activists implementing escalating tactics.⁴⁰ In Australia, the newly launched law followed numerous mass actions in which activists either occupied farms, freed animals or protested in cities. In one action in March 2019, for example, over 150 activists occupied a dairy farm and live-streamed the conditions they found there via Instagram and Facebook, which also allowed the footage to reach newspapers. Another factor that led to heated tension between activists and farmers is the film “Dominion,” which debuted in 2018 and highlights a wide variety of ways in which animals are used and abused for human purposes. Much of the footage from Australian factory farms has been recorded through hidden cameras, drones or illegal investigations.

Furthermore, the Australian non-profit organization “Aussie Farms”, which gained international recognition for its well-documented investigations into factory farms and slaughterhouses, has published a virtual map in 2019 that shows more than 6,000 animal exploitation facilities and slaughterhouses. According to Aussie Farms, the map serves to create more transparency, as addresses of farms and slaughterhouses are usually not easy to locate.⁴¹ After Aussie Farms made the map available, incidents of activists breaking into farms and posting pictures increased. The Meat and Livestock Association (MLA), the National Farmer’s Federation (NFF), and the Red Meat Industry published extensive articles about the potential dangers farmers face from the release of the interactive map. The associations appealed to the government to protect farmers from attacks by the activists.⁴² Notably, the NFF urged farmers and the public to take action against activists and offered strategies to achieve this goal. These recommended actions ranged from submitting complaints on Facebook about content posted by Aussie Farms, to encouraging people to file complaints with police about Aussie Farms’ illegally taken images, to lobbying and sending letters of protest to authorities.⁴³ Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison sided with the farmers. Following the release of the map and national protests by animal rights activists, the prime minister referred to the activists as “shameful and un-Australian“.⁴⁴ Morrison’s reason for supporting farmers, however, was not just his personal opposition to animal rights activism. The growing clashes between activists and farmers increased pressure on Morrison from animal agriculture associations. Morrison responded to the enhanced pressure by announcing that he wants to intensify laws governing the punishment of activists – with a special focus on activists who share illegally obtained media or information on the Internet: “Those laws have been introduced to criminalize these actions of these cowardly keyboard warriors who incite crimes”,⁴⁵ said Morrison. Further, Morrsion was counting on the support of the agricultural industry in the upcoming election. To avoid losing that support, Morrison needed to control tensions between activists and farmers. The new law thus responded primarily to activists organizing via the Internet.⁴⁶

In many places around the world, the law is moving towards greater repression against animal liberation activists. This means that although more activists are participating in Open Rescue operations, it is likely that there will be a return to covert actions as the law changes and activists are sentenced to harsher penalties. Open Rescues and covert filming have had limited success in forcing legal change – but this form of activism creates the opportunity for cases of animal suffering to become public and for the public and the responsible producers, suppliers and buyers to be directly confronted and held accountable. An increase in state repression against undercover filming and open animal liberation will primarily be at the expense of animals and will mask the corrupt, life-destroying machinations of the animal flesh and exploitation industries.