Denver Poised to Ban Circus Animals

By Richard Farinato, Humane Society of the United States

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.