OCALA - The big top went up and picket signs stayed down as the Carson & Barnes Circus prepared for two shows on Tuesday. Isla, a 9,000-pound elephant, helped raise the giant performance tent in front of the Southeastern Livestock Pavilion on Tuesday afternoon. Elephant handler Darren Carey stood by as the pachyderm effortlessly pulled steel poles upright. Carey occasionally reinforced his verbal commands by tapping the animal with a 3-foot-long, metal prodding device known as a bullhook. The device is a guiding tool and "an extension of the trainer's hand," said Doug Munsell, spokesman for the circus. It does have a metal hook on the end. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently sent a letter to Marion County commissioners calling for officials to ban its use, along with electric prods, in Marion County. County commissioners could not be reached Tuesday for comment on the issue. Despite their overture to the County Commission, PETA supporters did not picket outside the show. But circusgoer Herald Barbour was glad PETA supporters stayed away. "PETA sucks," he said. The former circus clown and SeaWorld scenic artist doesn't believe the bullhook should be outlawed. In his experience Barbour never saw circus employees being abusive, he said. The bullhook is "used as a teaching tool, just like when you're training your dog," he said. Lacey Larrmore didn't give much weight to PETA's objections as she walked outside the big top with her 4-year-old son. "None of the animals look malnourished or hurt. I think they look well taken care of," she said. Circus visitor Sharon Molton agrees with PETA and thinks the use of bullhooks is cruel, she said. "You can't trust [trainers] to be kind with them," she said. PETA says Carson & Barnes abuses its animals and is a "chronic violator" of the federal Animal Welfare Act. PETA lists numerous citations filed against the circus on its Web site. The circus has never been accused of animal abuse by a state, federal or local agency, and many of the citations PETA talks about are blown out of proportion, said Barbara Byrd, vice president of Carson & Barnes Circus. "If we did all the horrible things they say we did we wouldn't be in business," she said. Along with a request for dialogue, PETA provided the Board of County Commissioners with disturbing footage of a 1999 Carson & Barnes elephant training session. The video, shot by an undercover PETA investigator, shows the trainer shocking the animals with electric prods. There weren't any electric prods in plain sight as the circus set up on Tuesday, and they have not been used for years, Byrd said. Wathne, however, argues the instruments weren't used in public eye when the video was shot either. Although Byrd understands that PETA aims to separate people and animals, the organization's claims are hurtful and often misleading she said. "It breaks my heart. But they have a mindset and don't really know us." The Carson & Barnes Circus operates the Endangered Ark Foundation, a nonprofit endangered animal farm, in Hugo, Okla. Jessica Greene may be reached at jessica.greene@starbanner.com or 732-7159 A work crew from Carson & Barnes Circus pulls the main tent into place before the evening's two shows at the Southeastern Livestock Pavilion in Ocala on Tuesday. The animals, acrobats, workers and clowns are only in town for one night before traveling on to Spring Hill today and to Daytona Beach Thursday.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Ongoing debate--addressing issues.
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Doug didn't like this story but Barbara felt, I think rightly, that it was balanced. Which is all that you can ask for. I still do media interviews for Carson & Barnes and I do think it's important to talk about how APHIS looks at compliance and non-compliance. The vast majority of non-compliance issues whether you're a zoo or a circus are minor and can be corrected literally on the spot, or certainly within a day. (Correcting records, disposal of outdated medications, fixing a trailer light, closing an open feed bag, etc.) Inspection reports unfortunately don't note when a problem is viewed as minor and is immediately addressed. Likewise there's a world of difference between a non-compliance issue resulting in a stipulation of a couple hundred dollars, and a stipulation in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. APHIS itself is pretty good about explaining the distinctions, but reporters aren't good about doing real homework.
Here's where I think so many circuses fail. When the USDA comes calling at an AZA park and finds a problem...it's a big deal. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen regularly, but keepers, senior keepers, curators etc are going to haer about it...and there may be shouting involved. Too often a circus will just shrug it off. A groom or an animal manager who messes up on all but a few shows doesn't face consequences if the non-compliance is minor. I've been accused of being obsessed with APHIS inspections, but that's how I was trained. Mistakes are made, non-compliance happens -- and I've seen some truly unfair inspections -- but we should always anticipate the worst and do our damnedest to stay in compliance. Obsession pays off. When I was on the road with Carson & Barnes several years ago we had no problems with local, state, and federal inspectors. I can't take credit for that, but I know that I always pointed out compliance issues and the show always fixed them immediately, and I was one of two people who dealt with inspectors. Contrast that to the most recent show where I worked, where I mentioned on-going non-compliance issues constantly -- issues that required the help of the show mechanic/fabricator -- and they were never addressed. If that show is inspected in Colorado, which is likely, and the issues still haven't been addressed...it won't be the animal department that's to blame.
USDA itself has dropped the ball where circuses are concerned. Strategically pulling exhibitor tickets from the spouses and children of chronic violators would solve a plethora of problems overnight. That or stipulating when a license is issued that the individual may not work with another individual whose license has been pulled, and that any apparent connection between the two will result in non-compliance. Similarly when will we learn not to lease acts to chronic offenders, even if we know that our own people are on-site and the animals are well cared for? We damn ourselves by association.
Ben
Ben,
Damn ourselves by association or as has been suggested, bit the hand that feeds you.
Wade
I don't quite get it - things may be different over there but here in Australia, if I lease an animal act to a promoter/show owner [whatever]then those animals are on MY license not his/hers.
The rest of the show may be rough, the tent may not comply, work conditions may suck for the crew BUT, as long as I comply with all the legislation for my animals, MY name is clean.
My name certainly may suffer a bit through association, but I haven't had to bite the hand that feeds me.
By the way, this comment is all a bit hypothetical as I can afford the luxury of not HAVING to take a booking with a crook outfit just for the bucks.
Steve Robinson
Steve,
I should probably let Ben answer, but I think he was referring to the insane law that lets somebody who has lost their license, operate under the license of a family member after theirs has been transfer to them. Similar to if somebody embezzles money from a bank, and is caught, the funds are transfered to their family and that means it isn't stolen.
Wade
I needed to be clearer. Steve, the rules are the same here. Your license, your animals, if you take care of them there's no problem even if you work for a chronic violator beyond the the issue of guilt by association. As Wade explained what I meant is here it's not uncommon for an individual who is prohibited from owning animals because of serious transgressions to skirt the law by obtaining a new license issued under the name of a willing family member. In fairness if I mistreat animals that doesn't automatically mean that my son would, but a system that issues a license to my son without seriously considering the possibility that I am somehow involved is a system with flaws.
Ben
Ben,
Your son getting a license, even after yours has been lost, is not a grievous as, "you being able to operate under, and use his license". The "grandfather" clause in caging is also as grievous. If it has been guide lined as inadequate, it is inadequate today, tomorrow, and 10 years from now. There is an awful lot of leeway in those terrible regulations.
Wade
Ben and Mr. Burck thank you for bringing light to this matters . i agree with Ben with the issue about leasing animals to chronic offenders. and as i type this i am aware of some one( i wont mention name cause Wade wont print my opinion)that has cause so much grieff to the industry and still members of the same fraturnity will shake his hand and knowing they will get rip off . and what has this person or persons have contribute to society or endangerd spices in my simple world the answer is .nothing .crossingfinger thiswontbecensordRaul
To Wade greeting from Canada from L D M alias Screwing L...E and he said to kiss his A.. havetobecarefulwhatisayRaul
Raul,
Understand. The only thing you can't do is mention the name of somebody alive. But you can surely mention their exploits, and your opinion of the incident's if you have personally witnessed it or have documented it. If they recognize/admit to the incidents, they can surely offer their side of it. It's about who is "spinning" the biggest story, AR or the industry or individuals that the industry is protecting.
Wade
P.S. It is Screwy Louie, not Screwing and you can tell him to kiss my ass. LOL
Wade
Gentlemen,
Many good points made here. Unfortunately, someone will screw things up for everyone. It's just like any other entity, be it steroids in Baseball or, bigger carburator openings in NASCAR, there's going to be a crook among us every where we turn.
Certainly not mentioning any names but we all know the biggest one of the bunch, is causing problems for every show that gets remotely close to his by changing names every time he feels like it, misdirection, fast changing, first count, and every other way he can make a buck.
This makes life purely miserable for every single one of us out there that tried to make a living and in your cases, still does. Not only do you have to do your job well, and carry your responsibilities high, you are being critized by association as already mentioned for the problems that others created.
I agree with Ben, without too many exceptions, most every thing in a USDA inspection is immediately fixable. I did get fined $250.00 one time for "Housekeeping". The grass wasn't cut on one side here at home during the inspection even though the lawnmower was right there. That was riduclously tough and unneccessary. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time or the money to fight it in Federal court so move along.
Bob
Thanks guys - now I get it!
Could be a bit tough for the rellies of a chronic violator if they are squeaky clean themselves!
Years ago, over here they had a consorting law - if you were found in company with a bad guy you were judged to be a bad guy too.
Might work for show licensing - keep the bad rellies off the lot and your license is safe. Mightn't do much for domestic harmony though
!
Steve
Bob,
Are you sure it was worded "housekeeping" in the inspection report. I don't think whether your dishes are washed is in their jurisdiction. Did it have anything to do with a "perceived" danger factor if there was an escape. We have been cited in the past if, tree limbs grew to close to, or fell against the perimeter fence, or vines grew up the fence, and could be used to climb over, or used like a net to climb up.
Wade
Bob,
I can't speak for any others, but it is not a living by any stretch. It's called gasping, hoping to stay afloat.
Wade
Wade,
I completely understand the comment of "living". In my case it was went under, not staying afloat.
Yep, "Housekeeping" was the term. I guess that's how they make an end around catch of something to cite you for.
You may remember that the USDA used to inspect with one inspector. Then they started their inspections with two inspectors. Maybe that was to make sure that one of them wasn't on the take. I don't know.
Then those two inspectors started photographing everything they wanted to while they were there. Then they had to return to their car for forty minutes while they wrote the report.
It didn't bother me because I felt like I was giving it all I had. I still got fined the one time though. Actually now that I think about it, My inspections on the road went a whole lot smoother than those at home.
Bob
Bob
Bob,
I believe they started using 2 inspectors, so there could be a witness or verification to an "incident", and not 'my word against the inspector.' I suggest they are more difficult at "home" as there are more instances of infractions. There are "more" eyes on the road.
It there had been a standard set long ago, Bob, maybe you could have survived as well. But with anything and everything available, at the cheapest price, it will all fail. The good will get out, and the public will not support what is left.
Wade
Bob,
Now days they often come and video half the day and the show, prior to announcing their presence. I am all for it. I have worked for "the shadiest man in show biz" and I see this as a good change. The fact of the matter is USDA's regulations on the keeping of animals are minimal and if we aren't making at least that grade, we should get out. I will say some of the paper work violations have seemed very petty to me in the past, over all they are never asking anything more then what should be expected to care for an animal that is someones livelihood, and also did not ask to be here. Housekeeping is a term I have heard from my inspector as well, though it was over shake from the hay under a pallet full of hay. It is ridiculous that they don't seem to see the associations between certain family members, or maybe they do, and they don't know just what to do about it.
Post a Comment