After 50 Years of Animal Suffering at Marineland, People are Taking Notice. Will it Make a Difference?

Kandu, an orca at Marineland, was forced to live in isolation for years. He died in December, 2005

 “You can judge a nation, and it’s moral progress, by the way it treats its animals.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

Ever since the St. Catharines Standard wrote a story about Baby Jane, a captive pilot whale with “suicidal tendencies” back in 1967, critics and animal rights advocates have been trying to dispel the myth that “Everyone Loves Marineland”.

Baby Jane would apparently charge head-on into the metal bars of her holding tank, and then smash into the walls of it, “with blood gushing from a gash in her head,” writhing “wildly about” and trying to throw herself out of the water.

The paper had also reported that she’d been inactive since she “arrived” at Marineland (read: forcibly captured and put on display) and performers who swam with her regularly would swear she was crying.

A sad story. What’s even sadder is that, almost 50 years later, we still have places that keep animals captive for our amusement.

If anything, the Inside Marineland expose by the Toronto Star shows that the more things change the more they stay the same. Every few years or so, some news outlet raises the issue about keeping wild animals in captivity - this isn’t the first time the public has been told that animals are suffering at Marineland - and they usually conclude that there should be regulations in place to make sure the animals don’t suffer needlessly during their incarceration, and that monitoring by some independent watchdog group could ensure that the animals’ basic needs are met.

A lot of talk, but then things go on as they always have and the whales, dolphins, sea lions, deer, bears and other animals suffer and waste away as they always have in places such as these. And this little song and dance routine between the media, animal welfare groups and politicians has been going on for nearly six decades.

Concerns vary year to year, from tuberculosis outbreaks to bear escapes, from deer attacks to an increase in marine mammal fatalities (over 40 whales have died at the Niagara Falls marine park since it first opened). Now it’s water quality.

But ask yourself this: What if the water quality was good? What if the seals’ eyes weren’t being burned out of their sockets by chemically-treated water? Would everything be okay then? Does clean water justify captivity?

captivity, n., the state or period of being held, imprisoned, enslaved, or confined; servitude or bondage; imprisonment. – Webster’s Dictionary

For some, myself included, the answer is no. And I think this is where the story fell flat with me. Exploitation, imprisonment and slavery of other animals can never be justified. We put criminals behind bars because they pose a danger to society and because they infringe on our rights and freedoms. We imprison them not only because they threaten our security, but because we feel they need to be punished for their crimes.

So what crimes exactly have these animals committed? What heinous acts are they guilty of? If anything, their crime is that they’re smart enough to be trained to do what we want them to do, but not smart enough to hide that fact. And so we take away THEIR freedom.

They’re captured – torn from their families and forcibly removed from their homes – or bred in captivity to live out the rest of their short lives (confinement significantly reduces both the quality and length of life in marine mammals) in artificial, sterile, featureless pools, made to perform for humans who get to be with their families, and go back to their homes when they tire of watching the animals “battle the Black Knight”, do water ballet or some other ridiculous and degrading circus trick.

The animals that don’t die during the capture or transportation to the marine park often go insane or become sick and die shortly after. Stress from captivity, as well as the young being separated from their mothers, leads to health problems, stereotypical behaviours, aggression towards other animals - including their human trainers - and death. 

Their echolocation – sound waves they use to navigate through the water - hits the walls of their tank and bounces back in a meaningless jumble of noise. A former dolphin trainer described “the concrete tanks to the acoustical dolphin are what a blinding house of mirrors would be to us.”

This isn’t new information. Animal activists, former trainers, ex-employees and marine biologists have been saying this for years. They’ve protested, they’ve petitioned, and they’ve tried to educate the public any way they can.

And what has the public’s response been? It’s been to go to Marineland, in droves, year after year after year, to see the whales, dolphins and other marine mammals splash about, jump through hoops and clown around. Sure, they might feed the sad-looking bears, deer and bison on the way out, because they feel so sorry for them, but they’re supporting cruelty and suffering nonetheless.  

So the blame cannot fall entirely on Marineland. A naïve and indifferent public (or worse, a willingness to be naïve) is what shysters like John Holer count on. And up until now anyway, he’s been laughing all the way to the bank, along with the blessings of city councilors and the support of the police department.

Are we that heartless, are we so uncaring about the suffering of other animals, that we can hide our collective heads in the sand for so long? Of the myriad ways that we can entertain ourselves, and the countless venues we can visit to be entertained, why do we still go to places like Marineland? Do we really need to suck the life out of these animals just to make our own lives more enjoyable? Are we vampires?

One of the most common retorts I used to hear from park visitors while I stood leafleting outside Marineland years ago, was that if this place was as bad as I said it was, the police, the government or the humane society would have shut it down years ago. Naïve indeed!

The truth is, the law only criminalizes “unnecessary” suffering, and one can always argue that any kind of suffering is necessary (torturing primates, cats or dogs to find a cure for cancer would qualify as necessary suffering for a lot of people, as well as the “necessity” to see a whale kiss a little girl under the guise of “education”) and since these animals can’t tell us they’re suffering (although they do show it), we tend to look the other way and comfort ourselves with the delusion that the animals are happy.

The other problem is that animals are still considered property under the law. That means we can do whatever we want with them, to them, as long as they aren’t someone else’s property. And even then, cruel and abusive treatment is only illegal if you do it to certain kinds of animals – think of what the cow goes through before her throat is slit – and emotional or mental suffering, like making a whale live his life in an oversized bathtub, or forcing solitary animals like bears to live with dozens of other ones, is rarely seen as abusive.

“All our facilities are legal,” John Holer was quoted as saying in The Star. And he’s right (although Marineland has been busted in the past for bringing animals into the country illegally, and pleaded guilty to 44 counts under the Environmental Protection Act for running an illegal garbage dump in 1984), what he’s doing is perfectly legal.

So the question needs to be: Should it be legal? Is it right? Places like Marineland, African Lion Safari and Zooz (!), make their money off the suffering, exploitation and enslavement of other animals. Because we (humans) think that we’re the masters of the universe, we figure it's our “right” to play god with the rest of creation (how has that worked out so far?). Whales, walruses and sea lions are no more suited to live in concrete tanks than deer and bears are suited to live in treeless paddocks. It’s unnatural, it’s cruel, and it needs to be abolished.

I applaud the Toronto Star for having the courage to tackle this issue, but will anything change because of this story? Will attendance take a nose-dive at Marineland? Will our politicians and lawmakers finally wake up? To quote David Suzuki - who once called Marineland a thug and would love to see it shut down once and for all - I’m hopeful, but not optimistic. As long as good people continue to let evil triumph, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, nothing will change.

Because next week or next month or next year, when little Johnny wants to go see the whales with his class, or when the company holds its summer picnic at the marine park, we’ll conveniently forget about all this, or convince ourselves that Marineland has cleaned up its act, along with its water, and that everything is okay.

 

Until we change the way we look at other animals, until we extend our circle of compassion to INCLUDE the animals, their suffering will continue.

I Wonder if John Holer is Feeling Like One of His Trapped Animals Right Now?

One of the elk imprisoned at Marineland's amusement park

In 2003, Marineland tried - unsuccessfully - to sue me personally, and Niagara Action for Animals as a non-profit organization (because I was doing volunteer work for them at the time) for $250,000 because I was trying to raise awareness of the conditions of the animals at Marineland. 

We held demonstrations, we handed out literature, we erected billboards around Niagara Falls, we did television, radio and newspaper interviews, and we met with city councilors, the police and anyone else we could think of to help these animals.

City Hall despised us, the police defended Marineland, even after the owner, John Holer threatened to kill me and run me down with his truck, and even after his employees assaulted us and tried stealing our protest signs (sometimes while they were still in our hands and in one case knocking an 82 year old protester to the ground in the process).

We were scared shitless when we were served, but we knew we had done nothing wrong, and everything we had ever said or printed about Marineland, and the conditions those poor animals had to live in, was true, and could be backed up with mountains of evidence. We also knew this was nothing more than a desperate attempt to shut us up and shut us down because our campaign was starting to make waves. It's called a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) because it is really about destroying those who oppose you, rather than recoup any financial losses. 

 Many animal protection groups came to our aid, and we were able to raise enough money to defend ourselves (thanks in no small part to Dr. David Suzuki, who offered to do a talk in St. Catharines in 2005 when he found out what was happening, with all the proceeds going to the lawsuit fund and slamming Marineland for keeping whales in tiny bathtubs, calling the marine park a "thug" which caused the audience at the sold-out event to erupt with so much applause I thought the roof would cave in!). In the end, Marineland dropped the libel suit. I'm guessing it was for lack of evidence and all the bad publicity, because we were never told exactly why.

Having Marineland back down, after 3 years of trying to ruin our lives, was a victory, we were told. I didn't think so then and I still don't. I would've loved nothing more than to get John Holer on the stand and ask him to explain all the animal deaths there - at the time over 40 whales had died there in as many years - and watch him squirm and sweat as he attempted to convince the judge that, when you have a business with live animals, you're going to have dead animals, as he was so often quoted in the newspapers as saying whenever one of the dolphins, belugas, orcas or other animals died "suddenly" and prematurely. Real compassion from a guy who has gone on record saying he loves his animals as much as he loves his children.

But it was no victory for the animals when Marineland dropped the lawsuit back in 2006. The animals still suffered, languished and died, year after year after year. Just as they're suffering today. Everyone knew it back then, and everyone knows it now. But everyone - Marineland employees, local politicians, the Humane Society, Niagara Regional Police, a lot of local residents and businesses, and let's not forget those tourists - turned a blind eye. I'm glad that some veteran animal trainers FINALLY got the nerve, or listened to that little voice inside them that had been screaming for so long, "THIS IS WRONG! WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG!!!" and blew the whistle on Marineland.

So when I read that the OSPCA is doing an onsite inspection at Marineland, and that a full-blown investigation might take place and animal cruelty charges could be laid, I thought, finally, something's happening! There may still be hope for these poor animals (the ones that haven't died anyways). And I also thought to myself, hmmm, the shoe is on the other foot now, isn't it? Now it's John Holer's turn to be scared shitless.

The dangers of keeping whales in captivity

Who’s to blame?

Last week’s death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was both tragic and preventable, and should come as no surprise. This isn’t the first time a captive orca has attacked or killed a trainer, nor is it the first time Tilikum has killed a human being.

In 1991 he and two other orcas - Nootka IV and Haida II - participated in the drowning death of Keltie Byrne, a 20-year-old University of Victoria marine biology student and part-time trainer at Victoria’s Sealand of the Pacific marine park.

Byrne had slipped and fallen into the orca pool. Tilikum grabbed her with his teeth and dragged her around the pool, holding her underwater for some time. At one point Keltie, a champion swimmer, broke free and tried to climb out but all three whales took turns pulling her back in.

The girl died as Tilikum held her underwater in his mouth. Sealand closed the next year and the whales were sold off to other marine parks.

Over the years, SeaWorld trainers in the United States have sustained numerous injuries while performing with orcas, including bites during feedings, ruptured kidneys, lacerated livers, fractured bones, and near drowning.

People have even been injured at our own Marineland of Canada in Niagara Falls. In 1986, an orca dragged a trainer around the pool by his leg after he fell into the water during a stunt and an 11-year-old girl required four stitches to close a wound on her thumb after a beluga bit her during a petting session in 2000.

In a 2004 report to the United States Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), the University of California found that captive animals had injured more than half (52%) of marine mammal workers.

So why are people still permitted to interact with large, wild, potentially dangerous animals? Even the National Marine Fisheries Service has stated that just because orcas and other whales have been born in captivity or have been taught to do a few circus tricks it doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous.

This also goes for zoos and circuses that use large, powerful and equally dangerous animals, such as lions, tigers and elephants. People are injured, attacked and killed every year at these places as well.

We think we’re so smart yet we do such stupid things. According to SeaWorld officials, they will continue using Tilikum because he delights audiences with his outsized splashes. Well that’s a good reason for putting the training staff at risk!

According to Jim Atchison, president of SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, “He's been a part of our team and he will remain a part of our team.” I find this statement laughable, because Tilikum no more volunteered for the “job” than any other animal forced into captivity. But this means he will continue to be trained “to delight audiences” meaning another trainer could end up like Dawn Brancheau.

Now SeaWorld wants to review Brancheau's death with other facilities (including Marineland) to figure out what went wrong. Common sense should tell them that they shouldn’t be caging, and then playing with potentially dangerous animals.

Frustrated animals, prevented from exercising basic natural behaviours, segregated from other whales for days at a time, and forced to live in barren concrete tanks thousands, if not millions of times smaller than their natural environments, will become unpredictable and dangerous animals.

So who’s to blame for Dawn Brancheau’s and Keltie Byrne’s deaths? Not Tilikum. Being unable to express his frustration and anger in words we understand, he’s opted to show us. And don’t think that because he’s a predator, he was just looking for something to eat. He didn’t even try eating the bodies. This should tell us something too.

Neither are SeaWorld or Marineland (or any place that keeps wild animals captive) to blame. They’re simply trying to make a buck. If the demand wasn’t there, they’d be out of business.

So who’s to blame? If you visit or support places that keep wild and potentially dangerous animals imprisoned for your amusement, then you are.

Exotic animal owner busted for grow op

Chris Morabito may find out what it's like to be one of his animals if convicted of possession and drug production after his arrest on Sunday.

Police found over 385 marijuana plants, along with a number of exotic animals, at the site of his proposed animal refuge.

Full story:

Marijuana bust was walk on the wild side

Photo of Sharon Morabito and Oliver, Niagara This Week

Morabito, along with his wife Sharon and two daughters, sought the City of Thorold's approval in 2005 to open an "exotic animal sanctuary" under the name TEARS (The Exotic Animal Rescue Society) for "Canadian travelers, school groups, special interest groups, special need associations, senior tours as well as several charity fundraisers."

The Morabito's had been known to take their rescued animals, often dressed in costumes, to air shows, parades, birthday parties and local businesses to raise money for their zoo (registered as The Exotic Animal Refuge Sanctuary until they lost their charitable status in 2007).

The animals were also used for "TV commercials, movies and special promotions," according to documents distributed by the Morabitos at the council meeting. Prior to starting TEARS, the Morabitos owned an exotic animal pet shop called Kris' Reptiles, where they sold constrictors, prairie dogs and primates, among others.

In 2007, Thorold City council, after hearing deputations from Morabito's family and friends, and a number of animal protection groups (including myself), agreed with the recommendation of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Planning Department and rejected the Morabito's application.

It is not known what will happen to the animals.

Are animals entitled to the same respect and rights as humans?

Vancouver Sun - Friday, September 25, 2009

By Daphne Bramham

Photo by Vancouver Sun

I have never doubted Darwin’s theory. But when an adolescent, female orangutan swings down from a tree in the Malaysian rainforest, landing only a few metres away from me, I look into her dark face rimmed with fiery red-orange hair and am certain.

Arms’ length apart, the urge to touch her is almost overwhelming. But it’s forbidden at the Sepilok Rehabilitation Centre in the Malaysian state of Sabah.

She and several dozen others were there to be rehabilitated to the forest and to have her reliance on humans broken. Since I saw her last fall, Kara has been released into the wild.

Orangutan means “people of the forest” in Bahasa, the official language in Malaysia and Indonesia. Unique to Borneo, they are endangered because their habitat is being replaced by palm oil plantations.

Before I left Sepilok, I “adopted” two babies - Sen and Sogo Sogo. I get updates on them and can follow their progress at http://www.orangutan-appeal.org.uk/.

At times, I’m slightly repelled by the anthropomorphizing that seems necessary to stave off extinction - the naming, the “adopting” and photos of the babies in diapers (which to be fair is a perfectly understandable thing with the “orphans” in the centre’s “nursery” where humans are their “surrogate mothers.”)

But they are not human. They are animals, albeit one of four species of great apes which share 99 per cent of our genes.

Yet determining our relationship with them - as with all species whether polar bears, cocker spaniels or cockroaches - requires an honest assessment of what we perceive them to be.

Are they our property as Canadian laws seem to presuppose, allowing us to kill baby seals, destroy the environment to the point that polar bears are at risk, raise chickens in cages so small they can’t turn around and use animals as spectacle even if it means that every year some die at rodeos and in zoos?

Or, as sentient beings, are animals entitled to the same respect and rights as humans?

Mid-spectrum are animal welfare advocates such as the humane societies, which support the responsible care of animals whether they are pets or used for food or work.

But calls for an Animal Bill of Rights are growing. While Canada fiddled with the Criminal Code provisions on animal cruelty only enough to modestly raise the penalties, Britain and Spain signed on to declarations giving great apes the rights to life, liberty and protection from torture.

Animal rights is a relatively new idea in the West that has gained traction largely because of increased concerns about the environment. But it’s an ancient idea in Asia where pacificism for Jains and Buddhists has long translated into strict vegetarianism.

“Non-violence applies not just to human beings, but to all sentient beings — any living thing that has a mind,” the Dalai Lama wrote in My Tibet. “Where there is a mind, there are feelings such as pain, pleasure and joy. No sentient being wants pain: All want happiness instead.”

While the Great Ape Project focuses only on extending human rights to orangutans, gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees, other groups such as the American Legal Defense Fund propose basic rights for all animals that mirror those included in declarations of women’s, children’s and human rights that include freedom from exploitation, cruelty, neglect and abuse.

But that’s not all. The American Legal Defense Fund wants the right of wild animals to natural habitat and a self-sustaining population enshrined as well as the right of farm animals to an environment that “satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs” and, the right of all animals to “have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.”

There is much that I agree with in the various animal bills of rights. It seems inarguable that torturing or being willfully cruel should be illegal. But after that it’s tricky for anyone who eats meat, eggs and even dairy products.

It seems inarguable that we, humans, should not destroy the very planet that sustains us and so many other living things.

Yet, without a massive, disruptive and even painful reorganization of our economy and society, we’re barrelling down that road in our SUVs.

Palm oil is a good example. A sought-after industrial lubricant, it’s also in huge demand for soaps, face creams and cooking oil.

Increasing demand for it means that in Africa, palm plantations now provide desperately needed money to women’s co-operatives and direct financing for hospitals.

But in Malaysia and Indonesia, increasing demand is gobbling through the tropical rainforests without which orangutans, the Asian rhinoceros, so-called pygmy elephants and Sumatran tigers will become extinct.

Sogo Sogo’s little face smiles out at me from the photo on my desk.

Us or them?

With our bigger brains, we bear a greater responsibility to animals than declaring them equal and providing them with a bill of rights. As women and children around the world can attest, it’s often not worth the paper it’s written on.

We need to find ways to share the planet, doing the least harm possible for all of the children -human and animal. dbramham@vancouversun.com

To view the entire story with comments, click on: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Column+animals+entitled+same+respect+rights+humans/2033959/story.html

No animal cruelty in pampering a race horse

Niagara This Week - Wednesday, June 24, 2009

By MIKE WILLISCRAFT

In any industry, there are complete idiots.

Based on a straight percentage, look around you, you know if there are 20 people in a room, somebody will be a rule breaker. Maybe there'll be an alcoholic, a compulsive gambler, or, perhaps, a criminal.

It happens.

For those who follow horse racing, or even those who don't, you may have seen some coverage from a serious accident at Woodbine Racetrack last week. One horse died and two jockeys were hurt, one seriously.

Afterwards, comments started being kicked around about horse racing being animal cruelty. Some horribly ill-informed, if not totally ignorant, people are calling for an outright ban of horse racing.

An overreaction? Ya think?

Now, this accident was on the Thoroughbred side. I have been involved on the Standardbred side of horse racing for more than 30 years.

I've know hundreds of owners and trainers in that span and I can guarantee you, 99.9 per cent of those animals are fussed over like nobody's business, and that is on the harness racing side, which is generally looked at as the poor country cousin to the Thoroughbred side, known as the sport of kings.

More recently, it might be better characterized as the sport of Arab sheiks, with the tens of millions of dollars they have poured into the industry.

Thoroughbred lifestyles are, generally, more posh, but on both sides of the ledger, horses are pampered more than anything else.

And that would be because it is in the best interest of the owners and trainers to have their trusty steeds in prime physical and mental condition.

There would be no benefit, because it is also an intensely competitive business, to abusing a horse to a state where it was malnourished, or lacked even a shred of confidence.

And don't think psychology does not play a part in horse racing, either. Yes, physical ability means a lot, but I have trained fast horses who just didn't want to win. I had to teach a competitive nature and draw it out.

One pacing filly, she was fast and crazy – only horse to drag me over a hubrail – and was lightning quick, but she liked to have horses in front of her for company. If she hit the lead too soon, the show would slow until horses came along side, then speed up to stay with them.

For a whole summer, I trained her with a retired stud, slowly, just to get her used to tucking in behind him and then pulling out in the stretch and blowing by. After a couple hundred of those scenarios, she seemed to wake up and went on to have a pretty good career ... but I digress.

The only thing that I would ban from horse racing are the idiots who are ruining the game and some horses as they seek a competitive edge via steroids, hormones and just about anything else that can give a living animal more endurance or speed.

I have no tolerance for it, and those overseeing the game don't either. The only problem is the technology to detect what a handful of trainers are using is not keeping up, but it's close.

Penalties are also catching up, whereas, in the past, they have been mere tokens.

It’s unfortunate that the sweeping characterization of an entire sport (industry) can be made merely to fan flames of concern at a tragic time. It is odd to see how much print and broadcast attention the sport gets when something like that accident happens, or when Eight Bells met her fate after the Kentucky Derby a couple of years ago, while super horses like Somebeachsomewhere last year and others before him are lucky to see one headline for a whole summer's work.
__________________________________________________

Blogger's Note:

The reason I took so long to post this column was that I was waiting for the paper to print my letter. They never did, not that I'm surprised. For anyone interested, this is what I wrote:

Dear Mike,
When you’re wrong, you’re really wrong. But considering your newspaper promotes other forms of animal exploitation (barbecuing animals for various fundraisers, Poultry Fest Niagara, the Rotary Ribfest, farm-to-table pork workshops), and includes Marineland as one of its advertisers, it’s not surprising.

What’s cruel is the entire horse racing industry. Like the animals in a circus, race horses don’t volunteer – they’re forced to race (the reason for the whip) and many of them end up at the slaughterhouse when they’re no longer profitable. A Colorado State University study found that of 1,348 horses sent to slaughter, 58 were known to be former race horses.

In fact, horses aren’t even designed for racing. They’re made to run too fast, their frames are too large, and their legs are too small, resulting in injury and death. It’s estimated that one horse in every 22 races suffers an injury that prevents the animal from finishing the race, and approximately 800 race horses die or are euthanized in Canada and the U.S. each year because of racetrack injuries.

If the owners really cared about their animals, they wouldn’t force them to behave unnaturally, give them drugs to keep them racing when they shouldn’t be, or put their lives at risk. But horse racing is a business, and profits will always come before animal welfare.

Your bias is understandable, given your history with horse owners and trainers, but to eliminate unnecessary suffering and death, horse racing needs to be retired.

Daniel K. Wilson

4th animal dies at Stampede

CBCnews.ca - Saturday, July 11, 2009

An outrider horse at the Calgary Stampede has died of an apparent heart attack, becoming the fourth animal to perish at the event this year.

Doug Fraser, a spokesperson for the Stampede, said the horse was cooling down after a race Friday night when it collapsed and died.

A veterinarian determined that the horse, from the Ray Mitsuing chuckwagon team, died of a heart attack.

It's the fourth animal to die this year at the Stampede, and the third chuckwagon horse.

On Thursday, a steer had to be put down after it suffered a spinal injury during the steer-wrestling competition.

Death sparks protest

Animal rights activists from Calgary held a protest Saturday, saying the death highlights how the Stampede is a "cruel spectacle of animal abuse."

The Calgary Animal Rights Meetup Group staged a demonstration outside the Stampede grounds at the Victoria Park C-Train station.

In a written statement, the group said the death toll at this year's Stampede is evidence that all rodeo events need to go.

The group said it would continue to stage protests in order to let the world know "what an embarrassment this spectacle is to our city."

Sanctuaries don't use their animals for profit

The St. Catharines Standard - Saturday, April 18, 2009

It has recently come to my attention that The Exotic Animal Rescue Society is back soliciting donations from the public at local Canadian Tire stores.

Be careful before you consider a donation. Sanctuaries do not breed animals, use animals in television/video, demand "public performance" for donations, nor do they keep animals housed in unnatural environments or displayed for public viewing.

This approach is an impediment to education about positive human and non-human relationships. These animals should be removed to recognized sanctuaries where they can live out the remainder of their lives free from exploitation.

Dylan Powell,
St. Catharines
______________________________________________

How You Can Help

Call or write Canadian Tire on Welland Avenue in St. Catharines and let them know that you won't shop there as long as they allow exotic animals to be kept on display in the store. You can also call Canadian Tire's Head Office and tell them how you feel too.

Canadian Tire:
459 Welland Avenue
St. Catharines, ON
L2M 5V2
(905) 688-0488

Canadian Tire Head Office:
1 800 387-8803

Circus animals banned from town

yorkregion.com news - Saturday, October 11, 2008

Lions, tigers and elephants aren’t welcome in Newmarket.

Remember the runaway elephants when the circus came to town several years ago?

A proposed bylaw would ban such animals within the town.

Councillors will decide next week on banning exotic animals in the town and its facilities.

“I don’t believe my children or any other children gain anything but a skewed view when animals are poked and prodded to do things that are unnatural,” Councillor Joe Sponga said.

“To me, it’s just not entertaining.”

After reviewing a host of resources, including the Endangered Species Act and the Ontario SPCA, staff advised defining a wild animal would be too vague, leaving the bylaw open for challenge.

Instead, a list of prohibited animals was created and attached to the bylaw. The list includes endangered or protected and venomous or poisonous animals.

Animals are listed under three categories: mammals, reptiles and birds.

Animals that made the list are banned even on a short-term basis, unless an exception is granted.

Events in town will require a booking request to be reviewed by town staff before permission is granted. A policy for appealing the decision is also included.

But this doesn’t mean the town can’t have events.

“There can still be a circus, but with no animals,” Mr. Sponga said.

The idea is to ban the use of exotic animals for entertainment purposes, not to eliminate everything involving animals.

For example, Newmarket could still hold an agricultural fair because there is a clause stating animals will be allowed for educational purposes.

Exceptions are also made for veterinary hospitals, police matters, educational facilities, film or TV productions, wildlife rehabilitation centres and research facilities.

The prohibited list includes:

• Cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, deer and elk
  
• Pandas, wolves, tigers, lions, skunks, mongoose
  
• Bats, sloths, armadillos, hares, kangaroos, possums
  
• Chimps, gorillas, monkies
  
• Elephants, rhinoceros, hippopotamus
  
• Alligators, lizards larger than 2 metres, snakes larger than 3 metres
  
• Ducks, geese, swans, ostriches, eagles, owls
  

For a full list, visit www.newmarket.ca

What do you think of the town’s move to eliminate the use of wild animals for entertainment purposes? E-mail your responses to tlatchford@yrmg.com

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Will Stand Trial

Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute (Born Free USA), along with three other animal protection organizations and a former Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (Ringling) employee, is suing Ringling for violating the Endangered Species Act by cruelly mistreating Asian elephants. The trial is set to commence on October 20, 2008.

The Asian elephant is currently listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), meaning that any acts that would “harm, wound, injure, harass, or kill” an Asian elephant in the wild or in captivity are prohibited. The lawsuit alleges that a number of routine practices by Ringling are in violation of the Endangered Species Act, including the forceful use of a bullhook and the chaining of elephants for most of the day and night. We have amassed a wealth of evidence to support these claims.

Bullhook Use

A bullhook, or ankus, is made of wood, metal, or other substantial material. It is approximately 2 to 3 feet long, and at one end is a sharp steel hook and poker. It is used to poke, prod, strike, and hit animals to “train” them - all for a few moments of human amusement.

We have video footage of Ringling employees repeatedly hitting elephants with bullhooks, as well as video footage of the daily hitting and “hooking” of the elephants to make them stay in line, move in a particular direction, or perform on cue.

In addition, we have Ringling’s own internal written documents that discuss the mistreatment of the elephants. For example, Ringling’s animal behaviorist reported “an elephant dripping blood all over the arena floor during the show from being hooked.” In an internal email, a Ringling veterinary assistant reported that “[a]fter this morning’s baths, at least 4 of the elephants came in with multiple abrasions and lacerations from the hooks.” After the release of this information to the public, Ringling moved to prohibit the release of any additional information to the public provided via discovery.

Chaining

Chaining is one of the most common methods used to confine elephants in captivity. It severely restricts an elephant’s movements, eliminating its ability to lie down, walk, or socialize with other elephants. The severity of these restrictions can result in neurotic psychological behavior, physical injury, and even the death of captive elephants.

Newly obtained evidence based on the circus’s own documents reveals that Ringling keeps elephants virtually immobilized in chains for the majority of their lives. Internal records show that the elephants are chained while confined in boxcars for an average of more than 26 hours at a time, and sometimes for as much as 60–100 hours, as the circus moves across the country.

In addition, former Ringling employees will be testifying about the mistreatment they witnessed while working for the circus, all of which corroborates the claims alleged in this case.

* The lawsuit is before the Honorable Emmet J. Sullivan in federal district court in the District of Columbia and is being handled by Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, one of the country’s preeminent environmental law firms.

You Can Help

Please donate to the Elephant Defense Fund and help ensure that we win our lawsuit. With your support, we will do everything we can to end the mistreatment of elephants in circuses and traveling shows. We must not fail.

Picture respect for animals

globeandmail.com - Saturday September 6, 2008

BY VALERIE ROLFE LUPINI

Victoria - Showing the photo of the two monkeys in a Chinese zoo dressed as a bride and groom, and writing as part of the caption that they are "tak[ing] part" in the ceremony, implies that it's fun, voluntary and acceptable (Day In Photos: Best From The Past 24 - online, Sept. 5).

These are wild creatures in captivity that are not only dressed in costume, but tethered with chains around their necks. It's sickening.

Sure, use the photo, but use it to draw attention to the fact that animals continue to be mistreated and objectified for our amusement.

When people start to view animals who are dressed up and crudely tethered as unhappy victims of the zoo and entertainment industries, then we'll make great strides in what we loosely term "civilized society."

Circus animal question

The Eureka Reporter - Saturday September 6, 2008

Dear Editor,

A friend called to invite me to join in on protesting the circus in McKinleyville last Tuesday. I declined. I’d never been to a circus and I wanted to witness the conditions of the animals first-hand.

Before going in, I spent about 20 minutes watching people walk past the picket line. I saw a lot of sadness among the parents and children. I grew up believing the circus is supposed to be a happy event.

I bought a $16 ticket and went through the gate. First, I saw two camels in a pen. They looked depressed. A man was trying to put a harness on one. It became agitated and was drawing attention. The gatekeeper told him this was being watched. The man was able to get the harness on and a few minutes later the camel calmed down and was eating hay.

I went into the big tent for the show. It was dark with flashing colored lights - a party atmosphere. The children had cheered up. Workers moved down the aisles selling light sticks and cotton candy. The acoustics were bad, adding to the hypnotic effect of watching women acrobats in bikinis and a contortionist putting his body through a tennis racket.

I went out in the sun, visiting the burro pen. I spent about five minutes watching the burro repetitively rocking itself against a strap holding up the tent. Lastly, I visited the hippopotamus pen. No human-hippopotamus contact was possible. A lone hippo lay face-down in a pile of hay.

As I was leaving, a little boy, probably sugared up, was having a meltdown. His mother gave him the choice of going back in the tent or home. And if they go home, he’s not going to get to watch any videos because they paid a lot of money to come to the circus.

I think the central disagreement between circus-goers and protestors is around the question: “Are animals here for human entertainment or do they have a right to live their lives in their native habitats?” Everyone will have to answer this question for themselves.

Douglas Tabler
Freshwater

We continue to deny animals their freedom

Animals are deprived of a right we cherish so much we go to war for it

The Standard - Thursday September 4, 2008

BY DANIEL WILSON

captivity, n., the state or period of being held, imprisoned, enslaved or confined; servitude or bondage; imprisonment - Webster’s College Dictionary

Until very recently in our history, a lot of caring, compassionate and fairly intelligent people have enslaved other caring, compassionate and fairly intelligent people for a multitude of reasons.

Not long ago, individuals from other cultures were caged and put on display for entertainment and scientific study. Exploitation and confinement of human beings by other human beings continued into the 20th century as some circuses and carnivals exhibited so-called “freaks of nature” including the lion-faced man, the 602-pound woman, conjoined twins and other people born without various body parts, or perhaps possessing too many. Even little people, or "midgets", were degraded for the amusement of others.

Although remnants of these shows still exist, both around the world and close to home, they are for the most part despised and even considered a violation of human rights by today’s more “enlightened” society.

So when the circus rolled into Niagara Falls this summer, a lot of caring, compassionate and fairly intelligent people went to see the elephants and other animal acts, with little concern about their exploitation and confinement. And while a small number of activists attempted to raise awareness of the plight of animals in circuses, they were mostly dismissed as well-meaning but misguided extremists.

Circus patrons assume the animals are treated humanely. Otherwise, they reason, the circuses wouldn’t be allowed to keep them. The Shriners, who organized the event, also claim they have never witnessed animal abuse while the circus is in town. One Shriner, who asked to remain anonymous, said he didn’t know how the animals are treated. “We don’t see the mistreatment; we’re just trying to make money for the hospitals.”

Indeed, it’s hard for the Shriners to know if the animals are, or have ever been abused, given that the circus is only in town one or two days a year. But animal activists maintain that suffering comes in many forms.

They argue that keeping elephants and other animals chained, tethered or caged for long periods of time, such as when the circus is on the road, is a form of abuse.

Critics also point to undercover videos taken by animal rights groups as evidence of animal cruelty. Footage includes trainers striking the animals repeatedly with various implements, including baseball bats and bull hooks.

But do all circuses abuse their animals? It would seem counter-productive to jeopardize the well being of their star attractions. Or has the unregulated trade in exotic animals made it that much easier to replace them?

According to John Sakars, a local activist trying to educate the public about animal exploitation, “Because the circus is profiting from the animals, they have a vested interest in saying what they have to say to get the people in the doors.” John adds that, “For every act of cruelty caught on camera, how many are not?”

Since the training of elephants, bears, primates and other wild, performing animals takes place behind closed doors, the public may never know which circuses abuse, or don’t abuse their animals.

But as John points out, “Even if they’re not abusing the animals, I’m against animal circuses. Use without consent is slavery.”

And that’s the most compelling argument by those who are against using animals in circuses and other venues. It’s also something that each of us cherish with every fiber of our being: freedom.

We value it more than anything; we even go to war to protect it. Yet we deprive animals of it every day, often claiming they are better off in captivity, where they don’t have to face the daily struggles other wild animals do. But captivity isn’t something that any of us would desire. It’s where we put criminals to punish them.

Whether in circuses, marine parks or zoos, we accept, even support, the captivity of other animals for entertainment. We deny them the very freedom we value so much. We “trust” that they are happy and treated properly and hope there are laws in place to protect them.

But wouldn’t the animals be happier if they were free, as nature intended? And how would we like it if we found ourselves in their place?

For an American soldier who was held hostage during the first Gulf War, he viewed his time in captivity this way. When asked if he had been abused, he responded: “Well, they took me from my home and family and freedom, and there is no greater abuse to anyone.”

Dan Wilson is a vegan, environmentalist, animal rights activist and public education director for the Niagara Centre for Animal Rights Awareness. He is a member of The Standard's community editorial board.

Gana the gorilla: grieving mother?

Scotsman.com News - August 24, 2008

BY RICHARD BATH

It was a poignant scene which reduced many onlookers to tears. Gana, an 11-year-old gorilla at Germany's Munster zoo, cradled her dead three-month-old son, unable to accept that he had died in her arms. Yet no matter how tenderly she nudged, caressed and cuddled the lifeless form, there was no movement from Claudio.

She carried his corpse everywhere, guarding the little figure so zealously that wardens at the zoo were unable to retrieve the dead baby gorilla for four days. But it wasn't her anger that left a lasting impression; it was the rawness of a mother's pain.

So clearly inconsolable, bewildered and shattered, her face displayed a range of emotions that we once thought of as uniquely human. This week she was a grieving mother first, an ape second.

Gana demonstrated, movingly, just how alike gorillas are to us. They live in sophisticated social groupings with complex, hierarchical structures and are known to mourn the loss of their young. The American anthropologist Dian Fossey, who devoted her life to the study of lowland gorillas, even witnessed them burying their young by shovelling leaves over their corpses.

The DNA of gorillas and humans is 99.9% identical, yet it is one thing to accept in theory the extent to which we are related to the great apes, quite another to witness it. "Many of the visitors were terribly shocked," said the director of Munster zoo, Joerg Adler. "This, perhaps, is one of the greatest gifts that a zoo can bestow: to show that 'animals' are very much like ourselves, and feel elation and pain. Gana lost a child, but I think in that loss, she taught people here so much."

Is this really true? Do we actually believe that gorillas are so similar to us that there's an equivalence in our feelings? Or are we just fooling ourselves? Did Gana simply show us that apes are sentient beings worthy of being treated as such, rather than as dumb animals?

Like virtually all our cultural mores, our attitude towards animals has been defined by faith. Religions differ profoundly in their approach to their relationship with animals: the Hindus believe all animals have the capacity to be reincarnated as a human; while India's Jains go further, believing that all living beings possess a soul so all life is considered worthy of respect, even the life of a fly, which is considered sacred.

Traditionally, Christianity is diametrically opposed to that view: humans are the only beings to enjoy free will, the only beings to possess a soul (even though the Latin for "soul" is "anima", the derivation of animal). "Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic tradition said very clearly that animals have not got souls and this has been used in the past to justify the exploitation of animals on the basis that they are just things," says John Austin Baker, the former Bishop of Salisbury and a prominent animal rights activist. It remains the prevailing view in the West. In one survey, just 19% of British vets agreed that animals have souls.

Yet there has recently been a profound sea change in Christian attitudes to animals. In 2000, Pope John Paul II created uproar in the Catholic church by decreeing that "also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity for our smaller brethren." Society's attitude towards animals is also changing, and there is little doubt why. Darwinism was the first scientific challenge to the concept of the dumb animal, but ever since The Origin Of Species holed the creationist myth beneath the waterline, the weight of scientific evidence suggesting animals have a previously unsuspected range of emotions has stacked up.

Instinctively, we know that Greyfriars Bobby possessed sentiments such as loyalty, devotion and the pain of loss, but more quantifiable animal emotions are also being revealed. Just last week came evidence that chimpanzees who have spent time in vivisection laboratories suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder exactly as humans would.

In 2004, researchers at the Babraham Institute at Cambridge University proved that when sheep were isolated from their flock they experienced stress, while showing them pictures of sheep reduced their stress levels. Dr Lynne Sneddon at the University of Liverpool has published research which comes close to proving that fish feel pain, while Prof Kevin Laland of St Andrews University showed that fish have long-term memories and sophisticated social skills."

We are living through an ethical revolution when it comes to animals," says theologian Andrew Linzey, an expert in the ethics of animal welfare at Oxford University. "We are shifting from seeing them as objects, commodities, resources, to seeing them as beings in their own right."

While there are obvious differences, the debate on the degree to which animals are sentient beings is in some ways reminiscent of the process that brought the end of slavery and the emancipation of women. Slavery began to unravel in 1772 when black slave James Somerset successfully argued in a British court that he was a sentient being who should be accorded rights rather than viewed as property. Campaigners seeking female emancipation followed the same tactics, establishing a wife's right to be a being in her own right, equal with her husband when it came to important functions like voting and divorce.

One sure sign that society's attitudes towards animals are changing is the creeping use of a politically correct vocabulary of parity to describe the relationship between man (or "human animals") and animals ("non-human animals"). In American officialdom and at England's DEFRA, the word "pet" has been replaced by "companion animal", suggesting some sort of meeting of equals.

This creeping de facto change of the status of animals is being consolidated by a series of law changes which may have profound long-term consequences. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 doesn't just require pet owners to give their animals a suitable environment, a healthy diet and protection from injury and disease, but also to cater for their pet's emotional needs, including "the desire to exhibit normal behaviour patterns" and be "housed with, or apart from, other animals". Failure to comply can carry a £20,000 fine and/or a custodial sentence.

If attitudes towards animals in particular and great apes in general are changing, as shown by the ban on fox-hunting and medical experiments on gorillas, chimpanzees and orang-utans, we are still lagging behind some nations. The EU accepted as long ago as 1997 that sentient animals are those which can not only suffer physical pain but mental trauma, an important legal precedent. In New Zealand in 1999, a coalition of scientists and lawyers only narrowly failed in its attempt to get parliament to go one step further by extending rights to large primates. In Spain, it will be two months tomorrow since the country's Parliament passed a law giving great apes a whole range of legal rights.

The trend is exacerbating our tendency towards anthropomorphism – the allocation of human traits to animals.

Occasionally this has tragic results. Timothy Treadwell wanted to prove that bears inherently share our values of loyalty and friendship, so went to live among them in Alaska. It was a triumph of hope over expectation that lasted 13 years until Treadwell and his girlfriend were eaten alive, a story that inspired Werner Herzog's award-winning film, Grizzly Man.

This anthropomorphism extends to regarding an animal's death as we would the death of a human being. Researching her book, Goodbye Dear Friend: Coping with the Death of a Pet, author Virginia Ironside discovered endless epitaphs, like this one, published in an 'In Memoriam' column in Dog's Today: "Shayne 1972 – June 90. I can't believe it's two years since you left me, but in my heart you live on for ever. We have 18 wonderful years together. You helped me grow up and taught me so much with your love. We will be together soon, wee man. Wait for me, son, love Mum XXX (Michelle)"

But there are moral problems with the prevailing trend. If we no longer see animals as our property to do with as we wish, then it becomes very difficult to sustain the case for killing and eating them. That is certainly the case for many of the 12.5 million British vegetarians who refuse to eat meat. Inspired by Australian activist Peter Singer and his seminal 1975 tract Animal Liberation, animal welfare organisations have long argued that our level of civilisation is determined by the degree to which we treat animals as equals.

For the silent majority to whom the ideas of animal rights activists such as Singer are anathema, the ending to Nim's story was telling. So, too, is a detail of Gana's story which emerged in Munster this week. Far from being the ideal of the doting mother, last year she rejected her six-week-old daughter Mary Zwo, who is now a star attraction at Stuttgart zoo.

Would most human mothers in similar circumstances do likewise? For the moment, it seems, some animals are still created more equal than others.

Wild Animals in Captivity

Talkback - School Library Journal - July 25, 2008

Zoos seem to be a part of most kids’ lives. But Rob Laidlaw’s book Wild Animals in Captivity (Fitzhenry & Whiteside) uncovers the bleak conditions at so many zoos around the world and forces readers to ask whether they should be there at all.

For the complete interview, please go to:

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6544850&articleid=CA6581087

Garden Brothers Circus cancelled

Low ticket sales reason for Peoria Civic Center event

HOI 19 - Thursday, April 10, 2008

PEORIA -- The Garden Brothers Circus, scheduled for Tuesday, April 29, at 4 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. at the Peoria Civic Center Arena, has been canceled due to low ticket sales.

All tickets purchased online or charged by phone will be automatically refunded. Tickets obtained through the box office or Ticketmaster outlets will be refunded at the point of purchase.

There are no plans to reschedule this event.

PETA hopes to stop Shrine Circus show coming to the city

Thunder Bay's Source - Friday, April 4, 2008

What bills itself as the 'Greatest Show on Earth' is expected to draw some protest when it stops in the city next month.

A local group is planning to take part in a national PETA campaign against the Shrine Circus and the use of animals in their shows and so far, over 120 members have joined a local Facebook group to 'fight the circus'. The Thunder Bay chapter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says its planning a protest calling for a ban on the use of animals in such shows.

Organizer Kelsi Bellin says she only expects numbers to increase and she along with a group of friends are planning to stop the local event that has been coming to town for generations.

She said on Friday ''we want to abolish all animal circus acts, there doesn't need to be animals in the circus.''

However Shriner Andy Anderson, also known as Wrinkles the Clown, says he has never seen the animals harmed in any way and Anderson has been clowning since 1948. He's not taking the group seriously adding there is no truth to what they are saying.

Anderson says every animal involved in the circus is treated with respect and is cared for so they can travel and perform.

Anderson says the circus has veterinarians that travel with them and animals are an important part of the show. The local stop has raised more than $80,000 each year for the Shriner's hospital for children.

The animal rights group will hold their protest outside of the Fort William Gardens on May 24 and 25 to coincide with the show.

Circus second to nature parks

The Cornwall Standard Freeholder

Posted March 18, 2008

The Standard-Freeholder made three trips to the circus this past weekend based on a tip there may be people protesting the poor treatment of animals in the Greatest Show on Earth.

No such luck. But we still got to watch the show and take some photos of the animals doing some nifty tricks.

Since no one wanted to voice their opinion of the Garden Bros. Circus, we thought we'd judge for ourselves.

Ringmaster Ian Garden noted his disappointment at the poor turnout. He's accustomed to playing to big crowds. Either the shows at the Cornwall Civic Complex were victims of March Break trips or people in the area aren't so enchanted with watching animals perform for entertainment any more.

Animals seem a lot more interesting, and possibly happier, in their own habitats, or at least in zoos such as African Lion Safari near Hamilton that attempt to simulate those habitats.

The animal residents get to roam freely within the confines of the "nature game park" on two to 20-hectare reserves, while humans must stay in their vehicles.

While we didn't see the entire Garden Bros. show, the penultimate act involved three grown-up elephants being led around inside a circus ring no more than 40 feet in diameter. Seemingly the toughest and most awkward part was when they each were directed by their handler to stand on large metal stools, maybe four or five feet wide, on all four feet.

Looks very uncomfortable for multi-ton pachyderms with legs the width of tree trunks.

The next elephant ballet had one of them lying down on its side, then another sat on its colleague's head. Why this is considered impressive is anyone's guess. It just summoned up memories of young siblings wrestling each other into submission.

Don't get the wrong idea. This piece isn't meant to diminish the accomplishments of these well-trained elephants and their handlers. Their act might seem kind of demeaning, old and tired, like it has been done before many times in many different circuses, which it probably has, but it's likely all brand new and amazing to many of the young spectators. The long hours and patience it takes the trainers and elephants to learn to work together and perfect the act must be enormous and continually testing the nerves of both.

Although it may not be the most natural of relationships between these two giants, both literally and figuratively, of the animal kingdom, getting it to work is an achievement in itself, whether you agree with it or not.

Say No to the Garden Bros. Animal Circus!

Unfortunately, the Canadian-based Garden Bros. Circus launched its 2008 season this week starting in the Toronto area.

It's no secret that circus animals endure years of physical and psychological pain and suffering to "entertain" audiences.

Animals in the circus are also unable to behave naturally and are forced to live in unnatural conditions. Elephants are chained up to 23 hours a day and while on the road they are forced to stand in their own waste while lions, tigers and primates are kept in cages so small the animals can barely move around.

Such conditions can cause the animals to develop abnormal behaviours, such as depression, aggression towards other animals (including humans) and other stress-related behaviours like swaying back and forth and bobbing their heads.

The Garden Bros. Circus has been repeatedly criticized by animal protection groups for failing to provide their animals with adequate shelter from the elements, confining their animals for great lengths of time, using harsh training methods on their animals and endangering human safety.

• In 2001, a 400-pound tiger bit the fingertip off a Garden Bros. worker while the circus was in Toronto.


• In 1998, Garden Bros. employees left a number of petting zoo animals in their cages by the side of a Virginia road. The temperatures inside the trucks had risen to more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to USDA citations, part of the problem was that Richard Garden routinely hired unqualified workers. A few days later, Maryland officials confiscated other abandoned animals, including a tiger, an elephant and a rhinoceros. Shortly after those incidents, the USDA suspended Garden's licence for 15 years and fined him $12,000.00.


• In 1992, Richard Garden, who also owned the Toby Tyler Circus and United Funding, was accused of cheating charities and deceiving donors across the country. United Funding was sued or banned in a dozen states for deceptive telephone pitches. The Toby Tyler Circus was cited for safety violations that resulted in bleacher collapses in Middletown Township, Pa., and Greenport, N.Y., where the 70 injured included an infant who suffered a skull fracture.

According to Clifford Bickford, a former animal welfare investigator with the USDA (the agency that regulates animal circuses in the United States): "Richard Garden has no business having any animals of any kind. His animals were as poorly kept as any I've seen."

How You Can Help

If you receive a phone call from any animal circus asking you to purchase tickets, tell them you won't support animal cruelty. Suggest they continue the shows without the animals.

If your child's school distributes circus tickets, tell the principal or school board you think it's wrong that the school supports animal exploitation and encourage them to stop.

For more information on animal circuses, please visit: Animal Circuses: Fun for Whom?

To view some interesting comments on the recent Torontoist article covering the Garden Bros. Circus, click onto: PhotoTO: The Circus Is In Town

What's Wrong with Horse Racing?

"They give their lives for our enjoyment." - Ron McAnally, horse trainer, after the breakdown of Go for Wand

Horse racing is considered by many to be a harmless sport in which the animals willingly display their speed, skill and agility. The truth is that these animals suffer and die for human profit and entertainment.

The Sport of Cruelty

Also known as the Sport of Kings, horse racing is a multibillion-dollar industry rife with cruelty, drug abuse, injuries to both the riders and horses, and many horses end up at the slaughterhouse when they are no longer profitable.

Stallions are over-worked and are kept isolated from other horses for years while females are subjected to an endless cycle of pregnancy that often involves the use of drugs and other artificial interventions.

According to the New York Daily News, “The thoroughbred race horse is a genetic mistake. It runs too fast, its frame is too large, and its legs are far too small. As long as mankind demands that it run at high speeds under stressful conditions, horses will die at racetracks.”

Racing to Death

While injuries and deaths are pitched by the media as unexpected accidents, as in the case of Barbaro, the undefeated Kentucky Derby champion who was euthanized after a series of surgical procedures to repair his shattered ankle, the reality is that hundreds of other horses continue to die on the tracks while thousands of others are sold for slaughter – their meat to be used in cat food or sold to European countries for human consumption.

Horses begin training or are already racing at an early age and when their skeletal systems are still growing. This makes them physically unprepared to handle the pressures of running on a hard track at high speeds. According to one study on racetrack injuries, one horse in every 22 races suffered an injury that prevented the animal from finishing the race. Another study found that approximately 800 thoroughbreds die in North America each year because of racetrack injuries.

According to Dr. David Nunamaker, a professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pennsylvania and the chairman of clinical studies at New Bolton Center, fatal muscle and bone injuries occur 1.5 times per 1,000 starts, which means that approximately 704 horses died while racing in the United States and Canada in 2005 - almost 2 racehorse fatalities every day.

Some 30% of these fatalities occur during, or immediately after a race, and are caused by a broken leg, back, neck or pelvis, spinal injuries, heart attack or burst blood vessels.

Serious racing-related illnesses are now endemic with approximately 82% of flat race horses older than three years of age suffering from bleeding lungs (exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage). Gastric ulcers are present in no fewer than 93% of horses in training, where the condition gets progressively worse. When horses are retired, the condition improves.

Even with improved medical treatments and technological advancements, hairline fractures and strained tendons are difficult for veterinarians to diagnose and the damage may go from minor to irreversible at the next race or workout.

Horses do not do well in surgery and further injury may occur from the disorienting effects of the anesthesia or from fighting the casts or slings. An animals’ chances of recovery is further compounded by the fact that horses need to stand while recovering whereas humans can heal with bed rest or by using crutches.

“We're upset when it happens, but it's just part of the racing game." - General Manager of Virginia’s Colonial Downs, commenting on the deaths of five horses in eight days

Sometimes the animal’s survival is simply a matter of economics. Euthanasia is cheaper than veterinary fees and other expenses on a horse that can no longer race and care for a single racehorse can cost as much as $50,000 a year.

While the owners of Barbaro spared no expense for his medical needs, their display of compassion is the exception, not the rule. Magic Man was a horse who stepped into an uneven section of track and broke both front legs during a race at the Saratoga Race Course. His owner paid $900,000 for him but since the horse hadn’t earned any money and wasn’t worth much as a stud, the owner had Magic Man euthanized.

Addicted to Drugs

Many racehorses become addicted to drugs when their trainers and even veterinarians give them drugs to keep them on the track when they shouldn’t be racing. The New York Sun reported in May 2006 that “to keep the horses going,” they are given Lasix (which controls bleeding in the lungs), phenylbutazone (an anti-inflammatory), and cortiscosteroids (for pain and inflammation). Those drugs, although legal, can also mask pain or make a horse run faster.

Morphine, which can keep a horse from feeling any pain from an injury, was suspected in the case of Be My Royal, who won a race while limping. In 2002 a trainer was suspended for using an Ecstasy-type drug in five horses while another was kicked off the racetracks for using clenbuterol. The previous year a New York veterinarian and a trainer faced felony charges when the body of a missing racehorse turned up at a farm and authorities determined that her death had been caused by the injection of a “performance-enhancing drug.”

According to a former Churchill Downs public relations director, “There are trainers pumping horses full of illegal drugs every day. With so much money on the line, people will do anything to make their horses run faster.”

From Racetrack to Slaughterhouse

Few racehorses are retired to pastures for pampering and visits from caring individuals. Ferdinand, a Derby winner and Horse of the Year in 1987, was retired to a farm and then changed hands at least twice before being “disposed of” in Japan.

A reporter covering the story in 2003 concluded, “No one can say for sure when and where Ferdinand met his end, but it would seem clear he met it in a slaughterhouse.”

Exceller, a million-dollar racehorse who was inducted into the National Racing Museum’s Hall of Fame, was also reportedly killed at a Swedish slaughterhouse. A 2001 Colorado State University study found that of 1,348 horses sent to slaughter, 58 were known to be former racehorses.

The Whip

Another cruel yet acceptable practice is hitting racehorses with whips, apparently to make the horses run faster. An investigation by Animal Aid in the U.K. found that racehorses in a state of total exhaustion and out of contention were often beaten. The whip was used on the neck and shoulders, as well as on the hindquarters. According to the report, horses were observed being whipped 20, or even 30 or more times, during a race.

Whipping horses can be extremely painful and stressful for the animals, and in many cases reduces their chances of winning the race. One particular study, conducted between October and November 2003, found that 40 out of the 161 races surveyed(around 25%) had been won by horses that had not been whipped.

How You Can Help

“It’s nearly impossible to eliminate injuries to horses because the animal itself is a fairly frail structure.” - Bob Elliston, president of Turfway Park in Florence, Kentucky.

Actually, it's quite easy to eliminate the suffering these animals endure. You can refuse to support your local racetracks and lobby against the construction of new ones. You can also educate your family and friends by telling them about the tragic lives racehorses lead.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/horse/ALL//unsporting.htm

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=65