REDEFINING THE MODERN CIRCUS: A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING CIRCUS ANIMAL TREATMENT AND AMERICA'S NEGLECT OF CIRCUS ANIMAL WELFARE
Copyright (c) 2014 Whittier Law Review; Jacqueline Neumann RERINTED WITH PERMISSION
“All of us have an inherent love of the circus. It awakens in our prosaic hearts memories of childish excursions into the enchanted realms of Sawdust Land.” - Percy W. White1
Circuses are not as they seem. Dancing elephants are heart-broken mothers whose babies were stripped from them just seconds after they gave birth. The tasseled batons of circus performers are bullhooks in disguise. Tigers that amazingly jump through fire are victims of life-long abuse. Lions that stand with prominence have gone months without proper veterinary care and are fed spoiled meat.
The United States should introduce a nationwide ban on circuses with animals. The United States Congress has a bill, the Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act (“TEAPA”), ready and waiting to be passed to help protect circus animals.2 Many countries have restrictions on animal circuses for the benefit of animal welfare, and America should look to those restrictions for guidance when creating their own.3 There are many animal rights organizations and animal sanctuaries in America whose determination, resources, and skills have proven successful in rescuing and relocating circus animals to better environments.4
First, this article explains how animals have entertained people for centuries.5 Next, the article addresses how animals are treated in the *168 modern circus industry.6 Then, this article discusses the laws governing the circus industry both in the United States and in other countries.7 Lastly, this article explains where the animals may retire if the circus industry is prohibited from holding animals captive.8
II. THE CIRCUS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Human use of animals for entertainment continues to increase over time.9 Centuries ago, in ancient times, crowds of Greeks and Romans enjoyed watching wild animals be tortured or killed.10 Today, humans are still enthralled by wild beasts and often pay a lot of money to encounter them in real life. Even though the animals may not be killed in front of the crowds anymore, they are injured, abused, or killed behind the scenes.11 The types of animals used for entertainment in the past are the same as those being thrust into the center ring today: lions, leopards, elephants, and other animals stolen from Africa.12
During the third century BC, public attractions featuring wild animals increased.13 Although it started out as merely a form of entertainment, nobles began to use wild animals more frequently in shows.14 The more the public was entertained, the more likely the noble would be elected into a higher position of magistracy.15 Therefore, showing control over the animals and providing public entertainment created power for those organizing the events.
Also, as the rulers changed, the display of wild animals became a way for the rulers to out-do one another.16 The presentation of animals *169 in front of the public included torch-bearing elephants, unprecedented amounts of strange, new creatures, and hundreds of large cats, just to please the audience.17 Later, the displays included zebras, tigers, and possibly even polar bears.18As the years passed, animals were captured from further distances, in larger numbers, and with more exotic appearances.19 The occasions for putting on a great display included annual festivals, private events, and significant days of celebration such as the opening of the Colosseum.20 These large public events would often begin with a display of the exotic animals, followed by comedy acts, chariot races, and gladiators fighting with each other or with wild animals.21
These events are not to be confused with the horse chariot races that started in the sixth century BC and were displayed at Circus Maximus.22 Chariot races were a very popular event for Romans and were held more often than the significant events with exotic animals discussed above.23 “The modern circus is [not] a direct descendant of the ancient Roman circus,”24 but the overall use and display of wild animals in front of large crowds gives background for how long this type of entertainment has existed.
In his book Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome George Jennison explains “[h]ow ancient and modern methods of training [animals for public shows and private entertainment] would compare in point of severity cannot be told; but in the ancient world there was no Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.”25 In this sentence, Jennison identifies the long-lasting abuse that animals in entertainment have experienced. He also explains that we may never know if we have actually improved our treatment of animals over time. *170 Additionally we can deduce that, Jennison believed that animal rights organizations impacted animals' lives for the better even in 1937. The mere fact that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals existed in 1937 shows that people cared about animal welfare and treatment at that time. The public was already aware of how animals should be treated, which is, without abuse. Despite the fact that caring for animals has been a priority in society for some over time, somehow the modern circus continues to exist.
Philip Astley created the modern circus in 1770.26 It featured skilled horsemanship, clowns, and the famous forty-two foot in diameter circus ring.27 During the late 1700s, a man named John B. Ricketts brought the “large-scale multi-act” modern circus to the United States.28 It was a new type of entertainment that Americans had never seen before.29 His acts incorporated tricky, dangerous, and exciting stunts on horses, and also a range of entertaining human talents, such as dancing and singing.30 His acts coincidentally resembled the old meaning of “circus” with their extensive use of horses, such as in the chariot races discussed earlier in this article.31
Audiences were hungry for more exciting entertainment. Consequently, privately owned menageries with wild animals started to accompany circuses.32 The wild animals stayed on display in the cages for many years until an animal handler, Isaac V. Van Amburgh, first brought them out of their cages and into the center ring with him.33 The audiences were thrilled by this dangerous stunt and the animal circus was born.34
This fascination with wild animals is the same today as it was in Ancient Roman times and the eighteenth century. Who can blame us for still having a fascination with wild creatures from faraway places, *171 when it has gone on for so many centuries? The argument is not who to blame for this fascination, but that the use of animals for human entertainment, despite the danger to the animals, has gone on long enough; the animals need to be let out of the center ring once and for all.
III. THE MODERN CIRCUS UNVEILED
Circuses are scheduled events “staged by traveling companies” with mobile facilities, “usually put on by the exhibitors for profit and viewed by the public for entertainment.”35 Circuses offer general amusement and display acrobats, clowns, daredevils, and trained animals.36 In case the reader has not been to the circus recently, or ever, I will give a few examples of what one could currently find on display under the “Big Top.”37
If one were interested in seeing the bears at an exhibit, one would find them muzzled, dressed in demeaning costumes, mounted on bicycles, dancing, and doing handstands in front of an amazed crowd.38 What one would not see, however, is the other ninety percent of the bears' day, which is spent in cages, preparing to tour one of the five states that are currently awaiting their arrival.39
If one preferred elephants, one may see the decorated elephants do headstands, dance routines, or carry other circus performers on their backs.40 In particular, one would have much luck seeing elephants if they went to a Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey's Circus show. As of 2009, Feld Entertainment, Inc., the circus' owner, had fifty-four elephants, the largest number of captive Asian elephants in the United States.41
*172 In the grueling nine-year case of American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc., the issue was whether the Ringling Brothers traveling circus was in violation of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).42 The ESA states, “[I]t is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to . . . take any such species within the United States.”43“Taking” is broadly defined and includes harming, harassing, and wounding any of the listed species.44 The plaintiffs argued that, when Ringling Brothers used bullhooks on the Asian elephants, a listed endangered species, and constantly kept them chained, this conduct constituted a “taking” under the ESA.45
Mr. Rider, one of the plaintiffs, was a Ringling Brothers employee for two years and explained the abuse that he routinely saw within the company towards young and adult elephants.46 Some of the abuse included the use of bullhooks on the elephants' sensitive areas, and chains on a front and a back leg, restricting the elephant from socializing with other elephants and performing normal movements.47 The plaintiffs explained that the elephants incurred “physical, psychological, and behavioral injuries” from the takings.48 In the end, the United States District Court of the District of Columbia decided that the plaintiff, Mr. Rider, lacked Article III standing49 and dismissed the case.50
The facts revealed in that case are not what an audience member would normally see at the circus. Moreover, the actions explained by the plaintiffs in that case were later discovered and recorded by the animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of*173 Animals (“PETA”).51 The video showed elephant trainers at their worst. In the video, one trainer instructs a new trainer on how to use different weapons on an elephant: “[s]ink that hook into ‘em . . . when you hear that screaming, then you know you got their attention! . . . Right here in the barn. You can't do it on the road . . . I'm not gonna touch her in front of a thousand people.”52 The video also shows animal handlers using blowtorches to remove the elephant's hair.53
If one is more interested in cats - the circus name for any animal in the cat family54 - one may or may not be in luck. As Hagan v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. explained,55 some lions do not make it to the next circus stop. Clyde, a two-year-old lion, was kept in an overheated train car for much longer than the allotted time limit during a particularly lengthy and hot trip from Phoenix, Arizona to Fresno, California during the summer of 2004.56 Clyde's handler, Hagan, contacted his supervisors at Ringling Brothers numerous times to discuss this issue of overheating, but Hagan's attempts to discuss the issue were to no avail because the train was behind schedule.57
By the time Hagan finally had the opportunity to bring Clyde drinking water, water down his cage, and let him out after more than six hours in the train, it was too late. Clyde died in his presence.58 When Hagan inquired with his supervisors about how to handle the dead lion, he was told not to mention it to anyone and to move the lion's body to the meat car.59 Later, after the train arrived in Fresno, Hagan was ordered to move the lion to the rental truck and wash the meat car out before the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) inspector arrived.60 When Hagan did not abide by his supervisor's instructions and chose to mention the incident to someone, Ringling Brothers fired Hagan and claimed Hagan's termination was *174 because he caused a “power outage.”61
Hagan brought suit against Feld Entertainment, Inc. for wrongful discharge.62 He was discharged after he reported statutory violations of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) and the California Penal Code to his supervisors.63 These statutes regulate the handling of animals in transport, and specifically enforce regulations that state animals must be checked on once every four hours.64 The court ultimately found that Hagan was wrongfully discharged.65
The AWA protects animals in circuses to a certain extent and is enforced by USDA inspectors, specifically from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.66 The USDA inspectors make inspections in response to public outcry and are also supposed to make unannounced inspections on a regular basis.67 The inspections are vital to uncovering animal abuse, especially in the circus industry. All major circuses in the United States have violated the AWA.68 Occasionally their behavior is rightly punished, such as when the famous Ringling Brothers circus forced a sick elephant to perform, and cost its parent company, Feld Entertainment, Inc., 270 thousand dollars, when it was fined by the USDA.69
An undercover investigation by Animal Defenders International (“ADI”) revealed important facts about unacceptable practices of the circus industry. The animals' living space is usually a mere six feet by eight and one half feet.70 The weapons used to control the animals include whips, sticks, metal bars, and elephant hooks.71 A video revealing the investigation emphasizes that the world for circus animals *175 is “one of confinement and frustration, punctured by violence.”72 Dominant wild animals are forced to submit to their trainers' orders through abuse.73 Animals that are sick, injured, or pregnant are typically treated the same.74
Finally, one likely assumes there is a time the animals get a break when the circus is done for the season, or when bad weather ruins scheduled events; however, this is incorrect. The animals generally live in the same conditions, chained, penned, or stuck in the parked circus trucks waiting until they are due to perform again.75 The situation is not better when the weather is inclement. One circus, Circus Pages, left the animals exclusively in their travel trailers, as temperatures ranged from twenty to forty degrees Fahrenheit.76
PETA, the animal rights organization mentioned above, has documents listing the violations of many modern circuses.77 The violations mentioned in this article were those discovered by the USDA enforcing the AWA; however, local law enforcement issued many additional citations that are not mentioned here.78 The Bentley Brothers Circus has been cited many times over the years, as well. Its most recent citations were for failing to provide adequate enclosures for and veterinary care to the animals.79 The Carson & Barnes Circus' most recent violations included citations for inadequate or dangerous shelter, both in stationary and transportive enclosures and inadequate veterinary care of a pygmy hippo.80 It was also cited for not supervising its animals when members of the public were on an elephant ride and when citizens were near the animals, allowing people *176 to touch the animals, which posed a risk to both the animals and the public.81 Its 2012 violations led the circus to settle with the USDA for a total of 3714 dollars.82
In June of 2013, Circo Hermanos Vazquez was cited for lacking proof of veterinary visits since 2011.83 It also repeatedly provided inadequate space and enclosures for animals.84 One USDA inspector who visited the circus in 2008 even walked directly up to the tiger cage because there were no barriers to keep the public away.85
Finally, the family-owned Piccadilly Circus, which does not have its own exhibitor license but supplies animals to an array of other circuses, was cited seven times in 2013 alone.86 Its violations included lack of a veterinary program, failure to supervise members of the public in a petting zoo, and failure to properly care for injured animals.87
The violations of these four circuses exemplify the problems with animals being kept in the circus; the animals are not properly cared for and are inadequately supervised, which also poses risks to humans. The repetitive violations should demonstrate to the American public and the government that it is necessary to take the animals out of the circus and put them in a better environment for their well-being and for the safety of the humans involved.
As the introductory quote at the beginning of this article stated, humans have a fascination with circuses; however, there is a great need to redirect that fascination to the circus attractions that do not include animals. The famous circus attractions would instead be the acrobats, jugglers, clowns, and other comedic acts, not captive animals. There are many alternatives to circuses with animals.88PETA's website *177 offers a list of eighteen circuses worldwide that do not include animals.89 The list does not even include the famous Cirque De Soleil.90 These animal-free circuses should be the new modern circus.
IV. UNITED STATES CIRCUS LAWS
America is known for its contradictory stance on the regulation of animals.91 Even though America's research of animal law is so in-depth that it leads the world, its animal protection laws fall behind other developed countries.92 While federal laws may lack the effort necessary to end circus cruelty, local laws regulating the circus industry show progress.93
In the nineteenth century, states began to enact statutes against animal cruelty, punishable by fines or jail time.94 The statutes were less focused on decreasing animal suffering and more focused on enforcing the personal property rights of humans.95 Therefore, as property, animals were more likely to be protected if they had economic value. These intentions were expressed by the delineation of valuable animals within the statutes.96 Because the statutes focused on prohibiting cruelty towards another person's animals, and not against cruelty towards one's own animals, animals could be subjected to their owner's abuse because the animals were their personal property.97
Fortunately, there are now animal welfare statutes in the District of Columbia and all fifty states that provide animals with protection from neglect and cruelty.98 These statutes directly address the animals' well-being, rather than their economic worth.99 As mentioned above, states and other locales are now concerned about the treatment of *178 circus animals. In the United States, federal, state, and local laws govern some circus practices, such as transporting, keeping, selling, and providing for the circus's animals.100 Unfortunately, there are still only a few legal constraints on the live exhibition of animals.101 Bruce Wagman, a pioneer of American animal law, suggests that modern legal approval of circuses may be a result of either judicial sanction or the statutory exemptions in anticruelty laws.102 As the reader will see, because federal laws create many exemptions for circus cruelty, local laws seem to have a more direct impact on circuses by regulating which animals and which training tools are permitted.
A. FEDERAL LAWS
The federal laws that affect animal welfare include the ESA, the AWA, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”), and the Lacey Act.103 The ESA strives to fund the conservation of threatened and endangered species, create a conservation program for those species, and ensure that the United States abides by certain international treaties and conventions.104 “Under the American Endangered Species Act, it is illegal to purchase or have endangered animals unless the importing entity is granted a permit pursuant to the restrictions of the ESA--a permit available to most zoos and even some circus groups.”105 Therefore, a circus with this permit, may purchase or own an animal listed on the Endangered Species list. Sadly, circuses impact a large number of captive animals.106
The United States Fish and Wildlife Services places many types of circus animals on the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” *179 because of their “endangered” or “threatened” status.107 The animals on the list include animals that are actually threatened and endangered, and also animals that look similar to those animals, to give the species in question even more protection.108 Some animals on the list, that may be recognizable from their impressive performances under the “Big Top” include: tigers, leopards, African and Asian elephants, black bears, brown bears, polar bears, Asiatic lions, and certain types of camels and chimpanzees.109
The number of ESA violations in modern circuses has recently risen. Cole Brothers and its owner pled guilty to the illegal sale of two Asian elephants, which is prohibited by the ESA.110 The circus was sentenced to probation, and the president was ordered to pay a small fine and perform 100 hours of community service, while the company was fined over 150 thousand dollars.111 The two elephants, Tina and Jewel, were rescued and relocated to the San Diego Zoo.112 Unfortunately, the ESA's prohibitions on certain actions do not encompass actions done to those endangered species that are living in captivity or in controlled environments.113
The ESA allows the federal government to help threatened or endangered species in circuses through section 1537(a), which states:
Financial assistance: As a demonstration of the commitment of the United States to the worldwide protection of endangered species and threatened species, the President may, subject to the provisions of section 1306 of title 31, use foreign currencies accruing to the United States Government under the Food for Peace Act [7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.] or any other law to provide to any foreign country (with its consent) assistance in the development and management of programs in that country which the Secretary determines to be necessary or useful for the *180 conservation of any endangered species or threatened species listed by the Secretary pursuant to section 1533 of this title.114
This section creates a path for the President and the Secretary of the Interior to help fund and rescue the listed animals from circuses in other countries using federal money. Additionally, § 1537(b) requires the Secretary to encourage these other countries to help in the conservation of endangered and threatened species,115 which, in turn, creates a duty for the Secretary to help conserve these same animals within his own country, whether the animals are captive or not. These laws create a responsibility in our government to protect endangered and threatened species.
Animals that are threatened or endangered are specifically in trouble because a rare species is a genetically vulnerable species.116When there are fewer animals who can reproduce, there are fewer chances for the most favorable or superior genes to be present, and there is a higher probability of inbreeding, which could cause an increase in the inferior genes among the species.117 Even though a natural extinction of species usually creates a more superior species, the unnatural extinction of animals from human activity--what many of these animals are suffering from--cannot be reversed or replaced by superior breeds.118 Thus, it is imperative that we use the utmost care and protection when we take care of the few remaining threatened or endangered animals, whether they are captive or not.
Because many animals in captivity originally came from the wild or had parents who came from the wild, it is important to regulate the wildlife that enters America. Normally, developing countries export wildlife to developed countries.119 In fact, the United States is the *181 biggest importer of wildlife in the world.120 Unfortunately, because there are only ninety inspectors total to investigate the wildlife coming through forty different entry points into the United States, much illegal wildlife smuggling is left undiscovered.121
Article VII of CITES and the Lacey Act defer to the AWA for the regulation of circus animals.122 CITES' main goal is to promote the survival of wildlife while preserving necessary trade amongst countries.123 One can easily understand why CITES should also protect the wildlife that is or will become circus animals.
The Lacey Act is a law that penalizes people who import or export wildlife in violation of local, tribal, federal, or foreign laws.124CITES and the Lacey Act would be very helpful in the regulation of wild animals in this industry, because they both prohibit actions such as the import, export, transportation, sale, and receipt of prohibited animals in commerce, both domestically and internationally.125 CITES and the Lacey Act should be amended to prohibit licensed circuses from partaking in the above mentioned practices in order to prevent more wild animals from being forced into a life of captivity.
The main purpose of the AWA that is pertinent to this article, is its effort to protect animals and activities, prevent and eliminate burdens upon commerce, and effectively regulate such commerce in order to ensure that the animals used for exhibition are provided with humane care and treatment.126 Also, through the AWA, Congress regulates an exhibitors' transport, purchase, housing, handling, and treatment of animals.127 Section 2132 of the AWA regulates exhibited animals.128 An exhibitor is defined as “any person (public or private) exhibiting any animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for compensation, as determined by the *182 Secretary, and such term includes carnivals, circuses, and zoos.”129 Courts have found that the AWA can regulate exhibitors when they distribute animals by television or otherwise make them available to the public.130 Thus, when a circus displays animals to the public, or through their advertisements, the circus is subject to regulation.
Circuses are classified as exhibitors under the current AWA and must carry a Class “C” exhibitor license.131 Circuses in violation of the AWA may be fined or have their license revoked either permanently or for a certain period of time.132 If the circus is found criminally liable, its owners may receive a fine or prison sentence.133 The violations are routinely based on inadequate space, food or veterinary care of the animal134 and are not based on the actual physical abuse of the animal by the circus employees. This is likely due to the fact that it is difficult for the inspector to catch the wrongdoer in action.
B. RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION
There have been many recent changes in animal welfare regulations. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007, followed by the Food Conservation and Energy Act, increased the penalty for dog fighting practices to five years in prison.135Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States has backed up these Acts by prohibiting dog fighting in all fifty states.136These positive alterations to animal protection have all happened since 2007.
The recent governmental shifts should shed light on the present animal circus situation. One need not look too hard to find the similarities between dog fighting and circuses: the ring, the spectators, the profit, the caged animals, the injuries, the deaths, and the human violence. The outcome is the same: injured, unhealthy, or dead animals, whose purpose in life was to entertain humans for their owner's financial gain. In these industries, the animals are trained through fear, neglect, and overall abuse. Although the animal fighting industry has *183 not been entirely eliminated,137 it is likely that these new federal and state laws have created widespread public awareness of the violence and will deter the industry as a whole. These same deterrents and regulations in the circus industry should ultimately benefit the overall welfare of all animals.
The American people have a desire to eliminate the animal circus in the United States, as is evident from the increasing number of statutory restrictions that regulate traveling shows and circuses.138 TEAPA is a bill that was first introduced in November 2011,139and again in April 2014, which seeks to amend the AWA to restrict the use of exotic and wild animals traveling in circuses and exhibits.140 When first presented, TEAPA was supported by ADI, Performing Animal Welfare Society (“PAWS”), and celebrities, most notably, Bob Barker.141 Despite the support, the proposed bill initially did not pass, and is being reevaluated now.142
In section (1), TEAPA states “traveling circuses are detrimental to animal welfare due to the adverse effects of captivity and transport.”143 The bill further explains the adverse effects on the animals in detail:
(2) due to severe confinement, lack of free exercise, and the restriction of natural behaviors, animals used in circuses suffer and are prone to health, behavioral, and psychological problems; (3) the tricks that exotic and non-domesticated animals are forced to perform require extreme physical coercion techniques, including the restriction of food, the use of elephant hooks (objects used to control and punish elephants), electric shocks, metal bars, whips, and other forms of physical abuse; (4) the welfare of animals subject to the conditions in traveling circuses, such as constant travel, limited facilities, long periods of restriction of movement, stress, and physical coercion, will inevitably be compromised. . . . *184(8) it is not possible to provide exotic and non-domesticated animals with facilities sufficient to maintain the optimum physical and mental health of the animals because of the suffering caused to the animals by the nature of circuses, in which restriction of movement, separation from natural groupings, restriction of food and water, and physical abuse are prevalent.144
TEAPA addresses many of the problems discussed throughout this article. Evidence from cases against circuses, videos and photographs taken by members of animal welfare organizations and public awareness have increased the need to restrict the circus industry's cruelty towards animals.145
This bill deters cruelty to circus animals because it subjects a traveling circus to penalties if the bill is violated.146 It exempts non-mobile institutions, outreach and educational programs, research facilities, and certain media industries.147 This bill, if enacted, would put the United States in the place it needs to be to enforce and encourage animal welfare. If enacted, its success would likely mirror that of the animal fighting law.
C. LOCAL REGULATIONS ON CIRCUSES
Legislation banning animal circuses in the United States targets sixteen cities within nine states, such as Encinitas, Irvine, Pasadena, and Rohnert Park in California, Boulder, Colorado and Greenburch, New York.148 Although other cities do not have an outright ban on circuses, many have prohibitions involving certain wild animals and specific activities, such as when animals are put on public display.149
Alternative legislation currently enacted in six different states, if enforced properly, could prevent circuses from going to certain cities and include laws that ban chemical, manual, and electrical means of forcing an animal to perform.150 As of late 2014, the most recent *185 success of this kind towards the elimination of circus animal cruelty was in Los Angeles County.151 As the largest county to ever do so, it banned the use of abusive elephant training devices, such as bullhooks.152 This ban will go into effect in three years.153 Furthermore, laws have prohibited contact between the public and dangerous or exotic animals.154 A total of fifteen states enforce this law and most of them have a statewide ban, rather than bans solely in particular localities.155
Unfortunately, twenty-three states still exempt circuses from their animal welfare provisions.156 Massachusetts and Missouri almost exclusively give circuses the ability to display wild or dangerous animals.157 Alabama law gives the Commissioner of Conservation the authority to decide whether to allow the importation of an animal based on the state's interests.158 However, animals used in circuses are exempt from this regulation.159 Alabama law also requires a person owning captive wildlife to be educated about or have experience in caring and treating wildlife; however, circuses are, again, exempt from this law.160 Maryland has a statute that creates a public interest in promoting health and safety by setting laws on possessing, breeding, and importing specified animals, and it even sets a fine or punishment for breaking this law.161 However, this law also exempts circus animals.162
Minnesota enacted a law similar to the AWA that prohibits exhibitors of animals, or circuses, from displaying them without a *186permit.163 Missouri's “Large Carnivore Act” has some exceptions, but its purpose is to ban the ownership, possession, breeding, and transportation of captive, non-native large cats and bears in the state.164
California has a law requiring circuses to notify the animal control services of the locale they are performing in at least fourteen days prior to their event date.165 California also has a statute pertaining to rodeos, which requires accessible veterinary services for injured animals and prohibits electric prods when an animal is in a holding chute unless the prod is used to protect the spectators or participants in the event.166 Because these statutes have been put into the California Penal Code, California has demonstrated an interest in regulating circus and rodeo exhibitors by monitoring them or restricting their use of weapons on animals. The statute pertaining to rodeos should be applied to circuses because, as explained above, there are many circus animals that are injured and may need medical assistance. However, the law still allows the use of weapons in rodeos to keep people safe. Unfortunately, this type of exception could create a vast number of excuses for why a person would need to use an electric prod, or other weapon, on an animal. While circus regulations in America are improving, there are other countries at the forefront of circus animal welfare, some already banning animals in circuses completely, that America should look to for guidance.
V. COMPARATIVE LOOK
Many countries do not regulate the entertainment industry's use of animals.167 Some countries provide standards for the care of performing animals, while others have moved to ban the use of animals in circuses to one extent or another.168 The United States needs to join the latter group. A brief exploration of how animals are protected in other nations will help determine the steps America needs to take in order to do the same.
Looking to South America, Bolivia was the first country to ban *187 the use of all animals in circuses.169 Bolivia is not a wealthy country.170 In fact, it is ranked 121st on the Gross Domestic Profit Richest to Poorest Countries list.171 The United States, on the other hand, is ranked seventh; yet, for some reason, it is falling behind in this morally significant issue.172 This proves that it is not necessary for a country to have wealth to make the decision to ban circuses. Other South American cities that have made the switch are Buenos Aires, in Argentina, Bogota in Columbia, and cities in both Brazil and Costa Rica.173 Similarly, Israel and Singapore have nationwide bans on animal acts.174
India has taken a very appropriate view on circus animals. The Indian government has banned the use of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers, and lions in performances, such as circuses, and claims it is an outrageous use of endangered species.175 Regulating the endangered species used in circuses is dire to species survival, and India has shown its understanding of this concept. India also requires compassion towards animals, prohibiting some cruel circus techniques, and allows humans to represent animals in courts.176 This is different than the problematic standing doctrine in the United States, which keeps many people with concerns for animals out of the courtroom.
Although it is unlikely that the United States would create a public right for people with animal interests, because of the oft-used excuse of opening the “flood gates,” the impact of a rule such as this on wildlife worldwide would be great, and again, other countries are already taking these steps. In fact, the Indian Court has created a “fundamental duty to show compassion to our animal friends,”*188 showing how empathetic the country truly is towards animals.177 Unfortunately, the United States has not yet grasped or incorporated the overall protective tone for animals that exists in Indian law, but enacting TEAPA would reverse this. Similarly, it would prohibit cruel circus techniques and eliminate wild animals from the center ring, including the five endangered animals listed by the Indian government.178
Gazing down under, animal cruelty laws in Australia are regulated on a territorial basis, rather than nationwide.179 These locales may express differences in their scope and understanding of animal cruelty.180 Most interestingly, these local regulations are “enforced not by local law enforcement or any governmental entity.”181 Often, it is the work of a privately funded charity called the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that protects the animals from suffering.182 The Commonwealth, however, still indirectly affects the protection of animals through its laws on trade, quarantine, fisheries, and external affairs.183 One example of this animal protection is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999, which regulates trade of endangered or native species and makes it an offense to import or export a live animal in a manner that subjects the animal to cruel treatment.184 Additionally, many cities in Australia, such as Perth, Victoria Park, and Cambridge, have banned animal circus acts in one way or another.185
Croatia is another leading country in circus animal regulations and protections. The Animal Protection Act of Croatia (“APAC”) was enacted in 2007.186 Under Article 53 of APAC, circuses are prohibited from keeping wild animals.187 Similar to other legislative documents, *189 there are specified definitions of certain terms. APAC defines circuses as “performances involving animals which are organized by legal and natural persons with the aim of entertaining the audience,” and the term wild animals, which excludes “domestic animals, companion animals, working dogs and horses, and service animals.”188
In a perfect world, there would be no exceptions to the types of animals prohibited from the circus industry, and the animal circus would be banned altogether, as a few countries have already done. Still, APAC is at least broader in its definition than two other international phenomena - the first exempting circuses entirely from regulation and the second specifically and exclusively protecting an extremely limited number of wild animals from harm. Article 67 fines a person between 30.000,00 and 50.000,00 Croatian Kunas, equivalent to between 5300 and 8800 United States dollars, for using animals in circuses and other shows.189
Furthermore, the most remarkable of Croatia's regulations is the one that states that anyone who injures an animal must provide help to the animal.190 This document should be influential to all countries' lawmakers because it directs its laws to the interaction between humans and animals that is so often blurred in written law.191 It specifies the positions humans have with regards to the animals, whether the animals are pets, entertainers, objects of research, or prepared for consumption.192 The United States should look to Croatia's APAC and match its prohibition on animal circuses and its regulation mandating that the human must help the animal that it is charged with injuring.
Other European countries that have put some type of ban on circuses or animal acts include Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden.193 Austria is one European country that has a nationwide ban on animal circuses.194 Overall, there are numerous routes that America *190 could choose from to provide the suffering circus animals with better lives. In this process, the United States government would need to plan where the show animals, including some endangered or threatened species, would retire.
VI. WHERE WILL THE ANIMALS GO?
Because it is unlikely that rescued circus animals can safely be returned to the wild, the best destination for many animals rescued from circuses would be an animal sanctuary. The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuary sets high standards for animal sanctuaries and helps support the sanctuaries and rescue facilities in order to create the best, most humane environment for rescued animals.195 130 sanctuaries are accredited by this organization, although others are not.196 This organization has helped place over 6500 animals into sanctuaries in just the past four years.197 As mentioned above, America has more resources than many developing and developed countries to support this effort. According to the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, 121 of the 147 sanctuaries listed are in the United States.
American animal welfare organizations are committed to ending circus animal suffering. Bolivia has not only banned circuses with animals from its country,198 but, with the help of ADI, the country has saved the animals from the circuses.199 The American-based animal rights organization sparked this revolutionary change. ADI educated the Bolivian government about the animal cruelty that exists in circuses, prompting the government to outlaw the practice of having animals in traveling circuses.200 ADI rescued twenty-five lions and other animals, from Bolivian traveling circuses and took them to the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, Colorado.201 This sanctuary is *191 on about 700 acres of farmland, with large indoor and outdoor spaces for many of the rescued animals.202 In addition to the dozens of new lions rescued from the Bolivian circuses, the sanctuary currently has dozens of brown and black bears, wolves, tigers, bobcats, and other animals.203
Another organization, Animal Protection Institute (“API”), is a non-profit organization that focuses on four animal issues, one of which is animals in entertainment.204 This organization coordinates public policy campaigns to raise awareness, and helps circus animals through public education, legislative efforts, and regulatory avenues.205 API joined a suit against Ringling Brothers to stop its cruelty towards its Asian elephants, an endangered species.206
PAWS is another animal protection organization that strives to educate the public about captive wildlife and also rescues abused, abandoned, or retired captive animals.207 PAWS' efforts are very successful and it has placed many rescued animals in a large 2300-acre sanctuary in California.208 Many of the above-mentioned species, such as elephants, lions, bears and tigers, whose lives were stolen by the circuses, now live in some sort of safe habitat thanks to this organization.209 The sanctuary is also home to a black leopard, a coyote, a serval, a bobcat, a muntjac, and a lynx.210
The availability of sanctuaries is dire to the success of a ban on circus animals. In 2004, the USDA repeatedly found Hawthorn Circus in violation of the AWA, and required the Hawthorn Circus to *192 surrender all of its elephants.211 Most of the elephants were put in sanctuaries.212 The elephants were fortunate to escape because Hawthorn is still being cited for mistreatment of their tigers.213
For now, the rescued animals will move to a better environment, but usually not the wild. One can imagine the problem with releasing animals that have been held captive in circus cages their whole life into the wild. However, it is no longer as farfetched an idea as one may think. Through processes such as reintroduction, translocation, and anti-predator training, animals are being taught the skills necessary to survive outside of captivity.214 Through reintroduction, captive-born animals are released in their natural historical range.215 However, through translocation, animals that were caught in the wild are placed in a different natural location.216 Anti-predator training increases an animal's chance of survival because, over time and through practice, the animal's responses improve with experience.217 That said, the animals with an initial anti-predator response when encountering a predator still have a better chance of surviving in the wild.218 An example of one type of training is when juvenile Rhesus monkeys watched video recordings of their mothers encountering snakes.219 After watching their mothers' scared responses to the snakes, the juvenile monkeys reacted in the same way.220 Another type of training is playing alarming adult calls to infant squirrel monkeys when they encounter predators, to teach them to be fearful.221 These types of practices are useful tools in the management of species and animal populations.222
*193 Although it is still a work in progress, there is research being done in order to get wildlife back into their natural environment. Once perfected, that would be the best scenario for the future existence of wildlife species. However, it will not occur soon enough to save the animals who currently live in abusive circus environments. These animals' lives depend on the current available options.
There is a constant need for funding to rescue and support captive animals, especially those from circuses who endure constant suffering. Fortunately, there is a growing awareness and desire for private individuals and organizations to put forward their efforts to allow circus animals to retire. It is apparent that America needs to improve its circus animal regulations. If a developing country, such as Bolivia, can stop the violence and retire the captive animals to the United States, then the United States has the power, ability, and resources to do the same.
David Favre said: “Cruelty . . . has no definition, but a meaning that evolves over time as the attitudes, morals, and perspectives of society change.”223 This is true. The definition is malleable and can be reworded by humans who care and by governments that take action. The United States is at the forefront of so many changes to better humanity and the world. Banning circus animals is another change that we need to make to protect animals and the environment. As was mentioned in the beginning of the article, animals interest and inspire humans. Thus, they should be protected for natural observation by future generations. Agreeing with this opinion are authors Ledec and Goodland, who describe “wild species of plants and animals [as] an irreplaceable source of wonder, inspiration, and joy to humans because of their beauty, intriguing appearance, variety, or fascinating behavior.”224
*194 Many countries are taking action against the abuse that animals are exposed to in the modern circus industry. Although the United States Government has not yet taken federal action, such as passing the amendment to prevent the use of wild animals in circuses, American citizens--through our participation in animals rights groups and organizations, our support for animal welfare by affirmatively voting to pass local laws that regulate circuses, and our acceptance of rescued circus animals from other countries into our sanctuaries--show a desire to ban animal circuses. Because of all of the reasons discussed in this article, a ban on the use of animals in circuses should be passed in the United States.
[FN 1] Percy W. White, A Circus List, 1 AMERICAN SPEECH 282-83 (Feb. 1926).
[FN 2] Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act, H.R. 4525, 113th Cong. (2d Sess. 2014).
[FN 3] See infra Part V.
[FN 4] See infra Part VI.
[FN 5] See infra Part II; see also BRUCE A. WAGMAN & MATTHEW LIEBMAN, A WORLDVIEW OF ANIMAL LAW 100 (2011).
[FN 6] See infra Part III.; Anastasia Niedrich, Animals in Circuses and the Laws Governing Them, ANIMAL LEGAL & HIST. CENTER (2010), available at http:// www.animallaw.info/articles/dduscircus.htm.
[FN 7] See infra Parts IV-V.
[FN 8] See infra Part VI.
[FN 9] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5.
[FN 10] GEORGE JENNISON, ANIMALS FOR SHOW AND PLEASURE IN ANCIENT ROME 1 (1937).
[FN 11] See Animal Defenders International, Stop Circus Suffering, USA, YOUTUBE (July 14, 2008), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAf1AKj-izY.
[FN 12] JENNISON, supra note 10, at 3.
[FN 13] Id.
[FN 14] Id.
[FN 15] Id.
[FN 16] See id. at 4-5.
[FN 17] Id. at 4.
[FN 18] Id. at 7.
[FN 19] Id. at 1, 4, 7. “Exotic” is defined as from other locations. See id. at 1.
[FN 20] Id. at 60-61.
[FN 21] Colosseum, A VIEW ON CITIES, http:// www.aviewoncities.com/rome/colosseo.htm (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 22] Hovey Burgess, The Classification of Circus Techniques, 18 DRAMA REV. 65, 65 (1974) (“Roman circuses, such as Circus Maximus, were architectural structures designed primarily for chariot races.”); see also Circus Maximus, A VIEW ON CITIES, http://www.aviewoncities.com/rome/circusmaximus.htm (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 23] See Circus Maximus, supra note 22.
[FN 24] Burgess, supra note 22.
[FN 25] JENNISON, supra note 10, at 9.
[FN 26] Burgess, supra note 22, at 66.
[FN 27] Id.
[FN 28] James S. Moy, Entertainments at John B. Ricketts's Circus, 1793-1800, 30 EDUC. THEATRE J. 186, 187 (1978).
[FN 29] See id.
[FN 30] Id. at 191-92, 198.
[FN 31] See supra note 22 and accompanying text.
[FN 32] See Big Cat Rescue, Circus, YOUTUBE (Feb. 27, 2011), http:// youtube.com/watch?v=TTwQdMNLA8I.
[FN 33] Id.
[FN 34] Id.
[FN 35] WIS. STAT. ANN. § 169.01(4) (West 2013); Niedrich, supra note 6, at 1.
[FN 36] See WIS. STAT. ANN. § 169.01(4); Niedrich, supra note 6, at 1.
[FN 37] The “Big Top” refers to the main tent of a circus. White, supra note 1, at 282-83.
[FN 38] Animal Defenders International, UnbearableHell on Wheels for Bears Touring the U.S., A-D INTERNATIONAL,http://www.ad-international.org/animals_ in_entertainment/go.php?id=3288&ssi=10 (last updated Dec. 11, 2013).
[FN 39] Id.
[FN 40] Animal Defenders International, supra note 11.
[FN 41] Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm't Inc., 677 F. Supp. 2d 55, 58 (D.D.C. 2009).
[FN 42] Id. at 57.
[FN 43] 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B) (2013).
[FN 44] Am. Soc'y. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 677 F. Supp. 2d at 63.
[FN 45] Id. at 59. Bullhooks are made either of wood or fiberglass, and have a metal point and hook on the end. Id. Bulls are the term used for elephants in the circus. White, supra note 1, at 282-83.
[FN 46] Mark Eichelman, Ringling Brothers on Trial: Circus Elephants and the Endangered Species Act, 16 ANIMAL LAW 153, 156 (2009).
[FN 47] Id.
[FN 48] Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 677 F. Supp. 2d at 59.
[FN 49] Standing is necessary to make sure the plaintiff is the adequate person bringing the case and is a major obstacle for persons bringing suit on behalf of animal welfare. Id. at 64-75.
[FN 50] Id. at 65.
[FN 51] Carson & Barnes Circus Cruelty, PETA, http:// www.peta.org/tv/videos/investigations-animals-in-entertainment/110871250001.aspx (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 52] Id.
[FN 53] Id.
[FN 54] White, supra note 1, at 282.
[FN 55] Hagan v. Feld Entm't, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 700, 704 (E.D. Va. 2005).
[FN 56] Id.
[FN 57] Id.
[FN 58] Id.
[FN 59] Id.
[FN 60] Id. at 704-05.
[FN 61] Id. at 705.
[FN 62] Id.
[FN 63] Id. at 708.
[FN 64] Id.
[FN 65] Id. at 710, 713.
[FN 66] Animal Care Factsheet, APHIS-USDA 1 (Nov. 2012), http:// www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2012/animal_welfare_act_ english.pdf.
[FN 67] Id. at 2.
[FN 68] Niedrich, supra note 6, at 2.
[FN 69] Dori O'Neal, Animal Treatment Scrutinized as Circus Comes to Tri-Cities, TRI CITY HERALD (Sept. 22, 2013), http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/09/22/2588440/animal-treatment-scrutinized-as.html.
[FN 70] Animal Defenders International, supra note 11.
[FN 71] Id.
[FN 72] Id.
[FN 73] Id.
[FN 74] Id.
[FN 75] Id.
[FN 76] Circus Pages Factsheet, PETA 1, http:// mediapeta.com/peta/pdf/Circus-Pages-pdf.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 77] Citations and Other Problems, PETA, http:// www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/circuses-USDA-citations-problems.aspx (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 78] Id.; Animal Care Factsheet, supra note 66, at 13.
[FN 79] Incidents Involving Bentley Bros. Circus Factsheet, PETA 1, http:// www.mediapeta.com/peta/pdf/Bentley-Bros-factsheet-pdf.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 80] Carson & Barnes Circus Factsheet, PETA 1-2, http:// www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/CarsonBarnes_fact.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 81] Id.
[FN 82] Id. at 1.
[FN 83] Circo Hermanos Vazquez Factsheet, PETA 1, http:// www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Circo-Hermanos-Vazquez-Factsheet.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 84] Id.
[FN 85] Id.
[FN 86] Piccadilly Circus Factsheet, PETA 1, http:// www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Piccadilly-Circus-Fact-Sheet.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 87] Id.
[FN 88] Animal-Free Circuses Factsheet, PETA 1-4, http:// www.mediapeta.com/peta/pdf/Animal-Free-Circuses-pdf.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 89] Id.
[FN 90] Id.
[FN 91] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5, at 38.
[FN 92] Id.
[FN 93] Id. at 105-06
[FN 94] DAVID FAVRE, ANIMAL LAW: WELFARE, INTERESTS, AND RIGHTS 205 (2008).
[FN 95] Id. at 205-06.
[FN 96] Id.
[FN 97] Id. at 205.
[FN 98] Margit Livingston, Desecrating the Ark: Animal Abuse and the Law's Role in Prevention, 87 IOWA L. REV. 1, 5-6, 29 (2001-2002).
[FN 99] Id.
[FN 100] BRUCE A. WAGMAN, ANIMAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS 534 (Carolina Academic Press 4th ed. 2010).
[FN 101] Id.
[FN 102] See id.
[FN 103] Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159 (2013); Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 (2013); Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378 (2013); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Mar. 3, 1973, 993 U.N.T.S. 14537.
[FN 104] Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm't, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 2d 55, 62 (D.D.C. 2009).
[FN 105] WAGMAN, supra note 100.
[FN 106] Id.
[FN 107] Listed Animals, U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERV., http:// ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/listedAnimals.jsp (last visited Sept. 29, 2014).
[FN 108] 16 U.S.C. 1533(e) (2012); Listed Animals, supra note 106.
[FN 109] Listed Animals, supra note 106.
[FN 110] Cole Bros. Circus, PETA 1, http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Cole_ Bros_Circus_Factsheet.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 111] Id. at 1-2.
[FN 112] Id. at 2.
[FN 113] 16 U.S.C. § 1538(b) (2013).
[FN 114] 16 U.S.C. § 1537(a) (2013).
[FN 115] 16 U.S.C. § 1537(b) (2013).
[FN 116] George Ledec & Robert Goodland, Wildlands: Their Protection and Management in ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1, 5-15 (1988), reprinted in DANIEL A. FARBER, JODY FREEMAN & ANN E. CARLSON, CASES AND MATERIALS ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 27 (West 8th ed. 2010).
[FN 117] Id.
[FN 118] Id. at 28.
[FN 119] Mara E. Zimmerman, The Black Market of Wildlife: Combating Transnational Organized Crime in the Illegal Wildlife Trade, 36 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 1657 (2003) reprinted in PETER FITZGERALD, INTERNATIONAL ISSUES IN ANIMAL LAW: THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC LAW UPON ANIMAL INTERESTS AND ADVOCACY 82 (Carolina Academic Press 2012).
[FN 120] Id.
[FN 121] Id.
[FN 122] Niedrich, supra note 6, at 12.
[FN 123] Zimmerman, supra note 119, at 79.
[FN 124] Id. at 84.
[FN 125] Niedrich, supra note 6, at 12.
[FN 126] James L. Buchwalter, Annotation, Validity, Construction, and Application of Animal Welfare Act, 74 A.L.R. FED. 2D 275, 275 (2013).
[FN 127] 7 U.S.C. § 2131 (2013); WAGMAN, supra note 100.
[FN 128] 7 U.S.C. § 2132(h) (2013); WAGMAN, supra note 100.
[FN 129] 7 U.S.C. § 2132(h) (2013).
[FN 130] See Buchwalter, supra note 126.
[FN 131] Jennifer Logan Tilden, Behind a Glass, Darkly, 2 J. ANIMAL L. 143, 153 (2006).
[FN 132] Id.
[FN 133] Id.
[FN 134] See id.
[FN 135] Buchwalter, supra note 126, at 284-85.
[FN 136] Id.
[FN 137] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5, at 107.
[FN 138] O'Neal, supra note 69.
[FN 139] H.R. 3359, 112th Cong. (1st Sess. 2011).
[FN 140] H.R. 4525, 113th Cong. (2d Sess. 2014).
[FN 141] Press Release, PAWS, Historic Bill to End Cruelty to Wild Animals in Circuses (Nov. 2, 2011) http:// www.pawsweb.org/documents/FORIMMEDIATERELEASE1_000.pdf.
[FN 142] Id.
[FN 143] H.R. 4525, 113th Cong. § 2(1-3) (2d Sess. 2014).
[FN 144] H.R. 4525, 113th Cong. § 2(2-4, 8) (2d Sess. 2014).
[FN 145] See supra Part III.
[FN 146] H.R. 4525, 113th Cong. § 3(3) (2d Sess. 2014).
[FN 147] H.R. 4525, 113th Cong. § 3(2) (2d Sess. 2014).
[FN 148] Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, PETA 1, http:// www.mediapeta.com/peta/pdf/legislation-prohibiting-animal-acts-pdf.pdf (last updated Sept. 21, 2005).
[FN 149] Id. at 1-3.
[FN 150] Id. at 1-2.
[FN 151] Performing Animal Welfare Society, Los Angeles City Council Bans Abusive Elephant Training Devices, HUMANE SOCIETY UNITED STATES (Oct. 23, 2013), http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2013/10/los-angeles-city-council-bans-bullhooks-10232013.html.
[FN 152] Id.
[FN 153] Id.
[FN 154] Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, supra note 148, at 2.
[FN 155] Id.
[FN 156] Niedrich, supra note 6, at 12.
[FN 157] Id. at 14.
[FN 158] ALA. CODE § 9-2-13 (2014).
[FN 159] Id.
[FN 160] ALA. CODE §§ 9-11-320 to 9-11-328 (2014).
[FN 161] MD. CODE ANN., HEALTH-GEN. §§ 18-217 to 18-219 (West 2014).
[FN 162] Id.
[FN 163] MINN. STAT. ANN. § 97A.405 (West 2014).
[FN164] MO. ANN. STAT. § 578.600-578.625 (West 2014).
[FN 165] CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25989.1 (West 2014).
[FN 166] CAL. PENAL CODE § 596.7 (West 2014).
[FN 167] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5, at 105.
[FN 168] THOMAS G. KELCH, GLOBALIZATION AND ANIMAL LAW: COMPARATIVE LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE 193 (2011).
[FN 169] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5, at 107.
[FN 170] The World's Richest and Poorest Countries, GLOBAL FINANCE, http:// www.gfmag.com/component/content/article/119-economic-data/12529-the-worlds-richest-and-poorest-countries.html#axzz2hX7ValHy (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 171] Id.
[FN 172] Id.
[FN 173] Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, supra note 148, at 1-2, 4.
[FN 174] KELCH, supra note 168, at 216; Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, supra note 148, at 1.
[FN 175] KELCH, supra note 168, at 287; Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, supra note 148, at 1.
[FN 176] KELCH, supra note 168, at 286.
[FN 177] KELCH, supra note 168, at 287.
[FN 178] H.R. 4525, 113th Cong. § 2(2-4, 8) (2d Sess. 2014).
[FN 179] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5, at 173.
[FN 180] Id.
[FN 181] Id. at 174
[FN 182] Id. at 174-75.
[FN 183] Steven White, Regulation of Animal Welfare in Australia and the Emergent Commonwealth: Entrenching the Traditional Approach of the States and Territories or Laying the Ground for Reform?, 35 FED. L. REV. 347, 364 (2007).
[FN 184] Id. at 368.
[FN 185] Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, supra note 148.
[FN 186] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5, at 44.
[FN 187] Animal Protection Act of Croatia § 53(1) (2013).
[FN 188] Id. § 3(4).
[FN 189] Id.
[FN 190] WAGMAN & LIEBMAN, supra note 5, at 44.
[FN 191] Id.
[FN 192] Id.
[FN 193] KELCH, supra note 168, at 216; Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, supra note 148, at 1.
[FN 194] KELCH, supra note 168, at 216; Legislation Prohibiting or Restricting Animal Acts, supra note 148, at 1.
[FN 195] Mission, GLOBAL FED'N ANIMAL SANCTUARIES, http:// www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/about-gfas/ (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 196] Quick Facts, GLOBAL FED'N ANIMAL SANCTUARIES, http:// www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GFAS-Information-Sheet.pdf (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 197] Id.
[FN 198] KELCH, supra note 168, at 216.
[FN 199] Jennifer Mertz, Wild Cargo Arrives in Colorado, Where the Lions and Tigers Roam, ABC NEWS NIGHTLINE (Feb. 16, 2011), http:// abcnews.go.com/US/rescued-bolivian-circus-lions-arrive-colorado-wildlife-sanctuary/story?id=12929736.
[FN 200] Id.
[FN 201] Id.
[FN 202] WILD ANIMAL SANCTUARY, http://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/ (last visited Dec. 13, 2014).
[FN 203] Id.
[FN 204] Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm't, Inc. 677 F. Supp. 2d 55, 58 (2009).
[FN 205] Id.
[FN 206] API Joins Groundbreaking Lawsuit Against Ringling Bros. for Violation of Endangered Species Act, BORN FREE USA,http:// www.bornfreeusa.org/press.php?more=1&p=479 (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 207] About PAWS, PAWS, http://www.pawsweb.org/about_paws_home_page.html (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 208] Id.
[FN 209] Meet the Animals, PAWS, http://www.pawsweb.org/meet_the_ animals.html (last visited Nov. 26, 2014).
[FN 210] Id.
[FN 211] Hawthorn Corporation Factsheet, PETA (last visited Nov. 26, 2014), http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/pdf/Hawthorn-Corporation-pdf.pdf.
[FN 212] Id.
[FN 213] Id.
[FN 214] See Andrea S. Griffin, Daniel T. Blumstein & Christopher S. Evans, Training Captive-Bred or Translocated Animals to Avoid Predators, 14 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 1317, 1318 (2000).
[FN 215] See id.
[FN 216] Id.
[FN 217] Id. at 1320.
[FN 218] Id.
[FN 219] Id. at 1319.
[FN 220] Id.
[FN 221] Id.
[FN 222] Id. at 1318.
[FN 223] FAVRE, supra note 94, at 218.
[FN 224] Ledec & Goodland, supra note 116.
[FN a1] J.D. Candidate, Whittier Law School, 2015; B.A. Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Arizona, 2010. I dedicate this article to my husband, Tillin, for your ever-present love and support, and for your humor when I take the world, and law school, too seriously. Thank you to my parents, Anne and Mark Folger, for your encouragement in everything I do, and for being the perfect role models of love and hard work. Thank you especially to both Lane Bogard, for your positivity, thoroughness, and patience in editing this article, and to Hanna Chandoo, for your always-kind suggestions and for the words that I am always at a loss for. Finally, a sincere thank you to the editors and staff of the Whittier Law Review for working diligently and tirelessly on our entire publication, I am honored to work with each of you.