North America's Leading Circus Fan Organization - Founded 1926
News Events Photos Resources About Us

Join
Renew Online
Circus 4 Youth Website
Grassroots.CircusFans.Org
 
wcs2015.com

WCS2015
Souvenir Merchandise!

Back Issues
Conventions
External Links
ShowFolks
AYCO
Circus Model Builders
Witte Museum
Windjammers Circus Music
Circus Historical Society
OABA Logo
FEEDBACK
Click HERE to e-mail your comments about our web site
 

The real anti-circus agenda, Part 2 by Ben Trumble 

Submitted by Webmaster on   4/13/2005
Last Modified

THE ANIMAL LIBERATION CASE AGAINST CIRCUS AND ZOOS

In a period of little more than thirty years Animal Liberation in the guise of Animal Welfare and Animal Rights has achieved remarkable success peddling its own legitimacy throughout much of Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. As noted elsewhere, in part that success has been predicated on carefully orchestrated campaigns that never fully spell out just what liberation is or means. By draping themselves in the mantle of "anti-cruelty" or "public safety" liberationists appear to be "mainstream" while their targets would seem to be out-of-touch. Although the most outrageous pronouncements by groups like PeTA are met with healthy skepticism, that only serves to make their more mundane charges sound credible. Liberations choose targets with vulnerabilities. Early in their campaigns it quickly became apparent that pictures of furbearers in leg hold traps were rightly disturbing to almost everybody. The obvious "cruelty" was built into the images. Once the connection was made between cruelty and fur, a small farm raising mink or martins could be portrayed as a mere extension of that abuse. The fact that farmers and trappers are not synonymous was irrelevant. The fact that in trapping there are humane alternatives to steel-leg-holds was overlooked entirely. Similarly even die-hard corporate apologists now acknowledge that lab animal testing, particularly in the cosmetics industry, was, twenty years ago, needlessly inhumane and frequently overused. Simply put, it was cheaper to test irritants using rabbits than it was to use existing non-animal models. Again, it didn’t take too many photographs of lab rabbits undergoing irritant testing to convince the marketplace that cruelty was involved. Liberationists would have use believe that if testing hairspray on rabbits is wrong, so is all lab animal testing. While drug companies have had some success countering the liberationist argument by touting the life saying implications of their testing, even legitimate lab animal work in personal hygiene products frequently draws vocal protest.

Circuses and more recently zoos are targeted by liberationists who seek to exploit three areas of vulnerability. Cruelty in the form of training methods, welfare in the form of general animal care, and public safety.

The anti-training argument seeks to exploit a general misunderstanding of ethology (animal behavior) and animal psychology, coupled with a general reluctance on the part of trainers themselves to openly discuss "correction" as a tool in training. All animal interactions depend on social hierarchy. Behavioral terms like "Alpha male" have become a part of our every day speech, but role of "dominance" as a social concept between species is poorly misunderstood by the public at large, and repudiated by liberationists. The Nobel Prize winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz clearly illustrated the role of dominance in social hierarchies in his widely read work On Aggression. In simple terms, no one can really successfully train an animal that believes itself to be socially superior to the trainer. Nor raise a child for that matter. In the early days of wild animal training dominance was asserted by trainers, often violently. But even when Bostwick wrote his thesis on training for the circus, in 1904 the concept of "reward" for good behavior, as well as "correction" for bad behavior was widely understood. When working with captive born/captive raised animals that have to some extent "imprinted" on humans the severity of necessary corrections may in theory decrease. Every animal will sometimes test the status quo of dominance and require correction.

Correction is not cruel. If I burn a pan of meatloaf and in my frustration I kick my dog – that’s cruelty. Yes, it’s a social interaction, but what did the dog learn, except to hide under the bed? On the other hand if I use a training collar to put a hard correction on my dog when he lunges at the mail carrier, he’s learned not to lunge at the mail carrier. The next day, when he doesn’t lunge, and I reward him, he’s received a positive reinforcement. As the trainer I am dominant in both social interactions – when I correct the dog for lunging, and when I reward him for not lunging.

Liberationists suggest that all animals in the circus live in fear all the time. To the contrary, Swiss zoologist Heini Hediger concludes in his seminal book The Psychology of Animals in the Zoo and Circus, that training and performance generally relieves stress in captive animals and substitutes for natural "play." We shouldn’t confuse "play" in childhood with "play" in animals. Animal play invariably includes dominance. Trained, performing animals are psychologically healthier than their untrained counter-parts, according to Hediger. In a career spanning sixty years as a professor of ethology and as director of the Basel Zoo Hediger examined what the concept of "freedom" is in wild animals. His conclusions run counter to the philosophical ideology of Animal Liberation.

The Estonian marine scientist Aleksei Turovski says of Hediger’s conclusions; "It is hard to believe in our time, but it seems that Heini Hediger (1908–1992) really was the first zoologist who realized that there is no such thing as an animal that is free in anthropomorphic sense: "the free animal does not live in freedom: neither in space nor as regards its behavior towards other animals (Hediger 1964). Animals in the wild are "bound by space and time, by sex and social status" (Hediger 1985: 158). If we consider now that Hediger also elaborated on the distinction between nest and home, the former being a repository for eggs and raising the young" … and the latter "a place of refuge, which is the function of the home, it becomes quite clear, for a zoologist at least, how Hediger approached the phenomena of animal life. He did it from within, and in the context of the greater eco-system. Apparently there is no such thing as a "free population", to say nothing of "a free species". But a free animal could, perhaps, be usefully imagined as a healthy member of a healthy population of a certain species dwelling in such part of the land- or seascape which is safe from foes but promising in resources as far as this animal can recognize by its semiotic means within the range and limitations of its senses."

In, Man And Animal In The Zoo, Hediger posits that the same "freedom" an animal finds in the wild can be found to an even greater extent in captivity, so long as captive animals are provided with necessary sensory and psychological stimulus. Training and performance are a part of that stimulus.

The vulnerabilities that liberations find in circus training are predicated on a deliberate misunderstanding of the training process, and on the flawed nature of some trainers themselves. To be fair, some trainers and animal handlers have been cruel in asserting and maintaining dominance or in administering correction. But that doesn’t imply a pattern of systematic, constant abuse cited by activists. More often liberationists seek to take examples of correction and place them outside the context of overall training. Elephants are not offended by four letter words, but people viewing "secret" videotapes may focus on foul language and assume that language is synonymous with brutality.

Liberation activists suggest that that animal care protocols in all circuses fail to meet minimal regulatory standards – frequently citing APHIS reports to support their charges. In reality animal care practices in American circuses may be very good on one show and no so good on another, a situation similar to state of zoos prior to the advent of AZA certification guidelines. Constant review and improvement in animal care protocols have been a hallmark in American Zoo management. Longevity in mammals cited by William T Hornaday, the first director of the New York Zoological Society, and longevity’s cited by Lee S. Crandall, a later director of the park and author of Wild Mammals in Captivity are markedly different and reflect those improvements. Today’s longevities are far superior to Crandall’s 1964 statistics, illustrating continued improvement. The majority of APHIS/AWA violations center on particular issues. Common issues involve maintenance of transportation equipment, medical records, and TB testing in elephants and elephant handlers. When a show is cited multiple times in a single season for the same bad taillight or exposed bolts in a trailer, we should all be embarrassed. . Galius Julius Caesar said, "Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion." Pressure from APHIS, activists, and militant local inspection means that any show traveling with animals must remain alert for even minor regulatory violations. Meeting the minimal standards for A.W.A. compliance and local regulations simply may not be enough. By creating internal standards and adhering to animal care protocols that exceed those cited in regulatory standards shows can deflect much current criticism. Such new standards and protocols don’t come cheap. Better transportation equipment, better temporary enclosures, larger cages, improved record keeping and enhanced animal health care and employee training simply aren’t financially feasible of every show. For some shows it may be that camels are a better alternative to the expense of elephants. For other shows it might suggest that traveling with a mix of African and Asian elephants requires separate transports and enclosures to lessen the risk of cross species viral outbreaks. Possible a big cat act with three cats is better than an act with seven cats, if those three animals are afforded twice as much cage space as a result. Rather than capitulating to liberationist demands, efforts to negate their criticisms are well within the means of traditional shows. If a particular show owner simply can’t or won’t comply with reasonable standards and regulations, or when a historical failure to comply results in pulling a show’s exhibitor’s license; it may be that show shouldn’t have animals – even leased from a third party. Just as there is no good excuse for transporting animals across the desert southwest in summer months without adequate ventilation and/or climate control, the actions of any one show should not be allowed to darken the reputations of show that do work hard to care for their animals. The efforts that circuses like Ringling and Carson & Barnes have made in captive elephant reproduction are noteworthy and match the best efforts by zoos in species survival. As noted earlier, groups like PeTA, or PAWS offer no alternative means to protect highly endangered species in vulnerable habitats from extinction. Moreover OABA statistics suggest that most elephants attached to American circuses are middle-aged animals with a longer life-expectancy than the captive population as a whole, while DVM Ted Friend’s research indicates that physical conditioning in working elephants is superior to that of their non-working/ non-performing counterparts.

Liberationists are no kinder in their view of zoos and aquariums. Visit PeTA’s website devoted to zoos. PeTA calls even world class zoos with outstanding research facilities "Pitiful Prisons." The same liberationists dismiss captive breeding for species survival, stating: "The purpose of most zoos’ research is to find ways to breed and maintain more animals in captivity. If zoos ceased to exist, so would the "need" for most of their research." As for education, the activists believe, "Zoos teach people that it is acceptable to interfere with animals and keep them locked up in captivity." Captive management successes have brought back species like the blackfooted ferret, the red wolf, and the California Condor from the brink of extinction, then reintroduced them into the wild. Success carries no weight with activists. Groups like In Defense of Animals actively picket zoos, and liberationists seek to infiltrate organizations involved in zoo policy and management much as they have infiltrated mainstream animal welfare bodies. The Detroit Zoo, increasingly "activist friendly" recently broke with scientific managements plans for Asian Elephants, choosing to close their exhibit and ship their animals to PAWS in California rather than allowing those animals to join a successful breeding program at another accredited AZA member park participating in the elephant Species Survival Plan. The five year old PAWS "Ark 2000" sanctuary is already at odds with at least some of its neighbors, embroiled in suits and counter-suits in the courts of Calaveras and Sacramento Counties, going so far as to sue the owner of the local newspaper the Calaveras County Daily News. Liberation groups have worked tirelessly to prevent parks like the San Diego Zoo from importing new elephants from Africa to increase genetic diversity, in keeping with SSP and Elephant Managers Association recommendations. Liberationists say they favor saving wild elephants but fail to seriously fund major initiatives with that goal in mind. Again, extinction appears preferable to conservation according to liberation doctrine.

In the area of public safety liberationists have scored some successes in prohibiting animal performances in approximately twenty communities around the United States, and Elephant or Camel rides and encounters in a handful of States. As noted before in discussing PAWS safety campaigns, there is no real evidence to justify these bans. By comparison, a visit to websites like rideaccidents.com reveals numerous amusement rides injuries annually, and occasionally fatalities even at the very best facilities. Most reasonable people would agree that while there may be some small risk associated with amusement rides, given already strict regulation and inspection there is no justification for prohibiting such rides. The same reasonable consideration should be afforded to circuses or zoos.

MEDIA SAVVY -- LIBERATION VERSUS CIRCUS

Animal Liberation has repeatedly found the traditional American Circus to be a "soft target" in the court of public debate. Too often individual circuses have failed to recognize what "Animal Rights" are really about (liberation.) and failed to meet the challenge that activists represent. In an age of media savvy frequently tight-lipped show people and their fans simply lack the experience to make their case when facing the trained professionals or celebrity spokespersons trotted out by the opposition. Animal Liberation opposes the circus because training and performance violate their philosophical view of a moral universe. As that very basic truth doesn’t make for a compelling sales pitch, liberation secrets its core purpose behind other issues. Circus cannot allow it detractors to continue to create the impression that animal acts exist only to sell tickets and fill seats. Training as an "art form" has always been evident and understood in equestrian performance, and art has a legitimate place in the circus. Encounters with more exotic animals may be conservation tools. Seeing a big cat from a few feet away is vastly different than watching the video image of a cat on AnimalPlanet. But using conservation as an argument calls for more than mere words. Actual efforts in legitimate captive breeding programs, or fund raising for the World Wildlife, or other concrete examples of positive actions bolster the case. Feld’s Ringling elephant program has successfully reproduced two generations of captive bred "bulls," offering real hope that elephants can survive if their wild populations disappear. Efforts in Hugo may duplicate Ringling’s success.

It’s one thing to debate activists protesting in front of a circus or zoo. It’s quite another to discuss "animal rights" with the media, or to debate liberationists when the microphone is on and the cameras are rolling. For that, any media consultant would tell you, you need a playbook. No good debater fails to anticipate what the other side is going to say, or fails to formulate counter-arguments and a credible response long before stepping to the podium. Interactions with reporters require the same ongoing preparation and awareness of the issues. Too often liberationists attack circus animal care practices in the media, citing mortalities and AWA violations to support their case. The accusations run for several paragraphs, while the circus response may consist of a single paragraph with a simple, often heartfelt "We love our animals and care for them very well." Followed by a general denial.

Specific accusations require specific rebuttals. But as rebuttals in and of themselves can sound defensive, first it’s necessary to change the tenor of the conversation.

Maybe, "There will always be room for improvement in the quality of animal care in zoos, in circuses, and especially in sanctuaries and rescue operations which are not always subject to APHIS inspections. Whether you’re a PeTA member, or an animal control officer, or work with performing sea lions, I think we all love our animals and want to give them the best possible care." Now you’re not on the defense. THEN you can rebut specifics. And after that you can make your counter-charges. The point is that you can’t successfully rebut something you aren’t prepared for – not if you’re defending the circus, and not if you’re running for President. Neither can you counter if you aren’t well versed in the weaknesses and inconsistencies on the other side, and if you haven’t thought about which of your own attacks appropriately counter’s theirs. Academic though this may sound, the other side has thought it through.

In the old days Press Agents knew how to feed reporters a story. Publicists and Marketing staff on some shows still do. Obviously selling the "human interest story" on a particular performer, or general circus should be child’s play for any front office. Helping reporters to ask the right questions regarding liberation again means getting off the defensive, and requires some candor. Candor means there’s no percentage in defending someone who has lost an Exhibitor’s License for violation of the A.W.A. (Unless, perhaps, you happen to work for that show.) Better to say that the system worked and did its job. Better to acknowledge that not everyone should have animals. And as an immediate follow-up, to launch into Liberation’s real agenda… That absolutely no one should have exotic animals. Not zoos, not circuses, captive breeding programs. Outside of a Utopian Paradise, the moral outrage associated with Liberation always ends with the extinction of the animals they claim to protect. That’s the map we must draw point by point. That’s the real story. That’s the important story, even for people who will never set foot on a circus lot.

I’ve blathered on enough.

Ben Trumble

mudshow@pacbell.net

(Reprinted with permission of Ben Trumble)

Email This Resource



 


Copyright © 1999-2015 Circus Fans Association of America and Authors.
For more information view our  Copyright Policy & Privacy Policy .