California’s Circus Cruelty Protection Act

Notably, there are exceptions for facilities accredited by the AZA and Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries; it also doesn't apply to all species, although it looks like it might affect many or most non-domestics (as well as a few domestics like camels and llamas).

I understand the intent behind this, but it sounds like the legislation is written too broadly and without enough input from the places it affects. I'm no fan of keeping animals in circuses or traveling shows and I do believe that constant transport can stress some species and individual animals out; however, there is a difference between facilities that just do this for money and don't care about animal welfare, and facilities that do it for educational outreach and only use individual animals that they know are suited for it.

Then again, it is sponsored by PETA, who everyone knows are world-renowned experts in animal psychology...
 
Cat Haven has posted warnings on their Facebook page about this bill, as it would prevent them from doing off-site educational work with their cats. They are asking everyone in California to contact the state legislature to voice their opposition.
 
When I saw the title, I thought "Good, now all the cats and elephants can retire to sanctuaries and zoos" and was going to ask a question about who went to a circus when they were young, but now that i've read this...

Well, PETA does support so many animal sanctuaries, its funny to see themselves blatantly shoot themselves in the foot. Plus, many zoos do work with sanctuaries and vice versa.
 
Ah, the usual suspects at PETA ... our "favorite" bunch of insane and obnoxious animal killing radical activists. At it again with some idiocy or other, as per usual.

I'm not a fan of circusses with wild animals and it's a practice I don't think should be promoted or continued, but this is not about that. From what I read on Facebook there are very few circusses with animals even visiting California these days. But there are many, many times more educational, outreach and ambassador programs and traveling exhibitions run by people who do care very much about the welfare of the animals under their care and about educating people and who know full well - much better than PETA ever could - what they are doing.

What this really is is a way to strike against, if not entirely eliminate an entire animal-related industry with a very poorly motivated blanket ban grafted on a basis of legitimate outcry over certain objectionable practice, and to possibly make it more difficult for other animal-related industries (like zoos and sanctuaries) to operate, for example regarding the transfer of animals.

I did read the bill and on the surface it perhaps isn't all that bad as there are some ins and outs and exemptions, but it still seems overly broad and strict to me.

Also, the great majority of legislation supported and pushed by PETA can't be any good. And lawmakers shouldn't be colluding with PETA or doing their bidding. PETA is an organization that is known to kill animals in masses, to condone criminal activity, to condone and actively use intimidation techniques and other immoral means and to support convicted criminals. By your fruits you shall know them, and PETA's fruits are so rotten no lawmaker should ever even consider spoiling or infecting themselves through contact with these nutjobs' radical ideology.

There is nothing whatsover ethical about PETA - their acronym really should stand for something like Pernicious Extremist Trolls for Animal rightism or something along those lines.

This is not an organization anyone in government should ever be cooperating with, and if they do, they should be forcefully removed from the office they hold - forever.

Also, PETA is the kind of group that given a finger will viciously chew up your whole arm demanding ever more. Once given a single victory they will be emboldened to go for ever more and to destroy more animal-related industries, not to mention the freedoms of individual citizens and families. There will be more targets PETA will try to target through collusion with lawmakers if they achieve success on this one. And maybe zoos will be next...
 
If there is one saving grace that could lead to the bill being denounced, it's simply the fact that PETA supports it. Considering they have been public enemy number one recently, and much of their shady and/or discriminating past has been brought attention to, it seems like nobody wants to agree or be associated with anything they have to say. Which makes us zoo nerds very, very happy.
 
pachyderm pro said:
If there is one saving grace that could lead to the bill being denounced, it's simply the fact that PETA supports it. Considering they have been public enemy number one recently, and much of their shady and/or discriminating past has been brought attention to, it seems like nobody wants to agree or be associated with anything they have to say. Which makes us zoo nerds very, very happy.
Click to expand...
Really? Other than than the stupid things they said about Steve Irwin and the new Pokemon games, I haven't heard anything about them that seemed unusual. But then again, I haven't paying much attention.
 
birdsandbats said:
Really? Other than than the stupid things they said about Steve Irwin and the new Pokemon games, I haven't heard anything about them that seemed unusual. But then again, I haven't paying much attention.
Click to expand...
That is of course their most infamous remarks as of late, however what I meant was much of their controversial background that was already known by some has been brought attention to many mainstream figures and celebrities. Never has PETA faced such backslash in their history to my knowledge, at least not at this caliber.
 
pachyderm pro said:
Never has PETA faced such backslash in their history to my knowledge, at least not at this caliber.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, in the widely-quoted, annually-updated Chapman University survey of Americans' top fears, "extreme animal rightists" came in in 84th place, 'feared' by 11.3% of the population (this placed it just behind "significant other cheating on you", and just ahead of "sharing a restroom with a transgender person"). This fear was a new one - it did not feature in 2017. The top fear, for what it's worth, was "corrupt government officials".
 
FunkyGibbon said:
Genuine question: in what sense is this true?
Click to expand...
Ringling Bros. Circus did run an elephant sanctuary in Florida with an incredible birth record and also donated a lot of money into elephant conservation. I happen to know quite a bit about circus animal care and can tell you that while it is different with different circuses, the animal care isn't/wasn't San Diego level it is/was perfectly acceptable - at least as acceptable as most zoos.

The 'abusive circus' is more of an animal right invention than anything.
 
birdsandbats said:
The 'abusive circus' is more of an animal right invention than anything.
Click to expand...
I find that highly doubtful, at least for modern circuses which at least care about welfare, which I suspect is merely because they've been strongarmed by activists were are/were actually sensible.
 
birdsandbats said:
Ringling Bros. Circus did run an elephant sanctuary in Florida with an incredible birth record and also donated a lot of money into elephant conservation. I happen to know quite a bit about circus animal care and can tell you that while it is different with different circuses, the animal care isn't/wasn't San Diego level it is/was perfectly acceptable - at least as acceptable as most zoos.

The 'abusive circus' is more of an animal right invention than anything.
Click to expand...

I am posting with only a smattering of background knowledge, but:

Is that not a breeding centre that existed primarily to provide elephants for the circus to show? It may well be that the breeding record is fantastic, and that it will be the savior if the North American Asian elephant population, but that could be true of any source of elephants and doesn't seem to say much about the circus itself being of conservation importance.

The animal care may well be very good, but I find it very hard to accept that the husbandry is. I have no objection to animals being moved by vehicles obviously, but when that is happening on a frequent basis and animals have at best irregular access to proper enclosures I have no qualms about casting a disapproving eye.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
Is that not a breeding centre that existed primarily to provide elephants for the circus to show? [...] I have no objection to animals being moved by vehicles obviously, but when that is happening on a frequent basis and animals have at best irregular access to proper enclosures I have no qualms about casting a disapproving eye.
Click to expand...

While this was the case previously, Ringling Bros. no longer uses elephants in their circuses, so the elephants at the breeding center are presumably not being moved around and trained for shows anymore.

birdsandbats said:
The 'abusive circus' is more of an animal right invention than anything.
Click to expand...

As @FunkyGibbon said, I would be honestly interested in hearing more about this. I don't know much as circuses have never interested me and animal shows appear to have been on the decline anyway, but it would be nice to have an alternative viewpoint.
 
birdsandbats said:
Ringling Bros. Circus did run an elephant sanctuary in Florida with an incredible birth record and also donated a lot of money into elephant conservation. I happen to know quite a bit about circus animal care and can tell you that while it is different with different circuses, the animal care isn't/wasn't San Diego level it is/was perfectly acceptable - at least as acceptable as most zoos.
Click to expand...
Ringling's "Center for Elephant Conservation" was set up purely for their own interests - it was not a conservation initiative.

Can you give some details of how they have "donated a lot of money into elephant conservation"? The only example I know of was as part of a $20,000 settlement in a court case which went to Asian Elephant conservation - and that was paid out because they had to, not because they were interested in funding actual conservation efforts.

You said "Modern circuses are/were actually very important for animal conservation" - I'd really like to see some genuine examples of this claim.
 
Circuses have absolutely no role in conservation what so ever. Ringlings "conservation center" in Florida was built for sole purpose of producing more elephants to perform in their thankfully now discontinued show. Zero money is being sunk into actual Asian elephant conservation efforts.
Not to mention the use of free contact and "bullhooks" still being used, despite every American zoo discontinuing the practice. Never liked circuses that use exotic animals, never will. The only good thing that has come out of this center have been the elephants that have been loaned out to a small handful of zoos in the US. Even then, thats only two cases where this has happened.
 
Good news! Cat Haven has posted on their Facebook that after extensive meetings with California lawmakers this week, the bill has been amended to only affect circuses (as the bill's name originally implied). Cat Haven says they now support the new version and are asking Californians to write to the state senate to express their support and appreciation for the change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top