Animal cruelty: should wild animals perform in circuses?
Echo Issue Outline 1997 / 29: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`Pity the children taken to the circus. The look of humiliation and sadness on the face of the dancing hippo will haunt them forever'
50/50 comment in the Herald Sun, February, 1996
`You can't teach an animal anything that it doesn't do naturally'
Mrs Lorraine Maynard, of Perry Brothers Circus
On April 3, 1997, the Australian Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) launched its campaign to end the use of wild animals in circuses.
The campaign, which is to include television, newspaper and billboard promotions is intended to encourage public opposition to wild animals performing in circuses.
The campaign met with immediate opposition from circus owners and from the Circus Federation of Australasia.
Background
Australia currently has 15 traditional circuses. Though this is more than existed 20 years ago, a number of the largest circuses which operated up until the 1960s have gone out of business.
Ashton's Circus is the longest established and is the oldest performance group in Australia. Ashton's claims to be the oldest circus in the English-speaking world. They were granted their first operating licence in 1851.
The media campaign being conducted by the RSPCA against the use of animals in circuses is designed to urge people to write letters of protest to their local councils.
The RSPCA hopes that councils will then respond by passing local laws preventing circuses with animals acts from pitching their tents on public land.
The campaign will include a television commercial featuring a tiger pacing in a Victorian-style cage with spears at the top.
The RSPCA does not object to dogs and horses whose breeding suits them to particular sorts of circus work being used for this purpose. The RSPCA has also said that it is not trying to bring about the closure of all circuses in Australia. Rather, it claims, it wants them to stop using animal acts.
As of April, 1997, 38 councils around Australia had banned circuses with performing animals. This number included three Victorian councils -Yarra, Nillumbik and Moreland.
Though several Australian circus spokespeople have defended their use of animals via the print media, few, if any, appear to have used the Internet. A number of American circuses, including at The King Royal Circusand Garden Brothers Circushave done so.
There are numerous Internet sites critical of animals performing in circuses. Included in these are Circus Watch and Earthcare.
The RSPCA has its position paper on animals used for sport and entertainmentreproduced on the Internet, as are the Australian regulations restricting the importation of endangered species.
Arguments against wild animals performing in circuses
The RSPCA wants to see all local councils pass by-laws prohibiting circuses who make use of performing animals from setting up their tents on council land.
The RSPCA has two major objections to the use of performing animals in circuses. They claim these animals are confined in cramped conditions for too long each day and that the acts they are trained to perform are cruel because they are often outside the animals' normal range of movement or violate their instinctive behaviour.
The national president of the RSPCA, Dr Hugh Wirth, has claimed that circus animals are `continuously caged or held in small yards or tethered. In other words they are continuously in close confinement except for the actual duration of their particular performance.'
Dr Wirth has further claimed that many of these animals can be in confinement for up to 23 hours a day and that this does them severe psychological damage as it hinders their natural instincts.
The RSPCA's position paper on the use of animals for sport and entertainment states, `RSPCA Australia is opposed to any degree of confinement likely to cause suffering. Capture, transportation and acclimatisation of animals causing distress and suffering are unacceptable ... Animals need to be kept in such a way which is appropriate to their respective species, in sufficient space containing the necessary shelter and cover so as not to cause stress and suffering.'
Referring specifically to circuses, the same document states, `Circus animals are kept most of the time in close confinement, in abnormal social groups and are continually being transported - all causes of stress.'
The British lobby group, Circus Watch,has further stated, `Many circus animals display stereotypic behaviour, this is mindless repetitive behaviour thought to be caused by stress ... Animals may be seen head weaving, pacing, swaying or biting the cage bars.'
Dr Wirth has claimed that wild animals kept in small cages showed signs of frustration and mental stress which sometimes approached madness.
Some animal activist groups, such as Earthcare, also claim that the training methods supposedly used in some circuses, including prodding, whips, muzzles, heat or the withholding of food are cruel.
While RSPCA Australia claims that any animal act which requires an animal to move in a way which is unnatural to it, or which requires the animal to go against its natural instincts, is unacceptable.
Dr Wirth has stated, `... wild animals should [not] be ... asked to do performances that do not come naturally to them.'
A number of critics of the use of wild animals in circuses have claimed that performing in a manner that is unnatural for them causes animals significant distress.
Anna Murdoch King, commenting in The Australian on the 1996 Moscow Circus tour of Australia complained about the forced and apparently distressing tricks that hippopotamus, monkeys and elephants were required to perform.
Critics of wild animals performing in circuses have also maintained that these spectacles do not encourage children to have a proper respect and regard for other species. Rather, it is argued, they encourage child to believe that animals are a commodity to be used by human beings and that their distress is of no importance.
If children do not simply accept the animals' apparent distress, critics claim, they are upset by it. This view was put in a 55/50 comment printed in the Herald Sun in February, 1996, after the Moscow Circus visited Melbourne.
`Pity the children taken to the circus. The look of humiliation and sadness on the face of the dancing hippo will haunt them forever.'
Finally, opponents of animals performing in circuses maintain there is no comparison between modern zoos and circuses.
Hugh Wirth has stated, `Modern zoos are removing wild animals from cages and placing them in a near-natural environment. Circuses are simply travelling exhibitions and cannot do this.'
Arguments in favour of wild animals performing in circuses
The major argument circus owners and operators offer in support of performing animals is that the animals they use are not treated cruelly.
Mr Mike Mellare, the executive officer of the Circus Federation of Australasia has claimed that circuses have adopted new standards for animal management. Mr Mellare has stated that these standards require that circuses provide exercise areas for animals, that elephants not be chained up and that no animal be trained to perform any trick outside its natural range of movement
Mr Mellare went on to say, `We were working with the RSPCA to implement this national code and it is disappointing to see the RSPCA suddenly taking this misleading direction.'
`Circus animals (are) not caused suffering and distress ... They are treated as well if not better than zoo animals because of the interaction between people and animals,' Mr Mellare claimed.
Mr Fred Maynard, the owner of Perry Brothers Circus, has further stated, `My animals get plenty of exercise, the elephants and camels are in yards and the lions are exercised three times a day, as well as performing.'
Ms Lorraine Ashton Grant of Ashton's Circus has also claimed that circuses treat their animals well and that in most cases `they lived longer and had a better lifestyle than the so-called free animals in the wild.'
Circus trainers have also maintained that they do not use cruelty to train the animals they use and that they do not require animals to perform acts which are contrary to their natural range of movement.
Lorraine Maynard, of Perry Brothers Circus, has claimed, `You can't teach an animal anything that it doesn't do naturally. We throw the elephant drums into the paddock and they sit on them and roll them around. No one's there saying, "Get on this pedestal" ... They pick up logs in the paddock. What's the difference between picking up a log or a girl?'
In addition it has been suggested that it is inappropriate and inconsistent to single out the supposed mistreatment of animals in circuses when there are so many other situations in which animals are markedly ill-treated.
Phillip Adams, writing for The Australian on April 26, 1997, argued that the RSPCA would be using its time more effectively if it attempted to ban fox hunts or steeple chases or even agricultural shows, which, Mr Adams argues are at least as `unnatural' as circuses.
Mr Mellare, of the Circus Federation of Australia , has argued, `Nothing is achieved by banning us, but if they want to ban us, let's ban all animals in captivity. Let's ban racehorses and farming hens and farming sheep and police dogs and birds in cages.'
Circus owners have also objected to the means the RSPCA has employed to attempt to prevent them using animals in their performances.
The circus owners claim that it is inappropriate to try to mobilise popular pressure against performing animals so that councils will refuse to give circuses using them a licence to perform on public land.
Lorraine Ashton Grant has claimed, `It isn't the RSPCA's place, or a council, or any animal rights group to try and force an issue on the public.'
It has been argued that if the RSPCA has a genuine complaint about the manner in which circuses treat their animals then the Society should charge the circus owners.
Lorraine Ashton Grant has gone on to state, `If we're doing something wrong the RSPCA is empowered to prosecute us. They don't have to get anyone else to do it, they can do it. So we must not be doing anything wrong because they would prosecute us.'
Another argument offered in favour of animals continuing to perform in circuses is their enormous popularity with the public. It has been claimed that animals are an integral part of the appeal of the circus and so are necessary if this form of public entertainment is to continue.
Lorraine Ashton Grant of Ashton's Circus has claimed, `Only the non-animal circuses in this country have to be subsidised by hefty government grants.'
Finally, some circus owners overseas have argued that circuses have a valuable educative role bringing children, in particular, into contact with animals that they may never see otherwise.
Further implications
It seems likely that in Victoria, at least, the efforts of the RSPCA to have councils ban circuses with performing animals will be ineffective.
In May, 1997, the Victorian Minister for Planning and Local Government, Mr Rob Maclellan, approved amendment s56 to all Victorian planning schemes. This amendment will allow circuses to operate without a council planning permit, providing they do not construct permanent new buildings and they comply with a code of practice.
Some councils and the RSPCA are concerned that this amendment will effectively remove the power of Victorian local councils to prevent circuses from setting up in their areas.
Internationally and Australia-wide it is harder to predict even the medium term future of circuses with performing animals. Though various spokespeople for the Circus Federation have noted that in Australia circuses with animal acts are doing a booming business, this may not be the trend world-wide.
The Hong Kong-based conservation and animal activist group, Earthcare, has claimed that 200 local authorities in the United Kingdom have resolved not to let land under their control to circuses using animal acts.
Earthcarehas also stated that several municipalities in Canada and all of Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway have banned wild animal performances.
If this trend becomes the norm in Australia than states which allow councils more discretion than Victoria currently does are likely to outlaw circuses with animal acts.
Some circuses, notably those in America, claim that they have breeding programs which help to ensure the survival of the species they train. However, it seems unlikely that any such breeding schemes would be sufficiently successful to replace over time all the animals that a circus requires.
This is significant because there are now international treaties, notably the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which prevent the importation of certain animals.
In Australia it became illegal to import elephants into the country in the mid-1960s.
What may happen is that Australia's performing animal circuses will ultimately be without animal performers. Though their critics claim there is a significant illegal trade in such animals among circuses it would become apparent to authorities that any new circus animals had been illegally obtained.
Sources
The Age
14/1/96 page 3 analysis by Peter Wilmoth, `Wild thing does everything but sing'
10/2/96 page 7 news item by Stewart Oldfield, `Circuses ensure Big Tops are back in the big time'
8/4/96 page 15 comment by Anna Murdoch, `An act of misery'
4/4/97 page 6 news item by Tim Winkler, `Circus not for animals, according to RSPCA'
22/5/97 page 9 news item by Tim Winkler, `Circus owners in push to keep animal performers'
The Australian
4/4/97 page 6 news item by Stuart Honeysett, `Circus wild at RSPCA'
26/4/97 page 2 (features section) comment by Phillip Adams, `RSPCA clowns around'
12/6/97 page 5 news item by Fiona Kennedy, `Golden age of circus in full swing'
The Herald Sun
12/2/96 page 14 50/50 comment, `Think twice'
4/4/97 page 9 news item by Fiona Byrne, `RSPCA goes wild over circus animals'
9/4/97 page 18 comments by Fred Maynard and Hugh Wirth, `Should wild animals be used in circuses?'
The Internet
The Hong Kong-based conservation and animal activist group, Earthcare, gives 12 pages to arguments against wild animals in circuses. This is interesting, if somewhat repetitious material. It can be found at http://www.earth.org.hk/circus.html
The British animal activist group, Circus Watch, has its home page at http://www.arcnews.demon.co.uk/arc/circus/ This includes comments from the British RSPCA.
The American Royal King circus has its home page at http://www.moraetes.com/kr-circus/ This has click-throughs to two different pages that defend this circus' use of animals.
The American Garden Brothers Circus also has a home page with a click-through to another page defending this circus' use of animals. Its home page can be found at http://www.gardenbrothers.com/ This site encourages you to send them your views on the issue.
The Australian RSPCA has its position on The Use of Animals for Sport and Entertainment reproduced at http://www.ezycolour.com.au/RSPCA/sport.html
Australian regulations on the temporary export of wildlife in travelling circuses and exhibitions can be found at http://www.anca.gov.au/plants/wildlife/inf34a.htm