Closed rescues do a significantly better job when it comes to saving the lives of animals, and the numbers prove this without a shadow of a doubt. Over the entire history of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the lives saved is numbered in the millions. When compared to the number of animals that the open rescue network has saved — roughly a few hundred — it becomes very clear who the winner is if the metric is damage caused to the target or animals’ lives saved. Open rescue is great for media stunts and exposure that can change hearts and minds, while ALF-style raids are good for saving individual animals and maximizing damage. If the ALF had targeted Ridglan Farms, the liberators would not have walked away empty-handed.
TYLER LANG: People have been breaking into laboratories and fur farms for decades under various banners, and the open rescue approach popularized by groups like Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) and the closed rescue approach from decentralized movements like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) share almost nothing in common outside the fact that they both use the tactic of animal rescue. On the surface both approaches are about liberating animals, but the strategy and goals are what truly define these groups of activists.
For the past decade or so in the United States, the majority of the focus from our movement has been fixated on the media-hungry approach of open rescue, and I often wonder if our movement has forgotten that we do not need to let our enemies know we are coming to liberate the animals in advance — and further, we do not need to intentionally get arrested after the action is over. I have rarely seen open discussions about these two approaches, and with many activists asking this exact question on social media in the wake of the Ridglan action, now seems like a good time to address the issue…
The power of the ALF largely comes from the fact that the actions are carried out in secret and, instead of being designed to maximize media exposure like open rescue, they are intended to maximize damage against the companies targeted.
If the Animal Liberation Front were planning an action against Ridglan Farms, the activists carrying out the action would not make a social media post notifying the farm that they are coming, but instead would go to great lengths to keep their preparations secret. The ALF would not have video calls with hundreds of strangers to plan their rescue on Ridglan, but instead would communicate in person with only their most trusted confidants. There would be no media stations or police waiting for the ALF on the scene because nobody outside the working group would even know that the action was about to happen.
If the Animal Liberation Front had targeted Ridglan Farms, the liberators would not have walked away empty-handed…
Closed rescues do a significantly better job when it comes to saving the lives of animals, and the numbers prove this without a shadow of a doubt. A single ALF-style raid can result in thousands of animals being liberated.
The last time the ALF was truly active in the United States was the summer of 2013: tens of thousands of animals were saved from farms in the USA. I am able to speak to this because I was part of an ALF cell that liberated 2,000 minks from a fur farm in Illinois, resulting in the farm permanently closing and causing the facility $200,000 in damage.
Over the entire history of the ALF, the lives saved is numbered in the millions. When compared to the number of animals that the open rescue network has saved — roughly a few hundred — it becomes very clear who the winner is if the metric is damage caused to the target or animals’ lives saved.
But as we discussed earlier, open rescue has never been about the animals in the farms targeted, but rather the cultural shifts that we can create with the stories told by the activists who rescue them. A major shortcoming of ALF-style raids is that they are occasionally vilified and, because they operate anonymously, there is no possibility of using them for mass mobilization. Getting 1,000 people to Wisconsin for a closed rescue is simply out of the question…
The style of direct action that one favors has less to do with one being better or worse and more to do with how the individual participating views the world and what their goals are with the action… Open rescue is great for media stunts and exposure that can change hearts and minds, while ALF-style raids are good for saving individual animals and maximizing damage. The only time ALF actions break news stories comparable to what has happened in the past month in Wisconsin is when someone gets caught and goes to prison. SOURCE
RELATED VIDEO: