Your Finances are your own Business Payday loan How do you apply

ASPCA Pays Ringling Bros. in Elephant Lawsuit

Want to know the truly nutty part about this story, it is that the Amer­i­can Soci­ety for the Pre­ven­tion to Cru­elty to Ani­mals (a legit ani­mal rights orga­ni­za­tion not known for being crazy like the gang at PeTA) were ini­tially the plain­tiffs in this case over a decade ago.

I’m not a lawyer, but some­thing had to come up in the dis­cov­ery phase which caused atti­tudes to change.

An ani­mal rights group will pay Rin­gling Bros. and Bar­num & Bai­ley Cir­cus $9.3 mil­lion to set­tle a law­suit the cir­cus filed after courts found that activists paid a for­mer cir­cus worker for his help in claim­ing the cir­cus abused elephants.

The Amer­i­can Soci­ety for the Pre­ven­tion of Cru­elty to Ani­mals said Fri­day it was not admit­ting any wrong­do­ing in set­tling the law­suit. The New York-based ani­mal rights group was one of sev­eral involved in a law­suit filed in 2000 against the cir­cus’ owner, Feld Enter­tain­ment Inc., claim­ing ele­phants were abused. Courts later found that the ani­mal rights activists had paid a for­mer Rin­gling barn helper involved in the law­suit at least $190,000, mak­ing him “essen­tially a paid plain­tiff” who lacked credibility.

Two courts agreed the for­mer barn helper, Tom Rider, wasn’t cred­i­ble and didn’t have a right to sue. As a result, they didn’t address claims the cir­cus vio­lated the fed­eral Endan­gered Species Act by allegedly chain­ing the ele­phants for long peri­ods and allow­ing train­ers to use sharp tools called bullhooks.

The Vienna, Va.-based Feld Enter­tain­ment Inc. sued the ani­mal rights groups and Rider in 2007, accus­ing them of con­spir­ing to harm the company’s busi­ness and other ille­gal acts. The law­suit claims the groups were work­ing together with the goal of per­ma­nently ban­ning Asian ele­phants from circuses.

Friday’s set­tle­ment cov­ers only the ASPCA. Twelve other defen­dants includ­ing The Humane Soci­ety of the United States, the Ani­mal Wel­fare Insti­tute and The Fund for Ani­mals are still involved in the lawsuit.

Ani­mal rights groups have been tar­get­ing the use of ele­phants in a num­ber of cir­cuses for years, most of it based on the infor­ma­tion Rider has given them.  Since then, it has become a cause celeb with the Hol­ly­wood set with attempts to get the cir­cus banned in as many cities as they can.

They’ve made so much head­way (six South­ern Cal­i­for­nia cities already ban cir­cus ele­phants) in these efforts that just last week, Los Ange­les was said to be con­sid­er­ing an all-out ban on cir­cuses with ele­phants in them.

I’m against any cru­elty to ani­mals on prin­ci­ple.  You have to have some sort of evil in your heart to will­ingly abuse, neglect and attack an ani­mal.  That being said, it seem incred­i­bly counter-productive for cir­cuses — who need their ele­phants healthy and per­form­ing at their best — to will­ingly abuse their animals.

With this being poten­tially the first of what could be many set­tle­ments Rin­gling Bros. could be get­ting from ani­mal rights groups, you have to start won­der­ing if they’ve over-played their hand here and by how much.  If they had over-whelming proof of abuse against the ele­phants, then why do they need to pay a man to tes­tify that it was going on?

Be Socia­ble, Share!
Share