Ringling Bros Circus Vs PETA: Legal Analysis

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has filed a new complaint against Ringling Bros (Feld Entertainment, Inc.) earlier this month based on photographs that are at least seven years old and the testimony of a man now dead. At issue is whether baby elephants are being abused while being trained to do specific "tricks" that are geared ultimately to offer circus entertainment to the public. There are two main problems with their approach.

One, the adage that "dead men tell no tales" is of course not true and the evidence is used every day during the investigation of crime scenes through the use of forensic science, autopsies, and other tools used to determine what happened to a person, animal, or an object. The problem is that when the testimony is given and then used by a third party, there is no way of cross-examining that testimony or asking questions when the focus or author of that testimony is no longer available or (as in this case) the now deceased Sammy Haddock.

Due to his death, Haddock cannot be cross-examined or questioned as to why he took the photographs, why he gave them to PETA, or why he made the statements that, based on his words and photographs alone, it was proof of animal abuse. He cannot be asked what his primary agenda was for doing so, what he hoped to gain or to happen because of his testimony and photographs, or if he simply had a grudge against the company.

Two, the adage that "pictures are worth a thousand words" is too true; however, the story they tell is one of context, perspective, interpretation, and the agenda of the one promoting the story they want the photographs to portray. It is also of primary importance that common sense be used, something that is often in short supply and especially by those who have a fanatical belief in what they are alleging to be true.

PETA and Ringling officials both agree that the photographs being shown to the world are true representations of what occurs at the Ringling elephant conservation center and training facility located in Florida. What they are at odds over is what the photographs are actually portraying. PETA avows it is animal cruelty while Ringling states unequivocally that it is normal, non-abusive, and humane treatment of the animals while in training. Again, it is each individual group's perspective and interpretation of what those images are showing to be daily occurrences.

Another problem is that there has been no evidence of physical harm in the proof of gouges, wounds, bruising, punctures, or other forms of injury that would show or prove animal abuse during training. The so-called "psychological abuse" is not something that can be measured or determined, especially by the use of photographs alone nor can the elephants answer that question themselves. Instead, it is purely speculation and a matter of perspective of those who claim to know what the animals are thinking or feeling about what is happening to them.

In the end, it will come down to what evidence is available, which witnesses are credible and which ones are not, and what proof exists to prove or disprove animal cruelty that is not subject to interpretation, perspective, perception, assumption, and speculation. If animal cruelty is found to exist, then Ringling will pay the price through fines or other punitive measures and the company will be forced to change the methods they use in training their animals to perform. If there is no abuse, then (hopefully) it will end the lawsuits being filed almost yearly against the circus industry by those claiming their job is to keep animals from abuse or harm by the owners.

Sources:
PETA, Ringling Bros. at odds over the treatment of baby circus elephants, by David Montgomery, December 16, 2009
Closing Arguments Delivered in ASPCA et. al. v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., March 18, 2009