Monday, February 2, 2009

Cruelty-to-Elephants Case Heads to Trial

After more than eight years of legal skirmishing, a trial is scheduled to open Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by animal welfare groups alleging that Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus routinely abuses its performing elephants.
The plaintiffs — including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Welfare Institute — allege that trainers' use of sharp tools called bullhooks and the prolonged use of chains on the Asian elephants add up to an egregious violation of the federal Endangered Species Act.
They seek an order from U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., halting these practices, which some activists hope would force Ringling Bros. to give up elephants altogether.
The non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is expected to last three weeks.
Ringling Bros. and its parent company, Feld Entertainment, have defended themselves aggressively since the suit was filed in 2000, contending their treatment of all circus animals is state-of-the-art.
Circus officials note that government regulations permit use of chains. They say the 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 their freight car.
The plaintiffs have asserted that Ringling Bros.' own train records show the elephants are chained in railroad boxcars for an average of more than 26 straight hours, and often 60 to 70 hours at a time, when the circus travels.
The circus also defends the use of bullhooks, saying the sharp tools have been used for centuries in Asia to control elephants humanely. Activists say the implements — which resemble long fire pokers — often inflict wounds that leave scars.
Michelle Pardo, a lawyer for Feld Entertainment, said the defense will prove that the elephants "are healthy, alert, and thriving."
"Animal special interest groups are distorting the facts by making false allegations about the treatment of Ringling Bros. elephants as part of a long-running crusade to eliminate animals from circuses, zoos and wildlife parks," Pardo said.
In addition to four animal welfare groups, the plaintiffs include Tom Rider, a former Ringling Bros. employee who alleges that he witnessed abuse of the elephants on numerous occasions.
"We look forward to showing at trial how the elephants are routinely hit with bullhooks and continuously chained in the hopes that this case will preclude Ringling Bros. from mistreating these spectacular endangered animals ever again," Rider said.
His testimony will be supplemented by photographs, video footage and internal Ringling Bros. documentation which the plaintiffs say support the allegations of mistreatment.
Much of the wrangling over the past eight years has dealt with access to circus veterinary documents and in-house videos.
Overall, Ringling Bros. has 54 elephants — many of them kept at a 200-acre conservation center in Florida while the others are on tour. The newest arrival is a calf born at the center on Jan. 19 — named Barack in honor of the new U.S. president inaugurated the next day.
The circus says it spends $60,000 annually on care of each elephant and has three full-time veterinarians to look after them.
The plaintiffs hope the lawsuit pressures Ringling Bros. to stop using elephants in its shows and contend that many circus-goers have come to appreciate animal-free circuses.
However, Ringling Bros. says its audience surveys indicate the elephants are a favorite attraction.

Courtesy fo Casey Cainine

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

If I was one of the AR/Animal Liberation groups in this case I would be petrified. All too much rests on Tom Rider. I will be surprised if his cross-examination doesn't prove to be one of the telling issues. I've heard Mr Rider speak several times, and countered that testimony. The allegation several years ago that he has been well paid for his change of heart appears to have merit and anybody who knows who he worked under on RBBB can only find some of what he describes as baffling.

Wade G. Burck said...

Ben,
We won't be running a Rider whacking session this time. He recorded some damning evidence in 1999 when he went with some elephants on a boat trip back to Europe.
Wade

Anonymous said...

Wade, have you sat through Rider's testimony and read the transcripts? Particularly the train material? We're going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to Mr. Rider. However if the subject of this suit open for discussion, Mr Rider can't really be off-the-table since so much rests on him.

In strictly legal terms Feld would seem to have the edge here. If they win the case outright it may take the wind out of the sails of various bullhook bills. If the lose, there's a high probability that an appeals court would knock down the verdict based on the novel use of the Endangered Species Act.

Wade G. Burck said...

Anonymous,
What are we agreeing to disagree on? I am suggesting that the opposing side has a lot riding on his testimony. That in it's self is worry some to me, if he is so easily discredited. His account of another incident in another country is fairly graphic and damning as well. I myself would have a hard time justifying what he has recorded.
Wade

Anonymous said...

http://elephantvoices.wildlifedirect.org/
Here is a link to another one of AR's expert wittnesses, Joyce Poole,who was recently in California at a PAWS fundraiser event..

Casey McCoy Cainan said...

Joyce Poole is the kind of witness I was hoping Feld would have. Regardless of her stance on elephants in captivity, she is chock full of "facts" on African elephants in the wild. She was the second person to "write the book on it". It is a shame she is on the other team. I would truly like to hear what caused her to play on the other team because I believe she truly does want what is best for elephants.

Anonymous said...

Not to be difficult, but is it possible that you have your answer there? A2

Wade G. Burck said...

Casey,
I disagree whole heartily. She don't know anything about captive elephants, and they are as different husbandry wise as night and day from wild ones. There are a "lot" who have "written the book on it", and she does what is best through her eyes.
Wade

Anonymous said...

American Lawyer has a good piece today on why Rider is certral to the case. Without him the rest of the plaintiffs have no standing to continue the suit u8nder ESA.

I'm with Casey on Poole's fieldwork with African elephants, but agree with Wade that it doesn't make her the single most credible witness on elephants managed in domesticity. And if she has been recently associated with PAWS she's clearly taking a "no training" stance.

Wase I posted anonymously by accident as I was headed out the door this morning. I won't trash Rider in this particular forum except to say that his testimony always seems to fit the needs of his current patrons. Thus in 2000 when Animal Defenders in the UK were his patrons they stated, "Rider had worked in circuses for years in the USA, first with Clyde Beatty Cole Circus and then with Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus, but did not become disillusioned until he encountered Chipperfield Enterprises."

That would have been in the five months AFTER he tells us he left RBBB over abused and signed on with Chipperfield. When he returned to the States and became associated with PAWS, Feld became the bad guys. When PAWS settled with Feld and became far less vocal Rider moved on to new patrons.

Now, in fairness I get paid to defend circuses. But I don't pretend there's anything altruistic about it. And I have credentials.

When the New York Times called Rider a "trainer" yesterday it was certainly a stretch. You're one of the great cat trainers working today. If this case was about cats and you were a witness no one could question your knowledge. But if one of your grooms was testifying about how cats are managed and trained I don't know that we should immediately afford him that same credibility.

Wade G. Burck said...

Ben,
I would agree 1000% if he was testifying on a training issue as to his credentials, and I can honestly say I have used very few folks as seedy looking as him, but I don't know if either of those things are at issue here. I think he is testifying as to what he has seen. If he had been hired to go undercover by any organization, I don't know if that is wrong for him or anybody. It is common way of conducting many business's today.
I think again if we had not spent most of the Animal rights movement defending bandits, which is not the case by any means with Ringling, we would not be defending a profession. When the Arabian Trainer stepped over the line, the biggest and most famous one, his industry brought him down so as to validate the industry. That's why they are not trying to shut the industry down.
It has been suggested that "experts" from our industry testify. Can you imagine one of those "expert" witnesses discrediting somebody based on him taking his parking spot 15 years ago, or someone getting a date they wanted 20 years ago. LOL
Wade

Casey McCoy Cainan said...

Ben,
That's my point. I have spent many hours of my life reading about what she has observed. I would love to be able to ask her exactly what it is that makes her think elephants in circus and zoos have a bad go. I would assume it is the assumption that by no regulations it will always fall to the lowest level. But maybe she has based that assumption on seeing the lowest denominator in action or...who knows. I do believe she knows how elephants in the wild "tick" therefore I am anxious to hear her testimony. I wish Cynthia Moss was on Felds side for rebuttal,,,,LOL

Anonymous said...

Casey - and where would Daphne Sheldrick be? LOL

henry edgar said...

i seem to be somewhere out of the loop with tom rider. when was he on ringling and beatty-cole? what was his job? who did he work under? what kind of documentation does he have? what about the boat trip?

i feel very strongly about animals - or people- who are badly mistreated but are there any incidents documented by anyone other than the ar groups? i've always been told its very dangerous to mistreat an elephant and my experience has been that elephants are treated with care and concern as a general rule.

also, isn't it very rare that jumps last as long as these elephants are said to be chained in the railroad cars?

i think somehow our industry needs be more aggressive with our defense.

Casey McCoy Cainan said...

Steve,
Her knightship knows her stuff on African elephants as well. I don't know about her as a witness though. She was the type that if she were to see a hook being used poory on a video of a ringling elephant, she would have probably jumped from the stand and bludgeoned someone,,,LOL

Wade G. Burck said...

Casey,
I still don't get how unless you have also studied them in the wild you can hold them up as being the "experts" and the ones who wrote the definitive book on the subject of elephants. I can declare George Schaller as the expert on Gorilla's in Zaire for all I know about them.
Wade

Wade G. Burck said...

Henry,
I posted a video clip of Tom Rider.
The Ringling train is the most unique, different mode of transportation that has ever been used, and it is incredible even today. As different as night and day from a truck show. I can't speak to today but 24 hours was not unusual, and I don't know if it is a true issue. When you consider that the animals were loaded after the show, but the train didn't actually leave until the show was loaded and a track cleared and they were not unloaded until the time of day when there was less traffic and again a track was cleared, it is easy to misunderstand that they spent more time then you may have been aware of. It was a issue for every animal act/trainer that was on the show as they are used to transporting by truck where you could stop regularly and water or check the animals. They(Ringling) has made every effort to make it conducive to the comfort of the animals in recent years, but historically it was a very outmoded means of animal transport.
In regards to an elephant withstanding mistreatment, they are one of the few animals given their nature who will withstand abuse without reacting, by striking back or fleeing. Again Henry, there has never been a standard to qualify somebody to do what they are doing. If you buy a car you still have to get a drivers license that proves you know how to drive it. If you buy and elephant, instant elephant trainer.
Wade
Wade

Anonymous said...

Henry, one thing that has made the Rider roadshow interesting over the last eight years is that Feld has been largely unable to comment on Rider directly as a part of their earlier settlement of another suit. (Or so I vaguely recall.) You can find his Congressional testimony online to see who he worked for. (You need the complete testimony with follow-up questions from members, and not just his initial statement.) Because his supervisor was somebody I've worked with and have the utmost respect for it just makes the whole thing that much worse. I sat in Washington that day at that hearing listening to Rider,and Bob Barker and found it quite frustrating that such hearings don't allow for any kind of serious cross examination. To that extent this trial will be a breath of fresh air. Again with Rider you have to believe that first he worked for Beatty Cole as a ride loader and was so disturbed by animal abuse that he quit. Then he went to work for Ringling for two and a half years and saw animals abused daily and quit. Then he went to work for Chipperfield Enterprises for four or five months.

THEN he blew the whistle. (I have yet to hear anybody ask him what took so long?)

We all know more or less what goofs earn. Maybe $100-$200 a week. For the last nine years Rider has received "expenses" plus something in excess of $100,000 (as of 2007) as a witness. For a long time he denied receiving anything other than expenses until the paper trail was revealed. Worth noting that Feld has a counter suit based on those payments, however the court has determined that suit can't go forward until this suit plays out.

Wade G. Burck said...

Ben,
Again I suggest that I don't think this is an issue: "THEN he blew the whistle. (I have yet to hear anybody ask him what took so long?" Some Nazis immediately said this is wrong, some didn't question what was going on for a year, some after two years. Some never questioned or waited until they were on trial for war crimes. Those are the one's that are are suspect.
I also don't think leaving one show and going to another and going to another is questionable if you think it is done differently someplace else. What is disturbing is that he "supposedly" seemed to see the same thing where ever he was at.
I personally didn't question anything, because I didn't know what to question. I witnessed an incident in 1988 that changed my outlook forever, and made me look through very different eyes, and changed my philosophy, and who I chose to hang with forever. It is about individuals and they should never have been protected or overlooked. Friendships/family/with it and for it, has damaged this thing of ours badly, possibly beyond repair. I hope someday we are not questioning how valuable individuals were to an industry.
Wade

Wade G. Burck said...

Ben,
The Ringling "goof's" earn considerably more then 100-200 plus benefits.
Wade

Anonymous said...

However you choose to question Rider's motives (and by my math he's not earning MORE than he would be with the circus), that really has nothing to do with the truth or not of his claims. Is the video footage accurate? Are you saying that it's all falsified, somehow (and with all of Ringling's money they haven't been able to prove that, have they?) or that it's somehow "out of context" - whatever the appropriate context would be for what we see on the videos? It wasn't until the plaintiffs got the actual train records that they started talking about the exact number of hours the elephants were chained on the train. Is there an argument to be made, in this day and age, that chaining them for 30 or 60 or 100 hours straight is okay for them on a regular basis? A2

Anonymous said...

$263.00 a week after tax. Is that considerable? I will get benefits eventually.



Ringling "Goof"

Wade G. Burck said...

Ringling "Goof",
Yes that is considerable, in comparison to other "unskilled labor", and longevity will get you those beneficial benefits, as well as more "skills" will earn you a higher pay scale. Unless this is Joey Frisco? In that case, you are way over payed and should be ashamed at accepting that much salary. LOL
Wade

Anonymous said...

A2 - if the number of hours an elephant [or any animal] is in transit is an issue, then that issue can be addressed very easily by the adoption of Standards. If the US had legally enforceable Standards for the husbandry of circus animals then this trial would not be happening unless Ringling had failed to comply with the Standards.

Anonymous said...

Steve, The fact that there are no clear standards set does not make something a non-issue, only an issue for which no one has (for whatever reaon) bothered to set standards. As to whether the US has any legally enforceable standards - well, that's something that this case will tell us. Certainly there aren't any that are clearly laid out AS standards. I would suggest that that absence of clarity doesn't mean that there are no boundaries on what can be done with elephants. Do you think that 30 to 60 hours on a train every four or five days is reasonable husbandry? A2

Wade G. Burck said...

A2,
Don't forget I was one the show for 7 years. I am a lot more aware of what the time spent on the train is then either you or Mr. Rider. As for what is reasonable would depend on the context, and who is making the standard.
Wade

B.E.Trumble said...

Dear Ringling Goof. You sir or madame are clearly not a "goof." LOL.

Anonymous said...

Wade - I don't understand. Why would what is reasonable husbandry depend on who was setting the standard? Shouldn't the standard be a reflection of the natural needs of the animals? Or do you mean that different people will have different interpretations of those needs? As to the amount of time spent on trains - are you saying that what the plantiffs claim is not right? THey don't spend an average of 26 hours per trip, and often more? Or are you saying that 26 hours (minimum) a couple of times each week is good husbandry? A2

Anonymous said...

A2 - I certainly am NOT suggesting that the absence of clarity means that there are no boundaries. Rather, I AM suggesting that clarity [in the form of legally enforceable Standards] will define those boundaries.

And, if you already had those Standards in place over there, the only way you would be having this forthcoming trial would be if the Standards had not been complied with.

I've never seen a Ringling train and I have no knowledge of whether or not the claimed transit hours are correct, so I'm in no position to make any judgement as you've asked.

Suffice it to say that, like every responsible circus person, I abhor cruelty and neglect of the needs of any animal, anywhere.

Wade G. Burck said...

A2,
It would depend fully on who was setting the stands, and what is a natural standard has nothing what's so ever to do with captive. It's as different as a child at the the playground or in the class room. Most definitely it will be interpreted differently depending on philosophy's/beliefs. In claiming that an elephant needs space to roam, pasture feed them in one spot with food and water provided and see how far they roam. I have watched animals since I was old enough to comprehend wander from one end of a thousand acre pasture to the other looking for suitable grasses. If the water is at the end they work there way they by late afternoon to have a drink as they are in the area. That same group of "wandering, free spirited, happy to be free, God love the open space" nomads will stand right by the hay bale and heated water tank provided, all winter long and only move 50 yards to go under shelter provided. Spring time comes, grass grows tall and green, no more supplemental food provided, they are walking, wandering fools for the next 9 months. If they are good an have potential to be great, they are inside where they are feed high nutrition feed daily, worked daily and put back into their stall, One hour of hard, regimented work, 23 hours of resting, sleeping, eating preparing for the one hour of high octane work the next day. Such is the life of a spoiled athlete.
If you make one trip a week and they are transported for 24 hours(one day out of 7), nothing wrong with that. On the rodeo route when they make two trips a week, 48(two day's out of 7) is pushing it, but still not bad. That occurs every other year.
Wade

Casey McCoy Cainan said...

I guess I missed most of this discussion yesterday. First off...Ringling goof, need a job? I can give you 250 a week and cookhouse + the benefits of being around while I am training history,,,,lol

The time spent in the train car seems a non-issue as far as ESA goes in this trial. Since there is no set time by the ESA an animal can be confined. The bylaws of the ESA are vague enough that I don't see this going anywhere other then maybe changing the ESA, or putting pressure on the USDA to change the AWA. That said, unless the train cars are some how unpleasant for the elephant ie. too cold, too hot, no feed, no water, fighting etc. I personally don't think it is bad for them to be in there. I have nothing against chaining an elephant. If the animals are exercised there is no harm in confining them when needed. Wade, there should be a no anonymous questions clause on the whole "Anonymous because they have to be" deal. A2 gives off the vibe of a KGB interrogator sometimes, it's not that the questions are tough, you just like to know who is asking them.

Wade G. Burck said...

Casey,
Why do you need to know who is asking the question as long as they are not a personal attack? That was the purpose of anonymous. If I know who they are they are not anonymous, only unknown to you. The questions can not be a direct attack
Wade