ringling brothers on trial

24
Ringling Brothers on Trial Circus Elephants and the Endangered Species Act

Upload: hvcclibrary

Post on 30-Jun-2015

516 views

Category:

Entertainment & Humor


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Ringling Brothers on Trial

Circus Elephants and the Endangered Species Act

Page 2: Ringling Brothers on Trial

“Elephants…are the pegs on which the circus is

hung”- P.T. Barnum (unsourced)

Page 3: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Ringling Brothers on Trial

Page 4: Ringling Brothers on Trial

If the plaintiffs could establish “taking,” the practice of bull hooks and chain tethers could have been outlawed by this case.

◦ “Taking” an endangered species means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

Taking:

Page 5: Ringling Brothers on Trial

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires the Secretary of the Interior to identify species that are endangered or threatened. 16 U.S.C.S. § 1533(a)(1). Section 9 makes it unlawful to "take" any endangered species within the United States, or to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever any endangered species taken in violation of the Act. 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(a)(1)(B), (D). The Act defines "take" to mean to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 16 U.S.C.S. § 1532(19). Pursuant to ESA § 10, the Secretary of the Interior may issue a permit for a take otherwise prohibited by ESA § 9, provided that he first gives public notice and an opportunity to comment on the permit application.

The Law

Page 6: Ringling Brothers on Trial

The citizen-suit provision, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1540(g)(1)(A), in the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1531 et seq., by specifying that "any person" may be a plaintiff.

A plaintiff still must satisfy U.S. Const. Art. III by showing that he has ◦ (1) suffered an injury in fact

(2) fairly traceable to the defendant's action (3) and capable of judicial redress

Citizen Suit Provision of ESA

Page 7: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Ringling Brothers on Trial – see comments

Page 8: Ringling Brothers on Trial

In 2000, Rider and several other individuals and organizations filed suit against Feld,  alleging that its use of bullhooks and tethering violated ESA's "take" provision. Concluding that neither Rider nor any other plaintiff had standing to bring suit under ESA's citizen-suit provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), the district court dismissed the complaint .

Background –

Page 9: Ringling Brothers on Trial

2. We reversed. Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus, 317 F.3d 334, 354 U.S. App. D.C. 432 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("ASPCA"). ◦ We found that Rider's allegations of emotional

attachment, coupled with his desire to visit the elephants and his ability to recognize the effects of mistreatment, were sufficient to establish injury in fact. Causation was never in question—Feld clearly caused the alleged mistreatment—and we reasoned that Rider's injury could be adequately redressed through the lawsuit, assuming the elephants were likely to cease exhibiting signs of stress once the alleged mistreatment ended.

Appeal: Standing did exist

Page 10: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Plaintiffs dismissed original action and started a new lawsuit.◦ Added API – longtime advocate against Ringling◦ Questions came into play about Rider’s credibility

2009 – District Court found that Rider and API had not established standing

After 2003 decision (Standing)

Page 11: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Are you confused about all of these cases?

See timeline

Page 12: Ringling Brothers on Trial

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, ET AL. v. FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 659 F.3d 13

September 12, 2011, Argued October 28, 2011, Decided

Latest Appeal

Page 13: Ringling Brothers on Trial

2009 – ASPCA v. Feld, Inc. was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

◦ Plaintiffs – ASPCA, AWI, Fund for Animals, API & Tom Rider, ex-employee of Ringling

◦ Defendant – Feld Entertainment (owner of Ringling)

Page 14: Ringling Brothers on Trial

“This case involves two techniques Feld uses to handle its Asian elephants. First, its handlers guide and control the elephants with an instrument known as a bullhook, a two- to three-foot rod with a metal point and hook mounted on one end. Second, Feld tethers its Asian elephants with chains when the animals are not performing and when they are traveling by train. Plaintiffs maintain that these two practices "harm," "wound," and "harass" the elephants within the meaning of ESA section 9, and therefore qualify as a "take" which Feld cannot continue without obtaining a section 10 permit.”

Opening Remarks - Judge

Page 15: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit

ESA does not apply to captive endangered species

Ringling Bros. actions did not constitute takings.

Even if the ESA does apply, Ringling’s use of bullhooks and chain tethers are generally accepted animal-husbandry practices.

Feld (Ringling Bros.) position:

Page 16: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Credibility issue –-- failed to prove personal and emotional attachment◦ Difficulty recalling elephants’ names◦ Use of bullhook in Europe◦ Lack of forthrightness about payments from

organizational plaintiffs

Tom Rider’s Standing?

Page 17: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Section 10c of the ESA requires public disclosure or information contained in permit applications.◦ A party who applies for a permit must provide

details to the FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) and the FWS must in turn make that information available to the public.

API’s Standing?

Page 18: Ringling Brothers on Trial

According to API, Ringling’s treatment of elephants = a “taking” of an endangered species, Ringling cannot first engage in these practices without a permit.◦ API’s position is that the organization was “injured

in fact because it did not get what the statute entitled him to receive.”

API’s Standing?

Page 19: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Remember, for standing you need an injury in fact.◦ In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, the Supreme

Court held that an organization may establish Article III standing if it can show that the defendant caused a “concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities” that is “more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social interests.” Court is saying API is “self inflicting” this injury by

expending resources on litigation.

Havens Standing

Page 20: Ringling Brothers on Trial

“Nothing in the record supports the key link in API’s standing argument, namely, that Feld’s use of bullhooks and chains fosters a public impression that these practices are harmless.”◦ Fatal flaw in API’s standing is that it fails to

demonstrate that Feld’s treatment of elephants contributes to public misimpression that these practices are humane.

Page 21: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Endangered Species Act…* comments

Page 22: Ringling Brothers on Trial

According to AWI:

Page 23: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Ringling Brothers on Trial

Page 24: Ringling Brothers on Trial

Monday:Brief Due

Endangered Species Act