With decision day quickly approaching, voters in Denver have
been bombarded with opinions, from both the media and slick
circus-sponsored mailers, on why they shouldn't cast a ballot
in favor of Initiative 100, which would ban the use of wild
animals in entertainment displays or exhibits. Opponents have
trotted out the same tired arguments: Banning circuses would
cost the Mile High City millions of dollars in revenue, and
there's no evidence supporting allegations of animal abuse at
circuses.
Both arguments, on closer examination, don't hold any
water.
Thanks to the signature-gathering efforts of teenager Heather Herman and
many other supporters with Denver for Cruelty-Free Circuses,
voters will go to the polls on Tuesday, August 10, to decide
whether to ban wild animals from public performances and
exhibits. Initiative 100 would specifically exempt certain
institutions such as the Denver Zoo and the National Western
Stock Show. Yet opponents act as if it would ban all circuses,
top to bottom, thereby robbing the city of millions in
revenue.
Both daily newspapers in Denver have run editorials against
the initiative, yet neither seems to have done much homework on
the issue. The Rocky Mountain News, for instance, argued
against the initiative by claiming, "There's a full circle of
suburban jurisdictions that would love to host circuses and
enjoy the $8 million they are said to generate annually in
Denver."
"The fact is, no major entertainment industry like the
circus is going to automatically give up a market the size of
Denver, where half a million-plus people live," says Richard
Farinato, director of The HSUS's Captive Wildlife Programs and
the Wildlife Advocacy Division. "If the initiative passes,
these businesses will adapt, which will be good for wild
animals and which could be good for the businesses themselves.
Cirque du Soleil, after all, is one of the most successful
circuses in the entire world, and it doesn't exploit a single
wild animal."
Major touring circuses like Ringling Bros. and Barnum &
Bailey will simply shift from wild animal displays to domestic
animal displays, Farinato says. Instead of lions, tigers and
bears, they may employ dogs, birds and horses, all of whom are
more adapted to domestic life.
Turning a Blind Eye
The Denver City Council has also chimed in on Initiative
100. Councilmembers voted 12-0 on July 12 to oppose the ballot
measure, citing a lack of evidence to the central argument
buried within the initiative: that circuses are cruel to wild
animals. Two councilmembers told the Rocky Mountain News
that supporters have not made a convincing case of animal abuse
at circuses.
The councilmembers apparently based their opinion on the
fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which enforces
the Animal Welfare Act, has never found Ringling Bros. in
violation of the AWA. Which is technically true. But what such
a position ignores is that Ringling and other circuses have
been regularly investigated and charged for violations of the
Animal Welfare Act, some of the violations quite serious. But
those investigations frequently end with Ringling Bros. paying
a fine and then having the case dismissed with little public
attention.
In fact, three major animal protection organizations
recently
issued a scathing report, based on records obtained under
the Freedom of Information Act. In a press release issued by
one of the organizations, American Society for the Prevention
of the Cruelty to Animals, they charge that "in case after case
brought to the USDA in the last five years by animal welfare
organizations, state humane agencies, former Ringling Bros.
employees, and even USDA's own inspectors, the USDA purposely
ignored crucial evidence, closed investigations prematurely,
and overrode its own inspectors' and investigators'
determinations—allowing Ringling to insist to the public that
there is no truth to any allegations that it abuses its
elephants."
The USDA and Feld Entertainment, the parent company of
Ringling Bros., are again under the microscope after the July
death of a 2-year-old lion named Clyde. A recently fired
Ringling Bros. lion trainer reportedly filed an affidavit with
the USDA, claiming that the lion died in an overheated rail
boxcar as the train crossed the Mojave desert on its way to a
stop in California. The trainer claims a supervisor denied two
requests to stop the train and water the lion down, and then
said that he was told not to talk to the USDA about the
incident. Feld officials deny the allegations, but animal
advocates are keeping a close eye on how the incident is
resolved.
Yet you don't need an official USDA ruling to understand
that cruelty is
inherent in a traveling circus, says The HSUS's Farinato.
Performing animals such as elephants, lions, tigers, and bears
suffer from constant travel, intensive confinement, and a lack
of exercise and stimulation, he notes. With few exceptions, the
animals are provided with limited and inconsistent veterinary
care. Often living in filthy and dilapidated enclosures or
chained in one position for the majority of every day, these
animals have no chance to move, let alone express their full
range of natural behaviors or socialize with other members of
their species.
"Wild animals working in any circus experience stress,
trauma, and boredom in and out of the ring," Farinato says. "No
individual experienced in the care of wild animals in captivity
could reasonably believe that the animals' complex physical and
behavioral needs are met in a life of close confinement or on
the road."
Wild circus animals also pose a threat to humans. The most
famous case, of course, is Tyke's. In full public view, the
female elephant was killed in a flurry of bullets in Honolulu
after the circus animal stormed through the audience, killed an
employee and injured another. More recently, a 450-pound white
Bengal escaped from the Cole Brothers Circus in Queens and
caused a five-car pile-up on the Jackie Robinson Parkway. The
injuries were minor and the animal was successfully
tranquilized and returned to his cage, but how many New York
motorists instantly recalled Roy Horn's horrific brush with a white
tiger?
Setting a Precedent
Several cities have already passed bans similar to the one
under consideration in Denver. Most are smaller municipalities
such as Pasadena, California and Hollywood, Florida. Denver
would be, by far, the largest city to ban wild animals in
exhibits and performances.
And that's the very reason Ringling Bros. is investing so
much money and time in Denver, fighting this initiative. Media
reports indicate that Ringling Bros. has given the Keep the
Circus in Denver Committee about $125,000 to fight the
initiative.
"You better believe Ringling is fighting this measure," says
Farinato, "because it will set a precedent. Other major cities
could look at it and follow suit. But if the truth be told,
Ringling's fears are misplaced. This initiative wouldn't kill
off the Denver market for them or other circuses. It would just
cause them to adapt. Their fear of Initiative 100 merely shows
a lack of imagination on their part—and a resistance to change
for the betterment of wild animals."
