Animal groups at it again

[Fitzwilly]

Groups try to stop circus from chaining elephants
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer1 hour, 3 minutes ago


A coalition of animal welfare groups says it has evidence that Ringling Bros. circus elephants are sometimes chained for days at a time, and the groups asked a judge Wednesday to halt the practice while a lawsuit comes to trial.
In federal court papers filed in Washington, the groups said Ringling Bros.' own train records show that the Asian elephants are chained in box cars for an average of more than 26 straight hours, and often 60 to 70 hours at a time, when the circus travels. In some cases, the elephants have been chained on trains for 90 to 100 hours.
The parent company of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Baily Circus has argued that chaining the elephants during transport is necessary and legal.
Steve Payne, a spokesman for Feld Entertainment Inc., said the elephants were restrained "for their own safety" in accordance with federal guidelines. He compared the restraints to a seatbelt and said the box cars are monitored by circus staff.
But the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Katherine Meyer, said some of the elephants are spending more than half their lives in chains.
"It's not fair. It's not humane, what kind of life these animals have to live in order to give a 12-minute performance," Meyer said.
As for the long hours of chaining, Payne said such durations may have occurred in "extreme instances," but he described Wednesday's legal request as an exaggeration.
"The elephants spend the majority of their waking hours socializing, exercising — untethered," he said.
In requesting the injunction, the animal welfare groups cited statements from elephant experts asserting that prolonged chaining is harmful in ways that violate the Endangered Species Act. They also cited testimony from former circus employees contending that the elephants were tightly chained by one front and one hind leg for long periods in a manner that prevented them from turning in place.
"The public should be outraged at the amount of time these animals are forced to be shackled and confined," said Lisa Weisberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The ASPCA is a plaintiff in the long-running lawsuit, along with the Animal Welfare Institute, the Fund for Animals and the Animal Protection Institute.
The lawsuit, alleging multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act, was filed in 2000 and has moved slowly as the two sides battle over many issues, including access to circus veterinary documents and in-house videos.
Meyer said the judge handling case is expected to hold a hearing on the injunction request within 20 days. There is still no date set for the start of the actual trial.
Along with the complaints about chaining, the lawsuit alleges that the circus is violating the Endangered Species Act by abusively training and disciplining elephants with sharp implements such as bull hooks.
Ringling has defended the use of bull hooks as long-accepted tools to control elephants humanely. It says elephants are chained in place at night to keep them from foraging their companions' food, and during train rides to prevent sudden weight shifts that might derail the freight car.
Overall, Ringling has 54 elephants — 21 of them currently on tour and the others at a conservation center in Florida. The animal groups said even elephants at the center are sometimes chained, but for now they are under court orders not to elaborate.
The plaintiffs hope the lawsuit pressures Ringling to stop using elephants in its shows. Meyer said many circus-goers have come to appreciate animal-free circuses.

However, Payne said Ringling's own audience surveys indicate the elephants are a favorite attraction, and the company is committed to keeping them in the cast.
"They've been the symbol of the circus for 138 years," Payne said.
Payne noted that the American Veterinary Medical Association issued new guidelines last month on the treatment and handling of elephants. It endorsed the use of restraints in certain circumstances, for example during medical treatment or when the elephants might get into fights.
But the association stressed that the restraints "should only be used for the shortest time required for such management purposes."
___
On the Net:
Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation Animal Welfare Institute: Lawsuit Against Ringling Bros. to Protect Asian Elephants

[tim]

Originally Posted by Fitzwilly

In federal court papers filed in Washington, the groups said Ringling Bros.' own train records show that the Asian elephants are chained in box cars for an average of more than 26 straight hours, and often 60 to 70 hours at a time, when the circus travels. In some cases, the elephants have been chained on trains for 90 to 100 hours.

This is a ludicrous charge. Ringling insists upon regular train stops to let the elephants off the train for watering while in transit. There may be a cumulative time while the train is moving that the animals are, necessarily, chained to maintain a sense of center and safety but I can't imagine them leaving the animals that long on the train without intermediate stops.

....the elephants were restrained "for their own safety" in accordance with federal guidelines.

(emphasis mine)... They are doing what the regulators insist upon, what's the problem - other than that PETA types don't want ANY type of restraints under any circumstances based upon their own ideology.

"It's not fair. It's not humane, what kind of life these animals have to live in order to give a 12-minute performance," Meyer said.

She'd probably prefer that they get released to the wild and die.

"The elephants spend the majority of their waking hours socializing, exercising — untethered," he said.

Exactly.

They also cited testimony from former circus employees contending that the elephants were tightly chained by one front and one hind leg for long periods in a manner that prevented them from turning in place.

Usually inexperienced (and possibly lying) employees who know little to nothing about animal care and training.

Along with the complaints about chaining, the lawsuit alleges that the circus is violating the Endangered Species Act by abusively training and disciplining elephants with sharp implements such as bull hooks.

Ever touch the tip of a bullhook? I have. They ain't sharp. You have to press your thumb pretty forcefully into it just to get a pressure indentation.

The plaintiffs hope the lawsuit pressures Ringling to stop using elephants in its shows. Meyer said many circus-goers have come to appreciate animal-free circuses.

Which is what this is really about. They want animals out of circuses and will try any tactic possible to make it so.

[tim]

At the moment, there is a proposed amendment to the budget in Massachusetts threatening the circuses' (and other exhibitors') use of elephants. It should be heartily - and immediately as it is set yp be voted upon by tomorrow - opposed, especially by anyone in that state.

PETA has been attempting to get laws passed around the country which would ban the use of bullhooks and chains. These proposals have failed repeatedly as it is bad law which would take away the necessary tools for training and handling of elephants.

[Jolly Well]

The problem is that all the rules and regulations that state what is legal and proper don't line up with what is right and humane.

The "necessary tools" for training (chains and bullhooks) aren't necessary at all in the grand scheme. For training - Yes; which will in turn, bring spectators in. For the welfare of man and beast - not at all.

The track record of RBB&B can be argued forever. Staunch supporters are going to see no wrong and buy into the settlements made to avoid actual rulings against them and say they've done well.
Opponents are going to see the things the other way and try and put every aspect of the group on condemnation.

I can't think of anyone (with an actual IQ that can be rated) that would "prefer that they get released to the wild and die," but there are other many other options. (preferably not the RBB&B "sanctuary" - imo)

I'm not a "PETA Type" but have been for removing elephants (and other animals) from circuses for years. Another problem here is that alot of people don't like PETA, and lump all animal rights advocate groups in with them and ignore facts because they view all of them as fanatics because they don't agree with their views. Many times evidence is dismissed as propoganda because of the bias connected with these groups. They do come up with good information at times that should not be ingored simply because they are the source as many people (not associated with PETA) will report cases of abuse to them so that they can pursue the investigation due to their resources.

Humans in general need to learn the differences between ownership and stewardship in regards to many things in life - animals included.

Links for the other side of the argument:

Elephant Mistreatment At Ringling Brothers

Ringling Brothers Will Stand Trial for Elephant Abuse | The Humane Society of the United States

The Elephant Sanctuary, Hohenwald, Tennessee

[pixcoco]

[quote=Jolly Well;41736]
Another problem here is that alot of people don't like PETA, and lump all animal rights advocate groups in with them and ignore facts because they view all of them as fanatics because they don't agree with their views.

Also some people lump all performing elephants and aminals in the same group as those who are abusive instead of actually looking at the situation.
I'm sure there are bad situations...but there are also good ones. Owners and trainers who love their charges. I have seen it and seen them persecuted for no good reason. Some, unable to fight the money making machines some of the animal groups are, have no choice but to give in. This unfortunatly gives the illusion that they were guilty of something. All they are guilty of is not having the funds or ability to withstand the publicity against such a wall of money.

Do you really want to believe everything you read?

[Jolly Well]

The situation is from from "believing everything I read." Many situations were point of view perspective and while reading other accounts can validate a position, it isn't the foundation on which it is built.

I hear that argument fairly often. That poor old bob was accussed of something and just give in because he couldn't stand up for himself. While it may be true occassionally, I've found it to be the exception rather than the rule. Factual background information goes a long way. and it usually is the "money making machines" who provide that data. Have you been involved in or around circus or sanctuary?

Animals aren't there to ride unicycles or stand on one leg for the pleasure of random spectators and the people who claim that the animals "love" doing it sure do lack a serious foundation when making their argument.

The tools used for training aren't positive reinforcement devices by any stretch of imagination. I comprehend that they are the tools needed for the job which is where the argument should not be, but rather on why that particular job is justified as being needed itself.

There is a sharp decline in the roving animal circus popularity, and while I certainly can appreciate the performers, I am in the growing crowd that will certainly be glad to see them reach their twilight.

I also recognize that groups like PETA and the ALF are extreme. They occassionally do as much harm as help. Extremism of any sort is generally a bad trait. My signature is likely misleading and I can see how it can be associated with some of these groups, which isn't the case. Many artists and street performers I've met in the past are deep into activism, some even in ALF and PETA - you're bound to meet members sooner or later. I lean more towards conservation that animal rights in itself, but the two often meander towards one another.

[pixcoco]

You can see I don't work the quote thing very well, but to answer you question if I have ever worked with or around a circus...Yes.
I work for Big Apple Circus and Have had a number of friends on RBBB and have been backstage and on the train many times. I also have friends who own an elephant and in fact saved her from death. She performs with them and is treated as one of their children. Their son refered to her as his sister.
I have also worked closely with a dog act. I have considered having my own dog act because my dogs love to perform. You can't tell me they don't.

I like to see circuses going to acrobatic acts more and more. I am dissinterested in cat acts. But I still hate to hear people being trashed for their choices. Yes there do need to be standards but they do not need to be dictated by the one with the most money. And unfortunatly out court system is set up for the ones with the most money.

So maybe we could agree there are two sides to every story. Each instance should be considered without presumption. And don't make assumptions based on an artical that could be writen with a slanted view.

[Smacky]

The animal rights groups never ever stop. And I will say without apology that far too many subscribers to their beliefs are almost sociopathic in their beliefs and misplaced priorities. But then their goal often has nothing to do with animals and everything to do with publicity, political power, and hurting people. Or, rather, OTHER people... you, or better still, your children for example.

Harsh? Yes. And so are the things that they advocate and the terrorist methods they all too often employ in their efforts to achieve them. These are very dangerous and often very sick people.

Does this mean that I have no feelings for animals? Hardly. I train dogs for a hobby (I have three dogs and a cat currently) and spend more money on their care than my own. My family owns a cattle ranch. I like animals.

I like people more.

As for these elephants, these groups are constantly campaigning to have animals banned from shows and they will go to any lengths to do it -- including lie.

[tim]

Elephants and human beings have lived peaceably together in society for many centuries (particularly in India.) There is no reason why they can not do so in circuses and other areas of entertainment business which expose people to these exotic animals; enabling us to respect them and find them as our friends.

HOW the animals are presented is always an act of developing sensibility. Clyde Beatty was noted as a large cat trainer par excellence. His act was in a "fighting cat" style which offered the understanding of great danger against wild beast where man risked his life to tame them. Gunther Gebel Williams had an entirely different style which focused on the more humane relationship of intimacy between animal and human beings. Was one right and the other wrong? I don't think so. Instead, they brought to light distinct aspects of the overall reality.

Similarly, it was once perceived as "cute" to have animals perform tasks which imitated human behavior. Now, this sort of thing is less in vogue, and people often prefer to see them do things which are more natural to their everyday behavior while being presented delightfully in a creative manner. I think that the presentations which the Zerbini family offers with elephants and horses is a prime positive example of such.

I would compare the latter sort of presentation to the manner in which military aircraft frequently fly for public offerings. What many people perceive as "stunt flying" is more often just an intricate and graceful (though powerful) choreographed display of the kinds of moves which pilots are commonly trained to employ for battle: executed expertly, especially in formation flying. Thus, it has the ability to wow and draw one into wonderment about what they have witnessed.... whether with airplanes or animals.

The traditional circus business is not what it once was (for a lot of reasons.) But the reality is that animal acts are among the most popular and in demand by audiences within these outlets of entertainment. Indeed, for many it is their ONLY (or certainly a rare) opportunity to come into proximate contact with an experience of such beings.

Obviously, everyone wants humane and excellent treatment of animals. Progress should constantly be made in this regard. And those with resources to do so should lead. Those in power ought to encourage and incentivise, providing genuine opportunity of growth.

Ultimately, however, I fear that we come to a battle of ideologies. As Jolly Well so aptly stated, "...which is where the argument should not be, but rather on why that particular job is justified as being needed itself."

[Markie]

"I also recognize that groups like PETA and the ALF are extreme. They occassionally do as much harm as help. "

I was truly listening with an open mind until you came out with that statement. Stating the Animal Liberation Front "occasionally" does "as much" (not more) harm as help really helps to put the rest of your comments in perspective.

For those who don't know, because they're not as well known as PETA, ALF is an extremely violent terrorist group that promotes the violent killing of innocent people for the sake of freeing animals. More info can be found here: Animal Liberation Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P.S. Just because ALF is a group of violent terrorists (yes they officially condemn violence but their actions and words show otherwise, and member - including leaders - of the group have been responsible for a number of terrorist acts) doesn't mean PETA is everything they appear to be. Sure they're not violent - just extremely hypocritical: PETA Kills Animals | PetaKillsAnimals.com