As I last blogged about, activists in Minnesota have been lobbying the City Council for a ban on wild animal circuses in Minneapolis. The vote is only two days away!!! Two of the council members, Betsy Hodges and Paul Ostrow, are adamently against this, and wrote about it in today's Star Tribune. Click here to read the entire opinion piece.
Let's take a closer look at some of Hodges and Ostrow's statments (many of which are both false and misleading!)
1. "Minneapolis would be the first major city in the country to ban wild animals in circuses. We do not believe that the enactment of a ban here will lead to widespread bans elsewhere. A ban limited to Minneapolis would not improve the life of one animal."
First off, the councilmembers' statements that Minneapolis will be the first major city to ban wild animals in circuses is patently false. In fact, thirteen major U.S. cities prohibit animal acts, including Pasadena, CA; Stamfor, CT; Hollywood, FL; and Boulder, CO. In addition, Pompano Beach and Tallahasssee, FL; Collinsville and Woodstock, IL; and Southhampton, NY, all forbid the use of chemical, manual, and electrical means to make animals perform - in effect, banning animal acts. (Many European and Canadian cities ban wild animals in circuses as well).
Second, what is the basis for their statement that banning circuses in Minneapolis will not lead to widespread bans elsewhere? What facts do they have to support this? Personally, I would argue that just the opposite is true. If Minneapolis took a firm stand, no doubt, other cities would follow its lead. Leading by example is one of the greatest ways to bring about reform.
Moreover, the statement that a ban will "not improve the life of one animal," is, simply put, false (not to mention ignorant). It will be one less city they have to travel to, thousands of less people they will have to perform in front of, and maybe, thousands of people in this city will realize the cruelty to animals involved in circuses and decide they want to do something about it!
2. "Strengthening our commitment to aggressively regulate the treatment of wild animals that perform locally, however, will safeguard the animals and create a model to replicate elsewhere.
We have worked together to craft an alternative that will ensure the health and safety of the animals and provide for real consequences and oversight. The city's current regulations of animal circuses are inadequate. There are no real guidelines for the treatment of the animals, little documentation required in a license application and very limited enforcement tools. We must do more.
Our proposal would significantly strengthen our oversight. Annual off-site inspections of training facilities or other circus locations would take place at the expense of the event. Increased fees for circus permits would reimburse the city for the increased costs of a more extensive review of the operator's history and veterinarian records of the animals. The animals would be inspected daily in coordination with the Animal Humane Society. The changes would add meaningful enforcement measures and penalties to ensure compliance.
We also need to continue our stewardship of residents' property taxes. The city's top bonding priority for the 2008 legislative session is to obtain debt relief for the Target Center. This could mean millions of dollars for critical basic city services. Banning the second-most-attended event at the Target Center while asking for debt relief on the facility would trigger skepticism, criticism and even derision from the state policymakers whose support we need for this critical priority. It is also likely that a ban would expose our taxpayers to the financial consequences of legal liability to the Shrine Circus, since Target Center's management group has a contract with the Shriners through 2012.
At the municipal level, it is our obligation to change what we can. It is not within our power to eliminate the keeping of wild animals in captivity. It is both within our power and our duty to provide meaningful tools to protect the animals and to be leaders nationally in our oversight of circuses in our city."
2. Ok. Lots to digest here. First off, has the Animal Humane Society agreed to do these "daily" inspections? Who there is qualified to perform such inspection? Although Minneapolis does have one Humane Officer, he is extremely busy and stretched already, as he is one person, doing the job that requires many. What is the cost of these inspections? How will they be performed? How will the concerned citizens of this city be ensured that the inspections are taking place?
Surely the smart, educated members of the City Council can come up with a more creative event, other than a wild animal circus, that will bring in money to pay for the Target Center and shield the taxpayers from liability. As public servants, it is the Council's responsibility to listen to the needs and wants of its citizens and to act accordingly. If people really knew what went on behind the scenes of a circus, saw the abhorrent treatment of the animals, I've no doubt they would not support it.
Finally, Hodges and Ostrow miss the point of what the ban is about entirely. A ban is a statement that we do not accept the cruelty (inherent or apparent) of circuses and we do not want them in our city. Their proposed amendment serves only to confuse the issue by making claims about bettering the animals' welfare and keeping these horrid acts in our city under the guise of reform! Again, the point is, animals should not be used in circuses. PERIOD!!!
Contact the Minneapolis City Councilmembers to take a firm stand and support the ban on September 12.! For more info, visit crymn.org.
