Ban on bringing elephant parts into U.S. rescinded

courtesy google images 

We were horrified to see that the ban on bringing elephant parts into the United States has been rescinded which would allow trophy hunters, "poachers" and others to bring the heads, tails, tusks, feet, of elephants into this country for bragging rights. 

Your spcaLA has been fighting for the humane treatment of elephants and other endangered and protected species, and against the cowardly, barbaric and uncivilized "sport" of mutilating and torturing animals since our inception in 1877.

We, of course have issued a statement against this action, and urge a reinstatement of the ban.

Also today, California, State Senator Henry Stern announced that he is considering legislative action, in concert with animal welfare advocates, to prevent the possession of elephant trophies in California. Californians can find their representatives to express support at www.govtrack.us/congress/members.

Furthermore, Americans who are concerned about the slaughter of elephants for their parts can contact their members of Congress (www.govtrack.us/congress/members) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service at www.fws.gov to express said concerns.

Is it just me, or does this feel like this came about because a couple of whiny spoiled kids desperately need to show their daddy what they did and make him proud? Are we proud?

The Final Curtain to Fall on Ringling Brothers After 146 years

courtesy Google Images

Ringling Brothers is finally closing the circus  after 146 years.

Henry Bergh, the founder of spcaLA (1877) was reputed to be seen frequently fighting with P.T.Barnum on the streets of New York City in order to persuade him that such a use of animals was shameful and immoral. If you do the math you can see that the use of animals in entertainment has been a core issue for as long as we have opened our doors.

For me, it's also personal. The first day of my first animal welfare job ever, required me to go to Madison Square Garden to check on a unicorn that was premiering in the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Baily circus. I was horrified to see that the unicorn was a goat with a horn surgically implanted in her skull. Of course, we were outraged that it wasn't enough that circus animals already had to endure travel hardships, harsh training practices, abnormal environments and extreme stress, but it appeared that surgically transforming animals to look like something else was not off the table. It made me very sad as it pulled the curtain back and forever altered my very positive childhood memories of my father, in a suit, taking my brothers and me, all dressed up, to see the animals and swing our little red circus flashlights as elephants marched and trapeze artists flew. 

Ringling cited poor attendance, bullhook bans, elephant bans and animal activists as the reasons for their decision. I say, that we all evolved, community standards changed and that we collectively agreed that magic and illusions are fun as long as the man behind the curtain is not actually beating an animal or any living being to create the effect.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their persistence in this matter and, yes, also Ringling Brothers for finally doing the right and humane thing.

  

The OTHER reason the bullhook veto hurts

Courtesy Google Images

In his message vetoing the ban on bullhooks, the governor stated that he did not want "to create a new crime", lamenting that there are so many, and that "our jail and prison population have exploded".

For the most part I agree that we should not criminalize every individual type of behavior when such behavior would be subsumed under a general, elastic, broad statute. The reason is that when there is a list of specific prohibited conduct, and a criminal does something not on the list, the door is opened for the defense to argue that if the legislature intended this to be wrong - it would have added it to the list. Bullhooks however, though instruments of torture, were universally accepted as a necessary training device, a likely defense to the crime of animal cruelty, and therefore needs its own statutory language. But that is NOT the reason for the veto. Prison overcrowding is the reason to the detriment of elephants and the rest us.

Our country uses prisons to house the mentally ill, the homeless, minor drug offenders, and an assortment of others hapless souls. California is already under Federal decree to reduce overcrowding in prisons. Therefore, there is an impetus to avoid the creation of new crimes, reduce sentences and release broad categories of prisoners back into society. Various broad stroke propositions like 109 (which realigns categories of crime) and 47 (which reduces penalties) among other things govern this exodus. The problem, is that these are general, clumsy, thoughtless ways of emptying the jails with no targeted and tailored programs on the other end that will reduce crime, aid re-entry, and prevent recidivism. Additionally, violent offenders who need to be incarcerated squeak out under these "fixes", (Note the increase in crime in this state!) It is analogous to cutting off an arm to treat a splinter!  The splinter is gone but the process, without more, leaves a person in serious peril.

Thus the veto on our bullhook ban. A new crime needed to be created but now won't be because of massive mismanagement of the system.

We can pass city by city bans to help our elephants as we have been doing - but who do I see about fixing the rest of this mess for us all?

Ringling Bros. Failed to Train the Public to Come to the Show

Courtesy Google Images

UPDATE: Ringling announced today that it is eliminating elephant acts May of 2016 rather than 2018 citing concerns over public opinion and pesky local ordinances!



Ringling Bros. announced that they are phasing out elephant acts by 2018, Their parent company Feld Entertainment cited public concern for the welfare of elephants and this;

"...  certain cities and counties have passed "anti-circus" and "anti-elephant" ordinances. The company's three shows visit 115 cities throughout the year, and Feld said it's expensive to fight legislation in each jurisdiction. It's also difficult to plan tours amid constantly changing regulations.." (President Kenneth Feld)

We should take note that constant vigilance, intelligent opposition and local legislation can yield powerful results. We must keep this up for the benefit of the tigers, dogs and camels and other animals still asked to perform extreme acts for our entertainment. I would also urge close monitoring of their Center for Elephant Conservation in Florida where their elephants are housed.

Until all the animals are unshackled and released from the forced travel, training and dystopian existence we must watch, speak and legislate their freedom.

The public won't be “bull hooked” into buying tickets.

THE NOT SO " FRIENDLY " AMENDMENT TO THE BULLHOOK BAN

History in Los Angeles was made when our city council unanimously passed a ban on bullhooks. Years of work, tireless effort, and constant prodding by dedicated animal welfare advocates and the community, finally resulted in a victory for our elephants. We moved city hall! Then a horrible thing happened. Councilmember Cedillo offered a friendly amendment which supported the ban but would delay its effective date for 3 years. This was done to assuage the circus interests who cried for their business needs and inconveniences.

Courtesy Google  Images

I simply cannot let this go. The council members rightly characterized the use of the bullhooks as torture and animal cruelty. Council President Wesson while watching a heart wrenching video of  "trainers" using the bullhook while the elephants screamed and cried, said "I've seen enough - let's vote" and ordered the video stopped. Each member of council then reiterated how horrific this abuse is and that the use of the bullhook will not be tolerated in Los Angeles.

Then they accepted the amendment and the continuing torture by bullhook for 3 more years.

I do understand legitimate business reasons for delaying the effective date of new legislation. I have chaired the legislative committee of a statewide organization for over a decade. There are times that infrastructure needs to be put in place, forms created, personnel trained, or time allotted to draft local ordinances to effectuate compliance with a new state law.

This is not that. How can we permit conduct that our lawmakers deem to be torture, and, as such a felony under the California animal cruelty statue, to continue for 3 more years?  If I yanked the hair of any reader of  this article and said " the good news is that I will let go in 3 years"  I would not be congratulated for my benevolence.  This is not okay with me. I submit to you that it is not okay with the elephants either.

I would have liked to see the council members stand up to the circus and their powers that be. I would have liked to see them say that it is inhumane to permit such cruel acts for the sake of a silly parlor trick.  I would have liked to see them just say "no" to the amendment.

But they didn't.

I apologize if I seem ungrateful for the bullhook ban that will go into effect in 3 years. I apologize if I appear immature and unfamiliar with the world of business negotiations. I apologize to my colleagues if I am the wet blanket at the victory party.

How, oh how do we apologize to the elephants...



"We are not the only animal that mourns; apes do, and elephants, and dogs. Yet we are the only one that tortures." Geraldine Brooks

CALL TO ACTION - Los Angeles City Council To Vote To Ban Bullhooks

UPDATE - The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to ban bullhooks in Los Angeles - but it will be phased in over 3 years.

On October 23rd, the Los Angeles City Council will consider banning the use of bullhooks when handling an elephant. Though it is my preference that all exotic animals be banned from circuses and other such exhibitions - I am happy to start here.

Courtesy Google Images

A bullhook is a heavy rod with a pointy sharp metal tip and a hook at the end, often referred to as a “guide”, which may be used to prod, hook, jab or hit an elephant in order to “train” him/her to perform circus tricks or other such things. These instruments are capable of causing lacerations, punctures, and great pain when used with force, particularly on an elephant’s extremely sensitive trunk. The assertion that the use of the bullhook is just an extension of a trainer's arm and rarely leaves a mark is nonsense. If that were so it wouldn't need a sharp point and hook to persuade the elephant to something.  Further, if it were used to only strike but not tear it would also be abusive as it would be analogous to repeatedly smacking someone in the face during a walk to ensure that he or she gets somewhere on time. The constant smacking may not leave a mark – but – it surely would be horrible to endure. Experts have stated that the association with a bullhook is so frightening that elephants who have not seen one in years will visibly respond to the mere sight of one.

Notwithstanding the fact that the more enlightened perspective is to leave such animal “entertainment” in the annals of history, or change our acceptance of what would under other circumstances amount to repeated acts of animal cruelty, an outright ban of the use of bullhooks in Los Angeles is an excellent first step. 

Bullhook Courtesy Google Images

Let’s keep our elephants safe, free of pain, and away from those who would abuse or exploit them. 

Please contact your councilperson  and politely urge them to vote for this ban and, come to City Hall on Wednesday and tell them again.

Thank you

Elephants Are spcaLA Business!

spcaLA early horse ambulance

After speaking out on the recent court decision condemning the treatment of the elephants at the Los Angeles Zoo, I received some advice from some members of the public to "stick to spcaLA business and stay out of the business of elephants and everything else".

Though these comments were few in number, I feel compelled to say something.

Since 1877 spcaLA has been caring for all animals, including women and children of the species human. Be it work horses, beasts of burden, circus animals, sharks or a pet canary, spcaLA was and continues to be here to stop and prevent animal cruelty. In the 1860s Henry Bergh, the father of the spca movement, was known to have fights with P.T. Barnum himself outside the big top when the circus would come to town!  California state law gives us jurisdiction over "every dumb creature" which includes elephants, mountain lions, mice and dogs.

It is spcaLA business to prevent cruelty to animals through education, law enforcement, intervention and advocacy whenever and wherever it exists.

Henry Bergh was nicknamed the "great meddler" as he always spoke up and interceded on behalf of an animal in need. I accept that mantle and raise the bar to that of "equalizer" as spcaLA has and will continue to protect our vulnerable animals by equalizing the disparity in power, neutralizing the bullies and leveraging the law until it is no longer necessary to do so.

The treatment of elephants is spcaLA business.

      
  "A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to        assist and shrinks from injuring anything that lives."   Albert Schweitzer

Judge, Extremely Critical of LA Zoo Imposes Conditions to Keep Elephant Exhibit Open

The 42 million dollar elephant exhibit at the LA Zoo can remain open provided that certain conditions are met. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John L. Segal, in his 56-page opinion issued Tuesday, ordered the Los Angeles Zoo to improve the welfare of the elephants in its “Elephants of Asia” by doing the following:

      

courtesy google images

  "cease using bull hooks and electric shock in the management, care, and discipline of the elephants, exercise the elephants at least 2 hours a day, and rototill the soil and substrate of the elephant exhibit" consistent with specific  recommendations of named outside experts.

The judge further found that "this exhibit is not a happy place for elephants" and that the belief to the contrary by high ranking zoo officials is "delusional". It was further determined at trial that representations of the size and its state of the art design by  zoo officials to city council to obtain approval for the exhibit were sorely lacking in accuracy. First, half of the acreage is really for spectators and not the elephants, and second the surface upon which the elephants stand is actually detrimental to their health and well-being as it creates a "risk of injury to the elephants' joints, feet, and nails". He was further horrified by the lack of knowledge and "gaps in education" of the keeper in charge of the elephants.

spcaLA, along with other animal welfare advocates, have opposed this exhibit, pressured the zoo for years to close any elephant exhibit and requested USDA intervention on behalf of the elephants, as their treatment, though awful, and as Judge Segal confirmed, did not, legally, rise to the level of criminal animal cruelty or abuse. 

This verdict is a game changer. All eyes must be on the zoo to ensure that the orders of the court are followed as failing to so do could be seen as intentionally harming the elephants, which might be viewed as criminal. 

Better still - would be for the zoo to return the two female elephants, Tina and Jewel, to San Diego from where they are on loan, send Billy, the bull to sanctuary, and apologize to all of us for this fiasco.
  
Maybe this verdict will wake up other zoos still keeping elephants.

Congratulations to David Casselman, the attorney who sued the zoo on behalf of us taxpayers. 

        

Sarah the Elephant Collapses After Ringling Circus Performance

UPDATE: The owner of the Ringling Bros. circus has agreed to pay USDA a $270,000 fine to settle allegations that it violated federal animal-welfare laws in its handling of elephants, tigers, zebras and other exotic animals. USDA asserted that this is the largest fine ever levied against an exhibitor pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act. Nov.28th 2011
   
A 54 year old elephant, named Sarah, collapsed  after performing at the Ringling Brothers Circus Sunday night at the Honda Center in Anaheim California. Ringling Brothers maintains it was simply a loss of balance on a ramp. Animal welfare advocates maintain it was lack of proper medical care and fatigue.

 photo courtesy of ADI

In June of this year, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) cited Ringling Brothers for violating the Federal Animal Welfare Act for failing to properly treat and diagnose the elephant's illness thus supporting the theory that an untreated infection could weaken, stress and cause the elephant to be overly fatigued during performances and transit. Ringling Brothers admitted that Sarah has suffered a chronic infection since 1997 but claims it is not serious or relevant to this matter.

Neither elephants, nor any other circus animals, are born trained to perform on stage. In the wild they do not sit on chairs, wear costumes or parade about on 2 legs. They have to be made to do this and how that occurs is the question. Circus personnel and other dealers in performing animals always assert that training methods are based upon positive reinforcement and reward. Yet videos showing baby elephants being tied up, shocked and hit with bullhooks continue to surface. And most recently, a video showing the electric shocking and of the elephant star in the movie "Water for Elephants" was circulated.


Additionally, there is the question of how animals are transported, housed and treated between shows. Are they overcrowded, chained up constantly, bullied, fed, cared for and soothed. The Huffington Post  asserts that the USDA also cited Ringling Brothers for having rail cars with protruding wires that could also hurt the elephants.

When animals are considered inventory and maintained for profit, there is no incentive to invest a lot of resources into their care. The higher the expense side of the ledger, the lower the net profits.

Why do we insist on supporting an industry that shackles, chains, contorts, and breaks wild animals until they submit to wearing rhinestone hats and jumping through hoops.  What about the long days cramped in train cars, endless hours chained to posts, and grueling "training" sessions topped off by a performance under bright lights, in front of thousands of screaming people which are constantly suffered by elephants, lions, tigers, horses and other circus animals?  Do we require this form of amusement? Are we still searching for a King Kong to hawk as another wonder of the world and to, of course, make a promoter rich? Does our happiness depend upon an elephant walking on hind legs or a tiger jumping through a ring of fire? I surely hope not. Can our children grow to be fine adults without witnessing this? I surely hope so. Make no mistake. It is not magic. These animals aren't born wanting to perform those tricks. They are forced, hurt, bullied and can't call for help. They have no choice.

 We can stop this. If we can't ban animals in circuses - we can ignore the circus to death. We certainly don't have to make our children enablers of these practices. If it is no longer profitable to enslave and destroy the spirit or our wild animals - maybe they will go away. 

Just say no to the circus.

Article first published as Ringling Brothers Elephant, Sarah, Collapses After Show on Technorati

The Electric Shocking and Beating of an Animal Actor

TMZ  has reported that there is video depicting, the electric shocking and beating of the elephant actor, Tai, who stars in the new film "Water for Elephants".  Animal Defenders International (ADI) has just released a very disturbing training video of Tai and other elephants being shocked with a stun gun and beaten with bull hooks while "learning" tricks and having tusks sawed down. Tai is seen crying out in pain from the stun gun shock while being "taught" to perform a headstand. Ironically, the film, among other things, is about the physical abuse and cruelty endured by animals, specifically an elephant, living as part of a traveling circus.

When an animal, actor is required, the stated policy is that they must be humanely treated on set and, production companies fund an inspection process through American Humane (AH) so that they can have a "no animal was hurt during the making of this film" statement in the credits. In fact, AH, on set during the filming of "Water for Elephants" said no animals were hurt and that special effects were used to depict the abuse of the elephant called for in the script. According to TMZ, AH has now seen the video and "will comment shortly". Therein, lies the rub. Notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interest of the producers paying the inspectors, savvy personnel either film in a country where no animal treatment restrictions apply, or the prohibited behavior occurs off set and after hours. Clearly, as abusing an animal is a crime, one can hardly expect the conduct to occur in plain view. Additionally, when the part calls for a "trained animal" an animal actor is brought in with no inquiry as to the training, husbandry or daily treatment of the animal. There is no curiosity as to how one can make an elephant stand on her head. The suppliers assure the crew that all is fine and everyone has a clear conscience. According to ADI while one of the co-founders of "Have Trunk Will Travel", the suppliers, was asserting that the elephant was trained with kindness and marshmallows, another co-founder is seen in the video shocking the elephant.

This debate is not new to Hollywood. Silent film cowboy star and director William Hart fought for the humane treatment of animals in show business, and was the first to insist that his horse be addressed by his name "Fritz". Bob Barker took up the cause of the treatment of chimps in the film "Project X", spcaLA stopped the poor treatment of horses on the set of the television series "Dr.  Quinn Medicine Woman", and Betty White declined a role in "As Good As It Gets" because she didn't like a scene in which a dog appeared, (a real dog was not used) to be thrown down a laundry chute. Ms. White was afraid people, often confusing reality and art,  would emulate the conduct!

In the age of special effects, digital simulations, and robot technology there is a question as to the need to use an actual animal to play the part of an animal in a film, television show or stage play. In the "old days" groups of horses stumbling during a conflict between cowboys and Indians was not the product of love and reward training, but rather actual falls caused by trip wire. Many horses were killed during the heyday of the western movie genre. Now there are so many ways to create the illusions of animal activity that there is no need to force animals to behave unnaturally for our entertainment.

To a real elephant getting cut with a bull hook, there is no movie magic - just pain and despair.


Article first published as The Electric Shocking and Beating of an Animal Actor on Technorati.

CEO Go-Daddy Bob Parsons Kills Elephant for Vacation Sport

Bob Parsons, CEO of GoDaddy.com, a domain-name hosting company, proudly posted a vacation video of himself killing an elephant in Zimbabwe. In the video he characterized the mission as hunting for a "problem elephant" and said that "of everything I do, this is the most rewarding".  The piece further depicted the local residents butchering the elephant while sporting GoDaddy.com hats and boasted about how many people this elephant will feed. 

The video went viral as animal activists and concerned citizens were horrified and urged a boycott of the GoDaddy.com site. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals immediately closed its account. In fact, the Washington Post Blog is reporting that other domain-name providers are seizing this opportunity to encourage people to leave GoDaddy.com using coupon names and donations to Save the Elephants for each switch.

Parsons insists that he is simultaneously assisting farmers who can lose their crops at the feet of a stomping elephant and providing much needed food to hungry villagers.

Man's conflict with wildlife is not a new problem. As property is developed and malls, golf courses, and homes encroach upon wildlife habitats, confrontations occur. Be it coyotes, mountain lions, and bears in California, or elephants in, Zimbabwe - the story is the same. Animals want to eat, drink and mate.  People want lawns, crops and upright garbage pails. And each is willing to defend their space.

However, there are rational, scientific and humane alternatives to these problems that foster peaceful co-existence between humans and wildlife. It is also the case regarding elephants. For example the World Wildlife Fund suggests chili and tobacco-based deterrents as one idea of many to keep the elephants out of the fields.

Simply perpetuating the battle without humane change will not address the problem at its root, preserve our wildlife, endangered or otherwise, or teach our children anything but violence. It will, however, leave many carcasses in our path. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in opposing violence as a solution to anything - "That old law about an "eye for an eye" leaves everybody blind."

Article first published as CEO Go-Daddy Bob Parsons Kills Elephant for Vacation Sport on Technorati.