The trial between Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus and its animal rights critics kicked off in front of a packed house today. And while opening arguments were slightly more subdued than your average big-top affair, lawyers for both sides did their best to put on a show.
The bench trial, which will determine whether Ringling’s elephant-handling practices violate the Endangered Species Act, drew a crowd of supporters from both camps, who filled Judge Emmet Sullivan’s courtroom at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The spectators seemed to segregate along party lines – pro-circus on the left, pro-activists on the right – while a court employee went scrambling to find a spare room, where latecomers could watch the proceedings on a television.
The stars of the event, for most of the morning at least, were the elephants themselves. Arguing for the animal organizations that brought the case, Katherine Meyer, of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, spun a positively Dumbo-like account of the pachyderms’ daily lives, describing cross-country trips spent chained for days on end in dank train cars, standing in piles of their own excrement and unable to move. A tape showed the elephants shifting restlessly in a cramped-looking, lowly lit freight car.
After holding up a rather imposing “bull hook” – it looked a bit like an oversized fire-poker – Meyer described handlers wielding the long, sharp rod to prod and sometimes beat the elephants into a state of fearful submission, adding that pliers were also used to train infants.
“These highly intelligent animals stand lifeless, dispirited, in a stupor, for fear of the bull hook,” Meyer said, capping off the grim litany of alleged abuses.
John Simpson of Fulbright & Jaworski brought a folksier tone to the proceedings as he spoke for the defense, arguing that this was not a case about the tools of the elephant trade, but rather an attempt to eliminate elephants from entertainment completely.
Ringling’s handling methods have been in use for thousands of years and are employed by nearly every zoo in the country, he said. Without them, the animals couldn’t be a part of Ringling’s show.
“They can’t say they’re not against elephants in the circus,” Simpson said in his light southern drawl. “It’s like saying you’re not against baseball, just the bats and the balls.”
Much of Simpson’s opening argument was spent attacking the plaintiffs’ reading of the Endangered Species Act, going through some provisions word by word. But he had his own bag of props as well, pulling out a much smaller, more humane-looking version of the bull hook, which he called a guide – “I don’t know where they got their guide at, maybe the Smithsonian,” he joked – and playing a rather pastoral video of Ringling’s retired elephants at their breeding center in Florida, calmly munching on hay.
“As you can tell, they’re in outstanding health,” Simpson said.
“How can I tell they’re in outstanding health?” asked Judge Sullivan.
“Just look at them,” Simpson said, noting that some of the animals on tape had joined the circus during the Eisenhower administration. Sullivan seemed satisfied with the answer.
The show is expected to play on for about a month.
See Legal Times' coverage of the Ringling case from this week's issue.
As a fan of elephants, though not necessarily circuses, I'm curious as to what the desired outcome of this trial is for the animal rights people. If the tools of the elephant handlers are deemed harmful, how can they do their jobs safely? If the elephants are removed from circuses, where will they go? Asia is not exactly wide open these days, and many of the sanctuaries are non-breeding facilities. Isn't this condemning elephants to an equally bleak future?
Posted by: Meredith | February 16, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Gary-
It's possible to be for some, but not all of those things. An animal activist may accept the use of animals for necessities, like medical research, but not for frivolities, like cosmetic testing and circuses.
However, it seems you give animals very little moral consideration, as you are pro-fur, among other frivolous uses of animals. I find it unfortunate that someone, who I no doubt considers himself a caring, moral individual, could find it acceptable to subject another being to a lifetime of misery just to satiate our appetite for fashionable clothing and entertainment.
Posted by: Chris | February 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM
I'm 55 years old. I've been a fan of the circus and of the elephants that perform and thrive there all my life. I traveled with Ringling Bros. as a young man and have seen the care that many different handlers have given these great animals. I have never witnessed mistreatment of any kind by the handlers, or by the performers who present these pachyderms. I have seen the continued improvement of care for all circus animal of the past five decades. There is a bond that develops between human and animal that goes far beyond the presentation. I commend Kenneth Feld and his organization for their farsighted care of not only the performing animals, but also for the care given them when they retire from performing. The Center for Elephant Conservation began long before this trial came to light and will continue long after these short-sighted critics are silenced.
May All Your Days, Be Circus Days!
~frank ferrante
Mesa, AZ
Posted by: Frank Ferrante | February 12, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Where are all the pretty show girls in all of this?
Posted by: | February 11, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I cant believe it has come to people wanting to see an Elephant dance or where a ridiculous costume so bad that it has clouded their judgment to instead of let these endangered species live in the wild the way it was meant to be they would rather see them in a show. It is sad it has come to this.
Posted by: Lawrence Pivec | February 05, 2009 at 06:37 PM
I really hope that any intelligent person let alone a judge would be able to see this is animal abuse and should not be tolerated in any way. What a cruel and horrible way to treat a living thing! Where's the compassion? My thoughts as a child on the circus was the abuse seen through my eyes as a kid has stayed with me as an adult. I knew than it was wrong and hope others see it that way still. It's just wrong in every way!
Posted by: Wendy Salick | February 05, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Go Circus! Stop the animal extremists from taking away meat, fur, fishing, hunting, a cure for cancer, milk, and the circus! I call upon the courts to expose the animal extremists businesses for what they are! Do not allow the whim to triumph over the will of many. Save the elephants by supporting Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey who have contributed more to the knowledge and conservation of elephants at their Center for Elephant Conservation in 20 years than has been done in a lifetime!
Sign me - Pro Circus!
Gary C. Payne
Circus Fan
Posted by: Gary C. Payne | February 05, 2009 at 08:30 AM
I hope the judge in this case really listens to the animal rights people. This is important for these animals and their well being. It may be just litigation to us, but for these elephants, it is their very right to exist in a pain free world. Elephants travel many miles a day in their natural habitat, they make bonds with their families that are lifelong and meaningful. The are self aware, as are we...intelligent? I know many that are more intelligent than people are...which may not be saying a lot. Circuses are horror stories for the animals that are forced to participate in them and we that patronize them ought to be ashamed. Many animal rights people started when they were small children and someone brought them to a circus. They looked in the elephants eyes and saw misery and that misery guided them to spend their lives protecting and defending them. Children make connections that adults don't or have given up...that is that animals are not here for us. They exist for their own reasons..they are not underlings, but earthlings, and they deserve to be with their families and not tortured for our amusement.
Posted by: Connee Robertson | February 05, 2009 at 07:07 AM