WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Wednesday sided with the Ringling Bros. and Barnum &Bailey Circus in a legal fight in which animal rights activists accused the circus of abusing its Asian elephants.
In a 57-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said a former Ringling employee, Tom Rider, and the Animal Protection Institute did not have legal standing to sue the circus under the Endangered Species Act.
Rider and the institute had argued that Ringling Bros. had violated the Endangered Species Act because handlers used bull hooks on elephants and chained them for long periods. Such techniques harmed the elephants, Rider and API argued.
Attorneys for Feld Entertainment, Ringling’s parent company, replied that the elephants were not abused and were, in fact, loved by their trainers.
Some animal-rights activists have begged to differ and have demonstrated against the circus in many cities, including Everett. In September, Ringling Bros. and Barnum &Bailey Circus elephants made their traditional walk in downtown Everett after disembarking from the circus train, without protesters.
In 2008, a woman from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals stripped nearly naked and, painted bright orange with black stripes to emulate a tiger, crawled into a small cage in downtown Everett a week before the circus arrived to protest Ringling’s treatment of animals.
To counter the protests, Comcast Arena employees handed out posters that showed baby elephants frolicking at Ringling’s Center for Elephant Conservation in Florida.
PETA and Lynnwood-based PAWS organized in 2007 in an informational protest of the circus’ alleged bad treatment of its elephants; members gave flyers to circus audience members as they left the show.
If Sullivan on Wednesday had found a violation of the Endangered Species Act, Ringling Bros. would have had to stop the practices in question or obtain an exemption from the Interior Department.
Instead, the judge ruled that Rider, a former animal trainer, did not prove he had a strong attachment to the animals, a requirement under the law. The judge also questioned Rider’s credibility, noting that he had been paid tens of thousands of dollars by API and other animal-rights groups over the years.
“The court finds that Mr. Rider is essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible, and therefore affords no weight to his testimony,” Sullivan wrote.
The judge found that API did not have standing on more technical legal grounds.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
