By Richard Farinato
Two years ago, Heather Herman could never have imagined the
David vs. Goliath battle currently unfolding in Denver, where
the teenager and a group of grassroots animal activists find
themselves playing the underdog role to the multimillion-dollar
circus industry.
The scrap started in 2002 when Herman, then only 13 years
old, founded Youth Opposed to Animal Acts (YOTAA), a group of
students against the use of wild animals in circuses. Her cause
has grown exponentially in two years, and now she is the force
behind a ballot initiative that on August 10 will allow the
citizens of Denver to decide if they want wild animals
performing in their city. If the initiative is approved, Denver
would become the largest city to ban the use of wild animals in
entertainment displays or exhibits.
Herman and her supporters—Denver for Cruelty Free
Circuses (DCFC), a group that grew out of YOTAA—gathered
more than 10,000 signatures to put Initiative 100 on the
ballot. In so doing, they have not only placed the issue of
wild animals in circuses on the map again, but have also taken
on major traveling shows like Ringling Bros. and Barnum &
Bailey Circus, which stand to lose millions annually if the
initiative passes.
The circus industry, unlike the tigers under a trainer's
whip, is not about to roll over for Initiative 100. It plans to
fight it, and has already launched a discredit campaign against
Herman, calling her "sincere" but "misinformed."
That's where we come in. Looking to support the sincere and
well-informed efforts of Herman and her colleagues, The
Humane Society of the United States joined with the DCFC and
the Dumb Friends League to hold a press conference on
Wednesday, June 23, to urge Denver residents to vote "yes" on
Initiative 100. The press conference also honored Herman for
her activism and for creating this historic opportunity for the
people of Denver to speak up for animals.
It's a Circus All Right
The HSUS opposes the use of wild animals in circuses and
other traveling acts because of the inhumane treatment that
circus animals endure. We also believe that circuses with
performing wild animals
pose unjustifiable risks to the public.
Performing elephants, lions, tigers, and bears suffer from
constant travel, intensive confinement, and a lack of exercise
and stimulation. With few exceptions, they 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. Their routine
care is often entrusted to seasonal or temporary circus
employees, people with little or no experience with such
animals.
Wild animals working in any circus experience stress,
trauma, and boredom when not performing. 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. Elephants in circuses develop foot, skin, and
skeletal problems; tigers suffer hip and eye problems; and
elephants, big cats, and bears in close confinement all exhibit
stereotyped rocking and pacing behaviors that stem from
unhealthy living conditions.
Recently the Detroit Zoo voluntarily agreed to turn over its elephants to
a sanctuary because it could not provide adequate and humane
living conditions, given the zoo's one-acre enclosure and the
city's harsh winters. Detroit's landmark action raises a
pertinent question: If a zoo that does not transport its
animals and does not chain them at any time recognizes that it
cannot adequately care for the animals, then how can a circus
that transports the animals to 100 cities a year, keeps them in
makeshift holding areas, and restrains them on chains for up to
22 hours a day provide proper care?
Jumping Through Hoops
The circus industry purports to employ only positive
reinforcement methods in training wild animals. Video and
eyewitness accounts provide evidence to the contrary.
No wild animal jumps through flaming hoops or balances on
tiny platforms out of love or a desire for a treat. A trainer's
control of elephants, big cats, and other wild animals depends
essentially on his or her position of dominance. Remember, big
cats, bears, and elephants are not submissive to other species
in their native habitats, and it would be highly unusual for
them to exhibit submissive behavior to a 180-pound person.
Excessive and abusive training methods are used to establish
and maintain the control a trainer needs to make animals
perform tricks. Although positive reinforcement is part of a
trainer's repertoire, it is by no means his or her only tool,
and is never enough to guarantee control over a four-ton
elephant. When an animal inevitably challenges a trainer's
position or refuses a command, abusive training methods are
often employed to reinforce human authority.
Regardless of how well-trained an animal is or how skillful
the trainer may be, the animals most commonly used in circuses
and other traveling animal acts are not domesticated, which
means they may behave instinctively and unpredictably. Ask Las
Vegas entertainer Roy Horn, who was mauled last year by a
600-pound white tiger who had countless performances under his
tail.
Other examples are numerous and well-documented. One of the
worst occurred in 1994 at a Circus International show in
Hawaii, when an African elephant named Tyke crushed her trainer
to death, injured 12 spectators, ran loose in the streets for
30 minutes, and was shot repeatedly by police until she died.
Such incidents bring to light not only the suffering and stress
endured by performing wild animals, but also the risk these
animals pose to the public.
The Local Motion
The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which is the basic
legal protection for wild animals in circuses, sets minimal
standards for their handling, care, treatment, and transport.
AWA standards, which are enforced by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), are both insufficient and inconsistently
enforced.
This combination of minimal standards and lax enforcement
permits circuses and traveling wild animal acts to do basically
as they wish with their animals. After all, without constant
oversight from federal inspectors, handlers practically
exercise carte blanche when training or caring for their
animals.
But even if USDA inspectors made routine visits, the AWA
standards are so broadly written—and therefore broadly
interpreted—as to provide little to no safeguards for animals.
To cite just one example: Under the "Watering" category of the
AWA code, the rule reads, "If potable water is not accessible
to the animals at all times, it must be provided as often as
necessary for the health and comfort of the animal." Circuses
can read that line to mean that they provide water for only a
few minutes twice a day.
Furthermore, facilities not in full compliance with the AWA
are frequently given several chances to correct violations, and
persistent violators have rarely faced federal prosecution or
lost possession of animals. Many major circuses have been cited
for serious violations of the AWA, and in the case of Ringling
Bros., little action has been taken on a dozen investigations
of elephant abuse claims. In fact, USDA investigations have
been quietly closed without any public disclosure of the
findings.
To bring those findings to light, the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The Fund for Animals, and
the Animal Welfare Institute have jointly
issued a report and filed a lawsuit to force the USDA to
make public the results of its investigations of Ringling's
elephant handling.
Even when abuses are clearly evident, the federal and state
regulatory authorities often do not act decisively or swiftly.
Earlier this year, the USDA ordered the Hawthorn Corporation in
Chicago, Illinois, to relinquish its 16 elephants, which it
provides to circuses and other performance venues. The 19
charges to which Hawthorn admitted guilt included, among
others, failing to handle elephants so that there was minimal
risk to the public and to the animals. It took 10 years of AWA
violations, starting with Tyke, for the USDA to lower the boom
on Hawthorn.
This bureaucratic and byzantine federal process has made
local action, like Heather Herman's, so important. Local
ordinances can slice instantly through miles of federal red
tape. But local laws are not easy to pass, particularly in
larger cities.
Four years ago, in 2000, the battle lines were drawn in
Seattle. Mayor Paul Schell introduced an ordinance to ban the
use of wild animals in circuses, but the law failed by one vote
when the City Council acted on it in February 2000. Among other
reasons for killing off the ordinance, city council members
noted the loss of "family" entertainment to Seattle. According
to news accounts at the time, Feld Entertainment, which owns
Ringling Bros., said that if the ordinance opassed, Seattle
would never again see the circus or other Feld-produced events
such as Disney on Ice.
Such threats have not stopped others from passing bans.
Forty U.S. cities and counties have prohibited the use of wild
animals in entertainment displays or exhibits. About the same
number of locales in Canada have taken similar action. And
while 15 states have some restrictions on direct contact
between the public and wild animals, these are often qualified
as to species and size of animals; they don't prohibit the use
of wild and dangerous animals in performance.
While no large city has yet passed an ordinance prohibiting
wild animals in circuses, a number of smaller and mid-sized
towns have, many of them on the east and west coasts, in
progressive states like Massachusetts and California. The
circus industry is beginning to feel the pinch in the
pocketbook, and has cranked up the PR machinery to fight these
local battles. Denver is obviously next in line, and the
momentum—not to mention 10,000 local citizens—is on the side of
the animal activists.
Like it always does, the circus industry will claim that
public concern is fueled by emotional animal rights rhetoric.
The reality, the industry will claim, is that circuses promote
conservation and education; that it is committed to the welfare
of animals; and that a special bond exists between trainers and
animals. All of these claims are dramatically misleading.
The circus may be part of our culture, but tradition is not
enough to justify the continued use of performing wild animals.
Circus animals are a commodity; they are traded, sold, and
rented within a network of circuses and animal dealers each
season. The costs to animals and people are far too high. The
circus poses a risk to public safety in the form of powerful
and unpredictable wild animals; it provides no meaningful
educational messages about wildlife or conservation; and it
subjects animals to inhumane conditions every day.
Like Heather Herman and DCFC, we should all act in our own
communities to make sure tradition does not allow inhumane
treatment of any animal.
Richard Farinato is The HSUS's
Director of Captive Wildlife Programs and the Wildlife Advocacy
Division.
