3. JUSTICE UNDONE
"The time will come when public opinion will no longer tolerate amusements based on the mistreatment and killing of animals.
The time will come, but when?"
~ Albert Schweitzer ~
"No one here can play the missionary" declares Dr Thomas Althaus, in his official capacity as head of the Endangered Species Section at Switzerland's Federal Veterinary Office. Sadly, it is these few words which seem to sum-up the attitude prevailing in similar government departments throughout Europe, departments which are vested with the profound responsibility of ensuring the welfare of circus animals. The basic creed of such bureaucrats, apparently, is 'don't rock the boat, don't upset the status quo, but at the same time, beware of offending public sensibilities, bruised by recurrent disclosures of animal abuse in circuses'. Small wonder then that such government officials often seem to use the letter of the law as an alibi for inaction, while studiously ignoring its ailing spirit.
It may of course be logical to assume, as so many government inspectors do in order to conceal their own complacency, that the welfare of these animals is assured simply because they are the "bread and butter" of the circus. Yet as elephant specialist Dr Fred Kurt points out, "while none of the circuses have an interest in killing their animals because there is a lot of time and money invested in them, this doesn't mean that systematic cruelty doesn't take place." Another problem, this time also confronting the most diligent of officials, is that legislation has conspicuously failed to keep abreast with society's changing attitudes towards conservation and its contemporary understanding of the needs, behaviour, sensitivity and social customs of wild species. The wilful or wanton infliction of pain, suffering, or death upon an animal or its neglect may be illegal in many countries throughout world, but because cruelty of this kind is notoriously difficult to prove, such laws are seldom enforced. "To obtain a conviction under the Protection of Animals Act 1911," the RSPCA explains, "there is a need to prove substantial unnecessary suffering. But the law has not kept pace with changing attitudes. The practices involving the treatment of circus animals to which the Society has the strongest objections are, at the moment, perfectly legal."
While the use of animals in entertainment has already been banned or severely restricted in several countries, including Denmark, Sweden and Finland, in others, such as Italy, Spain and Portugal, laws relating to the welfare of circus animals are virtually non-existent. In Britain, there has been no change in the law for over 60 years, and there is little prospect of more stringent legislation in the foreseeable future. While the Labour Party manifesto in the last two years has included a pledge to phase-out exotic animals in the circus, the Tories believe that existing legislation is perfectly adequate to ensure their well-being. Curiously, the government appears to put its faith in the Performing Animals (Regulations) Act of 1925, an archaic piece of legislation which requires circus exhibitors and animal tamers to be registered by County Councils, and which originally seems to have been designed with bureaucratic red-tape rather than animal welfare in mind. Though the Act empowers council officials or police officers to enter circus premises at all 'reasonable times' in order to inspect animal facilities, RSPCA Inspectors do not have a similar statutory right of entry. And although circuses are subject to inspection by council veterinarians, there are few in the UK which possess the necessary knowledge and experience of wild exotic animals to be able to adequately interpret their nutritional needs, behaviour patterns and symptoms of stress. Though constrained by the inevitable limitations of the Act, growing public concern for the plight of circus animals has prompted other forms of action to be taken by local government. So far, as many as 120 Local Authorities in the UK have resolved not to lease sites under their control to circuses which contain animal acts.
Circuses in Britain are specifically excluded from the Zoo Licensing Act of 1981, even though the Act actually lays down only minimum standards of care and welfare for animals in captivity. This exemption appears to be based solely on economic considerations since there is not one travelling menagerie in the entire country that could ever hope to comply with its provisions. One requirement of the Zoo Licensing Act, for example, is that acceptable accommodation should be provided "in accordance with the needs of the species. . . to aid and encourage normal behaviour patterns." As those officials who formulated the Act must have realised, providing such accommodation in circus beast wagons that are designed to travel the roads would be an impossible feat. Indeed, should they ever be obliged to comply with zoo licensing regulations, the travelling menageries would be confronted by the Hobson's choice of either being forced out of business or continuing to keep the circus tradition alive without the help of captive wild animals. Though the time may well have come for precisely that ultimatum to be delivered, such a move is unlikely for a variety of reasons. To begin with, both circus and government departments alike defend the menagerie's cramped beast wagons on the grounds that the animals incarcerated within them receive regular exercise in the arena and subsequently require less space than zoo animals. We have already seen the fallaciousness of this argument. Secondly, lobbying pressure on behalf of the European circuses is surprisingly potent. Wealthy and influential circus dynasties such as Chipperfield, Knie and Krone, the Circus Proprietors' Association, the Circus Fans' Association of England and America, the Société du Club du Cirque in France, the Gesellschaft der Circusfreunde in Germany and Austria, and the Ente Nazionale Circi in Italy, all continue to actively promote the myth of the performing animal as an inviolable centuries-old circus tradition. By judiciously raising the spectre of unemployment, economic hardship, and the needless aggravation of tens of thousands of ardent circus supporters, they have systematically fostered government reluctance to take measures to protect the rights of circus animals. And finally, governments seem habitually disinclined to solve any conservation or animal welfare problem by outright action that might cause economic upheaval. If forced to act under such circumstances they prefer gradual "reform" rather than outright prohibition. All too often, the end result is a law that does little else but to legitimise the crime, larger cages for example, instead of no cages at all. In this respect, government inaction in Britain has been encouraged rather ingeniously by the self-policing efforts of the Circus Proprietors' Association. Representing the ten largest circuses in the UK, the CPA claims that its "continually self-improving code of animal welfare", constitutes the highest possible standards for caging, stabling and transport. Its guidelines, revised in 1988 with the help of exotic animal vets David Taylor and Andrew Greenwood, call for larger exercise cages to be erected on site alongside the animals' sleeping quarters. Says Malcolm Clay, Secretary of the CPA: "We are interested in raising standards, in even more regulation, not less. Proper exercise facilities for example: ideally elephants should have an exercise area possibly surrounded by low-voltage electric fencing as much to deter and protect inquisitive dogs as to keep the circus animals in." Yet the cages, even though slightly bigger, are still bare and the scope for 'self-improvement' seems to be as limited as the dimensions of the beast wagon itself. Indeed, for as long as circuses are permitted to cart animals around the world for show, wildcats and bears will continue to be kept in cages small enough for transport, and elephants will still spend much of their lives chained to the ground. Moreover, although the guidelines prohibit menageries of non-performing animals, they can do nothing to alter fundamentally an environment characterised by the most squalid deprivation, not least of all the wild animal's continually frustrated natural instincts to play, roam and explore.
So inevitable is this deprivation, that pressure is mounting constantly for the central government to take firm legislative action to curb animal abuse in the circus. Speaking recently at a seminar organised by the Animal Welfare Foundation of the influential British Veterinary Association, the well-known radio and television broadcaster Johnny Morris, declared: "Circuses should be banned from keeping certain animals because of the cruelty involved in their training and the conditions in which they are kept. There is little doubt that cruelty is involved in training circus animals, but the most disturbing aspect is clearly the way they are kept when not performing."
A similar inadequacy in the law exists in the United States. According to Alex Pacheco of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: "The Animal Welfare Act merely requires that the animals have enough space to stand up and turn around when confined, yet even these minimum regulations often are not enforced." This view is shared by Nancy Burnet of the Coalition to Protect Animals in Entertainment, a consortium of over 50 U.S. animal welfare groups: "The laws are really meagre. Trainers seem to have carte blanche when it comes to animals. Beatings are actually considered acceptable training methods." Indeed, the law seems quite incapable of preventing even the most crass abuse of animals for the sake of dollars and sensation. In 1984, for example, Ringling Brothers' Greatest Show on Earth presented four goats with surgically implanted horns in the middle of their skulls. The Circus' publicity machine touted them as "living Unicorns".
For the past 50 years, declares Burnet, it has been the American Humane Association that has been solely entrusted with the responsibility of watching over animals in the entertainment industry. "The American Humane Association has failed miserably," she asserts. "No complaint of animal abuse has been filed in 20 years from the American Humane Association. The Coalition is seeking their removal as the purported protectors of animals in entertainment. American Humane cannot solve the problem of animal abuse in entertainment because, unfortunately, they are part of the problem. American Humane is more interested in protecting the producers and trainers than the animals." Indeed, according to the International Primate Protection League, at the 3-day annual meeting of American Humane in 1984, one of the star attractions was a performing orang-utan dressed up in human clothing.
"In order to stop the rampant abuse of animals in the entertainment industry, standards and guidelines need to be set up which trainers must adhere to," Burnet insists. "Personally, I'm a total abolitionist. I'd rather not see any animal exploited by being used in the entertainment industry or under any circumstances. Unfortunately, our society is not ready for that right now." For the time being, the Coalition focuses its efforts on trying to convince the public to boycott any circus, film, or advertised product which involves animal abuse. "People who love and respect animals the most are often unknowingly financing this cruelty," explains Burnet, "and in this way, our ultimate goal is to take the profit out of animal abuse in the entertainment industry." Also seeking fundamental amendments to the Animal Welfare Act, the Coalition advocates statutory right of access to animal training sessions by independent inspectors, and wants trainers found guilty of abuse to be prohibited from working with animals.
In countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece, animal welfare laws are still, to all intents and purposes, non-existent. Says Pier Lorenzo Florio, director of the Italian branch of TRAFFIC: "There are over 300 circuses in Italy, and only about 8 or 10 of these are considered 'first rate' like Medrano and Togni. Most of the others are much more primitive affairs, wandering from town to town with a couple of aged lions, gorillas or chimpanzees. Because they are poverty-stricken, their animals are bound to suffer continual deprivation, but we have no laws that can prevent it. As it is at the moment, a tiger could literally be kept in a box, or a dolphin in a bath tub. Although one Minister submitted a bill to Parliament 5 or 6 years ago to outlaw exotic animals in circuses, because of the impending elections it was left sleeping and has never been revived." Florio goes on to note that Italy is also lacking any law to prevent private individuals from owning dangerous exotic animals as pets. "Keeping exotic pets such as wildcats is becoming very fashionable, especially around Palermo and Varese," he warns, adding that in Lombardy alone, "there are at least 50 lions and 20 tigers" in private households. "All told," he says, "there are perhaps 3000 wild animals kept as pets in Italy and in fact there's less paperwork in owning a tiger than an ordinary dog. There is even no law to prevent a private individual from taking a lion or tiger on a leash and walking it down the street." In 1988, he reports, a three year old girl was critically injured after being mauled by a leopard in a busy city street, and just two weeks later, in northern Italy, a sixty year old woman and a boy aged eighteen were killed after being attacked by two rampaging lions.
With circuses habitually changing their animal shows and roaming around the country, it cannot be denied that the authorities throughout Europe and America face serious obstacles in enforcing even the most cursory of regulations pertaining to veterinary hygiene and public health and safety. In the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, local government vets are responsible for implementing such measures, but besides being ill-versed in the biology and behaviour of exotic animals, they are seldom even notified of a circus' arrival until the beast wagons have moved on to another district. Furthermore, it is reported that there are so many districts with local vets that even the Federal authorities are not always aware of their existence. Says Achim Bollmann, circus specialist at the Hannover branch of the Tierschutzbund: "There are almost a 100 small travelling circuses in Germany and because most of them are unable to sustain a living, many must resort either to begging in the streets with their animals or to petty crime. Only very rarely will their income from summer shows be enough to tide them over winter. Many of these people are illiterate and it's wrong that their burden of poverty should fall on the backs of the children and the animals. The efforts of our government offices are so poor that these circuses can often work without any form of control at all, even though they should be checked and given a permit by the veterinary authorities. Even when a case is brought against a circus for some kind of animal abuse, it is very difficult for a vet to justify his position before a court as there are no standards defined by the law."
Without doubt, Finland boasts the most progressive performing animals legislation in the world. Issued on 12 September 1986, a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry stipulated that "monkeys, elephants, predatory animals, pinnipeds, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, wild ruminants, marsupials, raptorial birds, struthious birds, crocodilians, and ungulates must not be used in circuses or other similar performances." Indeed, the only animals that may appear under the big top in Finland are dogs, domestic cats, sea lions, ponies, tame horses and donkeys. Though Sweden's Animal Protection Ordinance, promulgated in June 1988, includes similar restrictions, under pressure from the circus lobby, elephants have been exempted from the ruling. Travelling menageries however, are explicitly forbidden under the Ordinance. The Norwegian government has enacted similar measures. According to the Ministry of Agriculture's Veterinary Services Department, under "Section 15 of the Animal Welfare Act of 20 December 1974 there is a general ban on exhibiting animals in public. The Ministry of Agriculture may allow exemptions, but is very restrictive according to which species to use in circuses. It is not permitted to exhibit monkeys, other carnivores than domestic dogs and housecats, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, deers, kangaroos, birds of prey and other seals than sea-lions. We suppose that, from the welfare point of view, it is very difficult to keep exotic reptiles and amphibians in a circus, moving them from place to place, and permission is not given to exhibit such animals either."
The wide discrepancy in animal welfare legislation in Europe has prompted the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, a coalition of organisations representing each of the 12 member states of the EEC, to seek the introduction of uniform minimum standards throughout the Community. One of their avowed priorities is to press for tighter legislative control of "animals in exhibition situations", a wide category covering not only zoos, dolphinaria and safari parks, but also circuses, films, television and advertising.
According to Eurogroup, the EEC bureaucracy already has every intention to introduce standardised regulations governing animal welfare, from farm animals to laboratory animals. Somewhere on the periphery, as a lost cul-de-sac of concern will be those creatures who inhabit the travelling menageries. Because only "minimum standards" will be introduced however, the law will almost certainly do little to alleviate the deprivation suffered by the circus animal. Indeed, if past performance is anything to go by, such standards will probably do little more than to legitimise the industry, for while it is true that many of the smaller squalid circuses and menageries will at long last go to the wall, the more affluent and image-gifted impresarios will be able to bask in their new-found approval by officialdom.
When the powers that be in Brussels finally get around to drafting Community-wide regulations governing exotic animals in the circus, reviewers will almost certainly look to Switzerland which already has in place Europe's most comprehensive legislation based on "pragmatism" and "compromise", the Schweizerische Tierschutzgesetz, introduced in 1981. It is all the more important then, to look at this law in detail, to discover its intentions, its merits, its flaws, and loopholes.
At The Mercy Of The Law
Varying in size and sophistication, there are 14 circuses in Switzerland, 7 of which keep animals. They range from top of the line establishments such as Knie and Nock, to more down at heel enterprises like Olympia, Royal and Stey. But whatever imperfections or merits there are to individual circuses, there is little public scrutiny of what goes on behind their colourful facades. Despite the undeniable difficulties in keeping track of roaming menageries, my investigations have revealed glaring and inexplicable inadequacies - not least of all on the part of authorities which seem either unable or unwilling to apply even the letter of the law, let alone its spirit. Some of these deficiencies have been excused on the grounds that the law is still in its infancy, though critics assert that no amount of refining will be able to make much impact on its severe flaws and plug its gaping loopholes.
Asked whether the new law and its application can be considered satisfactory, ethologist Dr. Rolf Keller replied: "No, certainly not. As is typical in Switzerland it's a compromise, and in this case a bad one. On one hand it shouldn't really be allowed to keep any animal in a circus - especially the ones which do not perform and are confined permanently to the menagerie cage. But on the other hand, there's the justification for display animals - that they receive adequate exercise through dressage and show performance." And indeed, like any Swiss compromise, this one too hinges not on any altruistic ideal, but on economic interests.
Under the terms of the Animal Protection Law - which also defines minimum cage dimensions - there is a clear distinction made between menagerie animals that are kept strictly for display, and those which are classified as "performing." Non-working animals in a travelling menagerie must thus be provided with the same sized cages that are applicable to any permanently-sited zoo. In this respect, the law incorporates a two-stage period of adjustment to allow both circuses and zoos time to conform to its provisions. By the end of 1986, the law obliged them to have achieved 50% of these space requirements and by 1991 they must be in full compliance. For performing animals however, the law is considerably less benevolent - ostensibly because their training routines and appearances in the arena help them to lead a healthier, more active life. This means, for example, that a pair of lions kept in a menagerie only for display would, by 1991, be entitled to a cage size of 24m2, plus an extra outside enclosure of 40m2. If they are performing however, they must be content with a mere 5m2 of living quarters and a 4m2 exercise cage, though these are no more than 'flexible guidelines'. Only at the circus' winter quarters would the lions' cage size have to conform to zoo requirements of the law whether the animals are then 'working' or not.
Paragraphs Made of Rubber
When it comes to defining a working or performing animal however, the law is vague, providing a convenient loophole for circuses to exploit. Like a Chinese riddle, one might ask, "When is a non-performing animal a performing animal?" The answer apparently is when the circus management decides it to be so. A prime example of this loophole is the Knie rhinoceros, a friendly and docile creature originally wild-caught in Kenya, which, to all intents and purposes, was not performing during the 1987, 1988 and 1989 seasons. Did this mean that the small wagon and enclosure in which it was kept was illegal? Fred Kurt: "This is really a rubber paragraph. What does 'working' mean? The rhino may well be regarded as working if it's taken into the arena in the morning and then walked around for a little 'training.'" Kurt goes on to say that he recently complained to Federal Veterinary Office about the living conditions of the snakes and crocodiles appearing in Knie's 1989 programme. "These animals are kept in small boxes, and to me this was an obvious contravention of the minimum size ordinances. But Thomas Althaus replied that these animals were 'working' - revealing just what a rubber paragraph it is. Can you imagine - a working python?!" Apart from these reluctant show-business animals, adds Kurt, "there are also the animals starring in cabarets and nightclubs - and how they have to live! Really, I wouldn't like to know. Because most probably they're kept in boxes somewhere in a hotel room and in the evening taken out for 10 minutes or so, and this all falls under the paragraph 'working animals'."
Dr. Rolf Keller sheds further light on the apparent anomaly of the Knie rhinoceros, whose rights under the law have been drastically curtailed: "The rhino was performing - once. That was when it was in the arena with the tigers several years ago now." He then adds with a mordant laugh: "But it's difficult to say for how long it'll be regarded as a performing animal." Dr. Thomas Althaus however, insists on the rhino's legality: "It's not in the show but it's going into the arena and running about. Under the law, training - perhaps for the next year's programme - naturally counts as performing."
While admitting that the Federal Veterinary Office would "like to put more pressure" on Switzerland's smaller and often less responsible circuses, Althaus defends Knie's compliance with the law as exemplary. He points to the circus' swift decision to sell its two pre-convention lowland gorillas which, up until 1986, had been the stars of its non-performing menagerie. "Even though Knie would have had until 1991 to adjust its gorilla wagons," he declares, "it just discarded the whole thing." Knie's decision however may have been dictated more through hard realities than pure altruism. As Chris Krenger, the press officer of Knie readily admits, the new law meant that Knie "would have had to construct such a big enclosure that it would have been impossible to construct and to travel with." Furthermore, by 1991 Knie could well have faced difficulties in finding customers for its ageing gorillas - one of which was captured in the wild as a baby. It was thus that the circus apparently jumped at the chance to sell them. "They are now in a very nice safari park at Woburn, near London, owned by the Chipperfield's," says Krenger - neglecting to mention that the various enterprises run by this famous circus family have been rocked by a series of animal welfare scandals over the years, including the terminal vivisection experiments on Woburn's tribe of rhesus monkeys.
But what other tangible effects has the law had upon the circuses of Switzerland? Knie, also known as the 'Swiss National Circus', enjoys an impeccable reputation and exudes professionalism and confidence which enables it to take criticism in its stride and to deflect it with ease, often utilising its financial might and its high-level political and media connections. It has dealt with the law's ramifications in the same way. Chris Krenger: "Knie is now in full compliance with the law. There is not another circus in Switzerland which does more for its animals." Krenger, however, remains doubtful that the law will have much impact on the smaller circuses. "In theory, once the new law comes fully into force, it should no longer be possible to abuse animals in the circus, but I'm sure that some circuses should not be allowed to keep animals at all because some of them just don't treat their animals correctly. But when they are inspected, they are often given the benefit of the doubt." It was significant perhaps, that Dominik Gasser, owner of Circus Olympia, declared: "We have always had a good standard of keeping animals and big cages, because we act according to the animals and not the law." Circus Stey: "The law has added a great burden, mainly of a financial kind. We need more animal keepers, more wagons, and it also means more work for us all." Ruth Buser, Circus Nock: "Our animal wagons had to be converted and now one thinks more carefully about what species are still acceptable to travel with. The public - though not because of the law - has generally become more sensitive towards animal protection."
And yet despite the public concern which was reflected in the December 1978 vote in favour of the Animal Protection Law, circus animals are still regarded as private property, making it virtually impossible for independent observers to check on the fate of individual animals. In effect this means that for the public at least, records of animal purchases, sales, deaths and injuries are non-existent, and that a circus is even legally entitled to kill an animal which has lost its usefulness and which it is unable to sell. Moreover, the law provides no protection for excess or unwanted animals that may well end up in the most unscrupulous menageries abroad, so medieval in character that animals are regularly beaten and starved and live in nightmarish conditions.
Further complications are found in the practical application of the law whose responsibility rests exclusively with cantonal veterinary offices, often already overworked with agricultural animals. Fred Kurt: "In theory the law is quite strict on the sizes of cages for circus and zoo animals, but it doesn't say anything about the quality of these cages. Furthermore, the cantonal vets take no notice of the psychological defects of the animals - they have no experience, and no one cares if the animals are mad. Indeed, mad animals are often the best attraction. Bears and monkeys with stereotyped behaviour are considered as clowns, something absolutely funny." In what is a common phenomenon throughout Europe, even the circus vet, says Kurt, has little or no understanding of such stereotyped behaviour. "These vets are not animal psychologists. Because many of them have never even seen a tiger or an elephant in the wild, these behavioural problems they just can't comprehend. It is the same for the animal trainer. For instance, ask Louis Knie, 'why are your tigers always walking on aluminium where they can hardly make a step without slipping'. And he'll reply, 'don't worry, tigers have always lived like this,' and for him they have."
Cantonal vets are also responsible for ensuring that accommodation provided for the menagerie animal conforms - at least superficially - to the unique behavioural needs of individual species. "But what can a cantonal vet possibly know of what a camel, a tiger or an elephant needs?" asks Kurt. "Even if he would like to find out, he would have no time to do so. He has to control everything from imported meat to milk and slaughter houses - and so a circus for him is something he goes to in the evening with his wife." Hans Huggel, professor of animal biology at Geneva University, and President of the Ligue des Droits des Animaux, agrees with that assertion. "The law is supposed to guarantee the welfare of these animals, something that it conspicuously fails to do. In our opinion, these animals are stressed by their confinement and psychologically deformed. Such sordid displays should be forbidden."
But of course, any law can only be as effective as its enforcing officers, and here, the Animal Protection Law leaves much to be desired. The 1989 buffer does not only seem to be a cause for complacency among the more down at heel circuses, but also, apparently, at the Federal Veterinary Office as well. "I always think it important to make the distinction between good and bad circuses" Dr Thomas Althaus told me. When I asked him to name just one "bad" circus, he told me that he was unable to do so because he had only visited two of them - Knie and Nock. It should be remembered that this was already 1987, 9 years after the initiative was accepted by the public, 6 years after it had become law. At this time, Althaus, by his own admission, was attempting to locate the winter-quarters of Circus Olympia. Evidently several protests had been received regarding the standards in which the circus' two chimpanzees were being held, a 15-year old male, and a female aged 13. "We have already heard about these chimpanzees and are taking the necessary measures," Althaus told me. Although this could not include confiscation, he explained, "the cantonal authorities could refuse them a permit." But as we shall see later, it actually took the Federal Veterinary Office no less than three months to locate the circus' winter quarters, and even longer to intervene - not on behalf of the chimpanzees unfortunately, but merely to rectify "a technical breach of the law".
Spotlight On The Law
Endowed with official credibility, such attitudes may explain why the Animal Protection Law is today more likely to give the circus manager the benefit of the doubt rather than the animals themselves. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than at more primitive animal shows which teeter on the brink of illegality and exploit every loophole that the law has to offer, including its inefficiency. It is thus that, with apparent impunity, a tiger at Erich Leuzinger's wildcat show is confined to a box-like metal cage where it scarcely has sufficient room to stand up or the lions of Jerry Wegmann's Raubtierschau, an off-shoot of the Plättli-Zoo in Frauenfeld, so cramped that they literally sprawl over each other as they try to move. Sometimes, even to the casual visitor, the distress suffered by such animals is all too evident. At Circus Olympia for example, two chimpanzees were discovered inhabiting a hovel-like wagon spattered with filth, and displaying the manic behaviour of animals that have been driven to the verge of insanity. Indeed, the sordid conditions in which these chimps were kept, and the chronic confusion surrounding the circus' very legality, seems to spotlight a law that is not only tattered with loopholes, but that is both incoherent and dilettantish in its application. The law stipulates that they must be provided with "climbing possibilities": an old car tyre hung on a chain from the roof of the cage. Allegedly performing animals, the law stipulates a cage size of 10m2 for the chimps: on at least one occasion in 1987 they were found to be inhabiting a cage of 6m2. The law also stipulates that when in their winter quarters, their cage must conform to zoo specifications, a total area of 20m2: at Olympia's winter quarters however, the animals simply remained in their beast wagon. Wearing thick chains, which Olympia's owner, Dominik Gasser, described as being no more bothersome to them than "necklaces," the chimps lay face-down in the soiled straw as though trying to hide or escape from their misery they sat huddled together in one corner of the wagon, rocking aimlessly to and fro, their eyes either blank and expressionless or rolling grotesquely. One of them, its neck and hands bearing mysterious wounds, gnawed repeatedly at the metal bars.
For circuses to obtain a valid permit - which must be renewed annually before the commencement of the touring season - they must first be checked at their winter quarters by a cantonal vet to ensure that their animal facilities conform to the law. In Olympia's case there seemed to be only one snag: although registered in Derendingen in the canton of Solothurn, its winter quarters were nowhere to be found.
While the circus was on tour during 1987, the cantonal veterinary office of Geneva discovered that the chimpanzees were not performing and were therefore being held in illegally small cages. "We told them that the cage size must comply with the law," says cantonal vet Dr. Bernhard Walker, who has the reputation of insisting on the strictest controls of circus menageries. "If chimpanzees are working in the circus arena," Walker told me, "the conditions of the law are less strict. But because these animals were only kept in their cage, we demanded that the size conform to the law. My philosophy is that animals from nature do not exist to be put in the circus. The Swiss law allows it, but if the law's conditions are not observed then I am not satisfied." Because Olympia originated from another canton, however, there was little Walker could do except report the incident to the federal authorities. "Mr. Althaus knows about this," Dr. Walker insisted, "so why doesn't he collaborate with the veterinary service where Olympia has its winter quarters? He has to do it." Back in Berne however, Dr. Althaus, who by this time had managed to locate Olympia's winter quarters in Bassecourt in the canton of Jura, declared that he had "no idea" whether Olympia's chimpanzees were working or not and was therefore unable to judge their legality. Asked why the circus had left Derendingen, Althaus replied: "I think they have never been there. This was just a contact address." It was in fact the local post office. And yet even several months later, the cantonal veterinary office of Solothurn still believed that Olympia was in Derendingen. By their own admission, they had provided their non-existent circus with permits "for at least two years," certifying the legality of its animal facilities by post. Upon hearing this news, a somewhat subdued Althaus confirmed that Solothurn had acted illegally. Even this, however, did not mark an end to the saga. According to the cantonal veterinary office of Jura, which described the whole problem as "a mess," the circus had been stationed at the village of Bassecourt for no longer than six months, and had received its last permit from the canton of Basel Land. This information had apparently been passed on to them by Dominik Gasser who claims that, prior to moving to Jura, Olympia had its winter-quarters in the Basel district of Schweizerhalle "for over ten years." Dr. Jean-Pierre Siegfried, cantonal vet of Basel Land however, declared that the last time he had inspected Olympia was "three years ago." In effect, this means that although based in Basel Land, Olympia was obtaining its convenient inspection-free permits from Solothurn. Althaus however, doubted that this amounted to a deliberate evasion of the law, and seemed to infer that the Federal Veterinary Office was reluctant to help the chimpanzees: "We know of some chimpanzees which have been killed here in Switzerland because their owners did not have the necessary room or money. It's easy for some people to say that a circus has to make bigger cages or that circus animals have to disappear - they pass a sentence of death on these animals. That's the consequence. If you say for instance that circus Olympia has to get rid of these chimpanzees, they'll kill them. They have no possibility of selling them to someone else."
And so here once again, image took precedence over substance, with the Federal Veterinary Office resorting only to token measures in order to rectify a "technical violation" of the animal welfare regulations. Althaus' superior at the Federal Veterinary Office, Dr. Peter Dollinger, together with the cantonal vet, visited Olympia on March 9th 1988 to inspect the circus and issue a valid permit to allow it to operate. But although the circus was refused permission to take the chimpanzees on tour, zoo conditions - which would have required an enclosure of 20m2 - were not imposed. This second breach of the law was justified on the grounds that Dominik Gasser was in the process of building a menagerie and lunar park at his winter quarters, which, when complete, would provide the chimps with accommodation in full compliance with the law. Yet the ritual show-style mendacity and exaggeration that characterises the Gasser family apparently escaped the attention of the two vets, since at this time Olympia had not even been granted planning permission for its menagerie and amusement park. At the same time, responding to the threat of a scandal over the chimps' plight in the press, both the Federal and Cantonal authorities imposed an arbitrary information black-out. When I returned to Bassecourt, I discovered why. Although Althaus had assured me that the chimpanzees "would have to be given bigger cages," I found the animals confined to a smaller space than ever before, a section of a beast wagon measuring no more than 5m2.
Conflict Of Interest?
Such methods of administering and applying the law do not surprise Prof. Hans Huggel, who accuses Dr. Thomas Althaus of "gross conflict of interest." Althaus, he says, "is really the worst man for this job. He is actively portraying to the public that wild animals are happy in their captivity and tries to prove that the circus is an important tool in educating young people about nature. He is even paid by Knie in spite of his position at the Federal Veterinary Office where he is responsible for the protection of circus animals. We consider this to be entirely unethical." Althaus however, rejects such criticisms: "It doesn't bother me at all because I consider people that are working against the keeping of zoo and circus animals to be people that do not know what they are talking about. This Prof. Huggel for instance is a so-called biology professor, but if you look closer you see that these people are dealing with cells and enzymes and biochemical experiments - they have no idea of the lives of animals as a whole. To me, experts of whole animals are people who are working with whole animals - people in the zoos for instance or circus trainers." Defending his relationship with Knie - which includes weekend lectures on animal training under the big top - Althaus says: "When I work with Knie on a Saturday I get only 200 Sfr. as paid expenses - including travel."
In the beginning of September 1989, the ailing chimps of Circus Olympia were finally put out of their misery. Yet this so-called 'mercy-killing' raises more questions than it answers. Why did the authorities wait for two years - until it was too late - before taking decisive action to put a stop to this cruelty? Was official apathy and incoherence in the application of the Animal Welfare Law to blame, or merely the law's time-consuming bureaucratic protocols? Why were the relatively young chimps not confiscated from their owner when their suffering first came to the attention of the Federal Veterinary Office in the summer of 1987? Following several fruitless attempts to have various independent experts visit the chimps, VETO, a coalition of Swiss animal welfare organisations, lodged a criminal case against Olympia on the grounds of animal cruelty and neglect. Meanwhile, suddenly realising that Dominik Gasser had fulfilled none of his solemn pledges to improve conditions for his menagerie animals at Bassecourt - and that the health of some had deteriorated rapidly - the Cantonal Veterinary Office also took steps to prosecute Olympia for failing to comply with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Law. In an official letter to Gasser, Cantonal vet Joseph Annaheim stated: "The menagerie of your circus is in a deplorable condition." Two months later, with the full knowledge of the authorities, the chimps and two lionesses were quickly and quietly put to sleep. Says Gabriela Kappeler, director of the Tierschutzbund Zürich, a member of the VETO coalition: "Although the authorities knew we were trying to help the animals, they did not even inform us that the chimps were to be put down. It is quite possible that we could have found a home for them where they would have been well cared for."
|
Online Edition