The Big Top vs. The ASPCA: The Special Interest Group Doesn't Always Win In Court
From the WSJ:
Twelve years ago the ASPCA and other activist outfits joined with a former Ringling employee to sue the company under the Endangered Species Act. The claim was that Ringling was abusing Asian elephants. Perhaps the activists figured the circus would fold up its big top and write a check.Not on Chairman and CEO Kenneth Feld's watch. He's been working in the family business since 1970 and tells us that he's "proud of our animal care and I'll put it up against anyone in the world."
After nine years of litigation, a federal court found that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue under the Endangered Species Act and that the former Ringling employee was "not credible" and "essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness" whose only source of income during the litigation was the animal-rights groups that were his co-plaintiffs.
The bad news:
Mr. Feld says the $9.3 million payment from the ASPCA represents less than half of what his company has had to spend defending itself against the "manufactured litigation" from the activists. But he seems likely to recover more. His company is continuing its litigation against the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Animal Protection Institute United with Born Free USA, the former employee and the lawyers who prosecuted the bogus case."This goes way beyond economics," says Mr. Feld. He adds that the "level of harassment" that his elephant trainers undergo from activists is almost "unbearable" and that "the activists are trying to bring down an American institution." The longtime Ringling boss argues that he is the trustee of a tradition "older than baseball" that offers a vanishing commodity for American families: affordable G-rated entertainment.
My cause is just, therefore your rights and the law do not apply to me.
There is a lot of that going around. I figure loss of tax exempt status for the organizations involved, and disbarring of the lawyers is a fair penalty.
MarkD at January 3, 2013 5:49 AM
"The longtime Ringling boss argues that he is the trustee of a tradition 'older than baseball' that offers a vanishing commodity for American families: affordable G-rated entertainment."
Somehow, I don't have much sympathy for THAT complaint.
"Amusement is the happiness of those who cannot think."
-Alexander Pope.
I.e., kids would be a lot happier if they were forced to use their imaginations and entertain THEMSELVES.
In 2005, I got a call from dove dot org (it has to do with "cleaning up" TV and movies - they say their reviews are "based on traditional Judeo-Christian values") asking if I felt there should be more wholesome, non-prurient family entertainment available (not in those exact words - though he did *claim* that the group is not pro-censorship).
I deadpanned: "I think kids should read more."
He ended that survey quickly.
lenona at January 3, 2013 6:15 AM
I'm disappointed to find out that the ASPCA is involved in this kind of nonsense. I thought they were more ethical than that. This is the behavior that is typical of PETA. I've donated money to the ASPCA in the past. I won't do it again.
And it shows how th Endangered Species Act serves as an all-purpose enabler for leftist causes of every stripe. The leftists know that they can get government backing for any kind of ESA-related action. And even if they ultimately lose in court, they beat the defendent into financial submission. Ranging from this to homeowners whose backyard mud puddle is classified as a "wetland", nearly every lawsuit and enforcement action filed under the ESA and its related environmental laws ia abusive.
Cousin Dave at January 3, 2013 6:24 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/the-special-int.html#comment-3540072">comment from Cousin DaveI think such groups have become increasingly shrill and radical in search of the dollars PETA is getting and perhaps because of and in competition with PETA. This seems to be about making a win not catching people who are truly awful to animals. Because you are opposed to the use of elephants in a circus doesn't mean people should be sued for using them.
And it's despicable that we don't have loser pays for situations like this.
Amy Alkon
at January 3, 2013 6:42 AM
9 years of litigation, 18 million in lawyer fees. Yep thuggery is alive and well in the USA, only it's being done by special interest groups and lawyers.
Joe J at January 3, 2013 7:04 AM
I love the circus. The fact that I take my kids once a year or so doesn't mean they can't entertain themselves.
More and more animal groups want humans dead so animals can live unmolested. Short of that, they'd rather have the animals dead than in any captivity. Insane.
momof4 at January 3, 2013 9:26 AM
"I think such groups have become increasingly shrill and radical in search of the dollars PETA is getting and perhaps because of and in competition with PETA."
Absolutely true. Doing actual acts of charity, like caring for animals who have actually been abused, isn't what gets you the eight-figure check from the Tides Foundation or the National Endowment for the Humanities. Splashy front-page lawsuits based on leftist power-grabbing and shaming is what does.
Cousin Dave at January 3, 2013 11:21 AM
This is a fundamental problem with our legal system right now. Why should you be able to "sue" about the Endangered Species Act? Shouldn't it be a criminal charge that requires the same level of evidence.
Also, to respond to lenona the Circus is awesome. Especially for kids. It's infinitely better than some iPhone game. It's inspiring and magical and fun!
I go as an adult without kids because the performers are frequently ridiculously talented.
andrew at January 4, 2013 7:37 AM
Who said I endorse video entertainment of any kind?
Maybe I should have made the distinction between ENTERTAINMENT (whether passive or high-tech) and creative PLAYING. Big difference.
I like stage (and video) entertainment as an adult too, but not nearly as much as when I was 20 or younger. It's like candy - there's just no need to let kids have it more than a fraction of the time THEY demand it. They desperately need to learn to like all sorts of things while they're still too young to rebel much, whether it's exercise, reading, using their imaginations, vegetables, helping the neighbors, face-to-face conversation, etc.
I mean, when we say to kids "no, you can't have candy every day because it's not good for you" kids likely think: "That has to be a lie. If it were bad for me, you wouldn't let me eat it at all, right?"
Of course, even adults don't understand the value of being active rather than passive - even in human relationships. This is why going to a movie on a first date is still so common, despite the fact that you're not communicating or even looking at this person you presumably want to get to know better; you're staring at a screen. As the author of "Getting in Touch With Your Inner Bitch" wrote, chances are you'd prefer something more interactive and personal, like shooting pool, but Toxic Niceness often prevents you from speaking up and saying so.
lenona at January 4, 2013 12:26 PM
Leave a comment