Prohibiting the Use of Wild Animals in Circuses

The prohibited DEC licenses and permits include, but are not limited to, education permits and exhibition permits,[5] and endangered or threatened species licenses.[6] The Bill expressly does not preclude performances that take place at a non-mobile, permanent institution or other fixed facility. Therefore, the prohibition would not apply to zoos (except petting zoos) and wildlife sanctuaries.[7]

The Bill would not take effect until December 31, 2026, and a violation is punishable by a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars.

II. JUSTIFICATION

As explained below, the Bill is necessary to protect animals used in traveling acts – many of which are endangered or threatened species[8] -used in circuses because (a) the tricks that such animals are forced to perform often involve physical coercion and abuse, (b) extensive travel and prolonged confinement of animals in traveling animal acts can be detrimental to their physical and psychological health and welfare, (c) the public safety and the safety of workers may be put at risk by exhibiting covered animals in traveling animal acts, (d) traveling animal acts teach children an inhumane and distorted lesson about non-farm and non-companion animals, (e) current law – including the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA)[9] and Article 26 of the New York State’s Agriculture & Markets Law – does not adequately protect animals used in traveling animal acts from abuse and mistreatment, and (f) banning covered animals from circuses does not mean the end to all circus entertainment. Although the Bill does not prohibit the use of all animals commonly used in circuses, following the Elephant Protection Act passed in 2017, it is another significant step in the right direction.[10]

a. The Tricks that Covered Animals Are Forced to Perform in Traveling Acts Often Involve Physical Coercion and Abusive Tactics.

The tricks that animals are forced to perform in traveling acts, such as headstands and jumping through rings of fire, often involve physical coercion and abusive tactics. In particular, these are not behaviors animals would perform in nature and, in order to make animals perform them, some exhibitors use training methods that result in trauma, physical injury and, in extreme circumstances, death.[11] Moreover, performances in front of an audience and the attendant loud noise and bright lights cause stress to traveling act animals.[12]

Undercover investigators and employee whistleblowers have reported, photographed and videotaped abuse of traveling act animals that would be protected by the Bill, including lions, tigers, monkeys, and bears, as well as other animals used in traveling acts (whether circuses, petting zoos or otherwise) in the United States and abroad. In 2018, an investigation showed, among other things, that a circus trained bears “primarily using aversive techniques, meaning that an uncomfortable or painful stimulus is applied in order to force the animal to move or act how the handler wants it to.”[13] In 2017, the Humane Society of the United States (now known as the Humane World for Animals) published an investigative report that documented a circus trainer’s abuse of tigers; for example, the investigator observed the trainer whipping a tiger 31 times in two minutes during a training session.[14] One former circus employee reported that he observed circus employees regularly hitting tigers on the head, jabbing tigers with sticks in the genitals and under the head, and intentionally shutting cage doors on their tails.[15] Occasionally, circuses even kill animals that they are unable to control. For example, in 1997, the brother of a circus animal trainer shot and killed a tiger as retaliation while the tiger was in his cage after the tiger attacked the animal trainer.[16]

b. Extensive Travel and Prolonged Confinement Can Be Detrimental to Traveling Act Animals’ Physical and Psychological Health.

Traveling act animals are particularly harmed by being forced to travel for long periods of time, living in inadequate housing, and experiencing harsh conditions on the road as they are transported to different venues. Generally, animals used in traveling shows spend much of their lives on the road, transported in crowded, poorly ventilated trailers and subjected to extreme temperatures. Animals such as big cats, bears and primates are forced to eat, drink and sleep in the same small cages where they defecate and urinate and the extreme confinement for animals continues once the circus arrives at performance sites; at such sites, elephants are confined to small pens or chained by two legs, barely able to take a step in any direction, and other animals are usually left in the same small cages that they traveled in. A 2015 New York City permit application for the big cat act with UniverSoul Circus showed that the tigers were kept in compartments on the travel trailer that gave them only 64 square feet of floor space, compared to the average size of tiger enclosures at zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which is 5,500 square feet.[17]

There are many examples – considered to be common – of traveling shows depriving animals of the bare minimum space required under the federal Animal Welfare Act, such as the following: the USDA cited Carson & Barnes Circus for keeping two bears in cages that measured only about 4½ feet by 4½ feet; a Kelly Miller Circus chimpanzee exhibitor was cited by the USDA for keeping a solitary chimpanzee in a poorly ventilated, undersized cage (6’ long/4’ wide/5’ high) on a trailer, though an adult female chimpanzee has an arm span of approximately 6.5’ and can grow up to 3.5’ tall; a big cat expert who attended Ringling Bros. performances in 2016 observed that the tigers’ cages lacked adequate shade in 80-degree temperatures and the tigers were panting constantly, their cages were devoid of enrichment required for their physical and psychological well-being; the floor surface was the hard concrete of a parking lot; and the tigers were housed in groups, forcing normally solitary animals into situations of unavoidable conflict.[18] Occasionally, circus animals’ traveling conditions may be so extreme that they result in death. For example, in 2004, a lion died while traveling in a boxcar.[19] One animal welfare group estimates that many circus animals spend eleven (11) months a year traveling.[20]

In addition to requiring long periods of travel, circuses have been cited numerous times by the USDA and in some cases have been found guilty of failing to provide adequate veterinary care, causing animals discomfort, failing to provide appropriate enclosures, and failing to remove excrement from enclosures to prevent animals from contamination.[21]

The suffering for petting zoos is similar: animals used in traveling zoos are subjected to the stresses of transport, strange and frightening environments, irregular feeding and watering, mishandling, and extensive public contact; the required travel does not allow for much downtime to let animals rest or exercise or to enable caretakers to attend to sick or injured animals; and, being subject to the extensive interaction with crowds all day, the petting zoo animals may have insufficient food, water and rest and may snap.[22]

c. The Public Safety and The Safety Of Workers Are Put at Risk by Exhibiting Animals in Traveling Circuses.

In addition to protecting animals, the Bill would also protect people, because public safety and the safety of workers are put at risk by exhibiting animals in traveling acts. In 2017, for instance, a Bengal tiger escaped during transport from Florida to Tennessee; the tiger attacked a pet dog in a residential neighborhood; and police officers subsequently shot and killed the tiger.[23] In New York City, a 450-pound tiger escaped from the New Cole Bros. Circus while being transferred from one cage to another near the Forest Park bandshell in Queens, injuring drivers who had encountered the animal.[24] In 2017, a tiger got spooked during a circus in Florida and a fearful audience “started stampeding.”[25] And in 2013, a tiger escaped during a performance and an audience member encountered the tiger in the venue’s public restroom.[26]

d. Traveling Animal Acts Teach Children an Inhumane and Distorted Lesson about Animals.

Children are naturally curious about animals and enjoy learning about them. But instead of teaching children about the natural behaviors and habitats of animals used in traveling acts, these acts teach children that all these species of animals exist for our entertainment.[27] The New York legislature has already declared, among the many “legislative findings” in the Elephant Protection Act, “[T]he use of elephants in entertainment provides a false and inaccurate educational experience for children and adults.”[28]  Despite the common claim that petting zoos are educational for children because they are exposed to animals that they would not come in contact with otherwise, children learn that it is acceptable to treat animals inhumanely for their own entertainment.[29] Many of the animals used in traveling acts would roam vast distances, walk on natural and appropriate terrain, engage in natural foraging for diversified food sources and socialize in accordance with species requirements were they not held in captivity. Circuses also “teach children that animals don’t have a right to freedom or privacy, or indeed any fundamental right to live their own lives.” [30]

Traveling animal acts teach children that it is appropriate to use force and violence to dominate or control other beings. In 2016, a Bengal tiger attacked his trainer in front of 33 children on a field trip to fair in Florida; video footage shows trainers forcefully beating the tiger with a stick.^[31] Child psychologist Dr. Sujatha Ramakrishna posits that children who watch animals coerced into performing unnatural acts in circuses learn that force is an acceptable way to deal with animals and other people:

Wild animals that stand on their heads and jump through hoops are performing unnatural acts, under the threat of force. Children who watch these performances learn that it is acceptable to force another living creature to do something that is stressful, and often even painful, as long as it serves the purpose of entertainment. This mindset will carry over into their relationships with people, and it will not serve them well in life.[32]

e. Current Law Does Not Adequately Protect Animals Used in Traveling Acts from Abuse and Mistreatment.

More generally, the Bill is necessary because current law does not adequately protect any of the species constituting covered animals under the Bill from abuse and mistreatment. For instance, state law bars a person from beating an animal or denying an animal food or water or “in any way further[ing] any act of cruelty to any animal,” and offers other protections.[33] But because the actual training of circus or other traveling act animals usually occurs in jurisdictions outside of New York, it is not possible for state and local law enforcement to protect animals from abusive training techniques before they arrive in New York State. Further, local law enforcement often lacks the training and expertise necessary to determine whether an animal’s welfare is compromised in the circus or other traveling act.[34]

At the federal level, APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)—the section of the USDA charged with enforcing the AWA—is likewise limited in its enforcement efforts. According to a USDA Inspector General report:

[F]or 6 of 40 traveling exhibitors we reviewed, Animal Care inspectors could not perform timely reinspections to ensure that serious noncompliant items that were identified in previous inspections had been resolved. For example, one exhibitor continued to show its elephants on the road even though an animal care inspector had previously cited the exhibitor for the animals being too thin for travelling exhibition. … Without reinspection, APHIS Animal Care inspectors cannot determine if the serious safety violations cited have been corrected.[35]

Notably, at least one federal court has characterized the USDA’s review of applications for license renewals as “an automatic, ‘rubberstamping’ type transaction.”[36]

f. Banning Covered Animals From Circuses Does Not Mean the End to All Circus Entertainment.

In response to similar legislation designed to protect covered animals used in traveling acts, some animal exhibitors have argued, among other things, that circus workers will lose jobs if animals may no longer perform; that the public will lose an opportunity to view entertainment; and that other businesses will decline due to the lack of circuses.

Banning covered animals from circuses does not mean the end to all circus entertainment in New York nor must it lead to the loss of hundreds of jobs. Rather, circuses will have to focus on acts that do not use these protected animals. Cirque du Soleil, for instance, is popular despite the fact that it does not use animals in its circus shows. Other circuses, like the Bindlestiff Family Cirkus and the Russian American Kids Circus, likewise do not use animals. The roughly two dozen animal-free circuses in the United States are a testament to the public’s desire to see circuses that do not exploit wild and exotic animals.[37] Indeed, public attitudes toward animals in entertainment have shifted significantly. Interest in animal conservation continues to grow, circus ticket sales have declined, and attendance at Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)-accredited zoos and aquariums has increased, demonstrating a preference for educational and conservation-oriented opportunities to observe animals rather than performances that rely on their exhibition and use in traveling acts.[38] Accordingly, prohibiting the use of covered animals in circuses would not deprive the public of meaningful entertainment or educational experiences involving animals, but rather reflects evolving public values concerning animal welfare and conservation.

III. OTHER JURISDICTIONS

In July 2017, New York City banned the use of many wild and exotic animals in circuses.[39] The list of municipalities in the United States that already ban the use of all or some animals in circuses or implements used to train and control circus animals is quickly growing. The following is a partial list of some municipal laws banning the use of certain animals in circuses:[40]

• Ban on circuses using animals:
  • Stamford, Connecticut prohibits circuses.[41]
  • San Francisco, California bans all performances by wild and exotic animals in the city, including motion pictures.[42]
• Ban on the use of certain animals in circuses:
  • Santa Fe, New Mexico bans the use of wild or exotic animals in traveling animal shows and circuses.[43]
  • Portland, Maine bans the use of wild and/or exotic animals in traveling animal acts.[44]
  • Montgomery County, Maryland bans the use of wild animals in traveling animal acts.[45]
  • Boulder, Colorado prohibits the display of certain animals in circuses, including elephants and tigers.[46]
  • Hollywood, Florida prohibits the display of exotic, threatened or endangered species as defined by the United States Department of the Interior, which includes elephants and tigers.[47]
  • Revere, Massachusetts bans the exhibition of nondomesticated animals for entertainment or amusement purposes.[48]
  • Richmond, Missouri bans the display of wild or exotic animals in circuses.[49]
  • Somerville, Massachusetts bans the display of non-domestic animals in circuses.[50]
• Ban on animals engaged in unnatural behavior: John, Indiana bars circuses from displaying wild animals engaging in “unnatural behavior.”[51]
• Ban on implements commonly used to train circus animals: Margate, Florida and Fulton County, Georgia ban the use of bull hooks, whips, electric prods, and similar devices likely to cause pain to animals.[52] Similarly, Los Angeles bans the use of bull hooks and similar devices designed to inflict pain for the purpose of training and controlling the behavior of elephants.[53]
• Ban on circuses on public property: Greenburgh, New York prohibits the display of wild or exotic animals on any property in which the town has a property interest.[54] Pasadena, California bans the display of wild or exotic animals on public property in the city.[55]

Measures to prohibit or limit the use of animals in circuses have already been adopted in more than 50 countries.  The following is a partial list of some countries that have such bans:

• Austria bans the use of wild animals in circuses.[56]
• Bolivia prohibits the use of both wild and domestic animals in circuses.[57]
• Greece bans the use of all animals in circuses.[58]
• India banslions, tigers, monkeys, panthers and bears from performing in circuses.[59]
• Iran bans issuance of permits allowing the use of wildlife in circuses.[60]
• Ireland bans circuses from using wild animals.[61]
• Israel bans the use of wild animals in circuses.[62]
• The Italian Parliament adopted legislation requiring circuses to phase out their use of animals.[63]
• Mexico bans on the use of wild animals in circuses.[64]
• The Netherlands bans the use of wild animals in circuses.[65]
• Paraguay bans the use of wild animals in circuses.[66]
• Peru bans the use of wild animals in circuses.[67]
• Scotland bans the use of non-domesticated animals for performance or exhibition in travelling circuses.[68]
• Singapore bans travelling circuses that display wild animals.[69]

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the Animal Law Committee supports the Bill.

Animal Law Committee
Martha Golar, Co-Chair
Sherry Ramsey, Co-Chair

Reissued September 2026