Veterinary Care and Animal Advocacy

http://www.facebook.com/jghdvm?ref=profile

<a href=”http://www.ourhenhouse.com“>

Discussion on treatment of captive elephants continues
After reading the responses by members of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee to Dr. Paula Kislak’s letter to the editor,1 and after reviewing the AVMA’s policies and positions, I am left to conclude that the committee’s actions are inadequate and insufficient as they relate to animal welfare.

Dr. Kislak’s main point was that a coercive management system used for elephants that is inherently unsafe, inhumane, and prone to serious abuse is condoned by the AVMA’s policy statement. Drs. Miller and Golab sidestepped the issue of humane treatment and discussed management, training, and husbandry of elephants. They did not address the issue of bullhooks and neglected to acknowledge the documented abuses of elephants by Ringling Bros. and other circuses.2

Circus animal abuse is as old as the circus itself. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will finally stand trial (scheduled to commence on October 20, 2008) for multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act.3 The lawsuit is being brought by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, The Fund for Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute.4 These organizations should have our full support as they pursue this case, which could have far-reaching effects as related to the use and abuses of animals in entertainment.

Drs. Miller and Golab state, “Articles in the press and lawsuits regarding elephants must be evaluated critically, as the information provided is sometimes misinterpreted or distorted in line with the beliefs of various interest groups.” Yet, in my opinion, it is these groups that are actually making strides forward and truly advancing the cause of animal welfare. We should applaud them for stepping up and actually taking an active and positive role in an area that has often been overlooked in veterinary medicine.

John G. Hynes, DVM

New Providence, NJ

1. Miller DS, Golab GC. Thoughts on AVMA policy on elephant guides and tethers (lett). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:550–551.
2. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Available at: www.circuses.com. Accessed Sep 9, 2008.
3. Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute. Ringling’s treatment of its elephants is indefensible. Available at: www.api4animals.com. Accessed Sep 10, 2008.
4. Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute. US District Court Document, District of Columbia. Available at: www.api4animals.com. Accessed Sep 10, 2008.

Drs. Miller and Golab respond:
We share Dr. Hynes’ concerns about humanely meeting the needs of captive elephants. Where we differ is that Dr. Hynes does not appear to believe that management, training, and husbandry are key components of humane treatment. To the contrary, they are core to maintaining physical and mental health in elephants. Training helps facilitate skin and foot care, as well as our ability to safely administer fluids, assist with parturition, and perform other veterinary procedures. We strongly believe in training animals, where possible, as an alternative to chemical or manual restraint. Guides and tethers are tools that can be used to humanely train elephants. Abuse of these tools is condemned.

Dr. Hynes chooses “coercive” to describe approaches to elephant management. Its use in this context often reflects a philosophic view opposed to human dominion over animals. In our opinion, coercion may apply to a range of methods used to obtain desired behaviors from animals. The spectrum extends from clear instances of animal abuse to actions such as denial of attention or treats, which are more benign than the strategies that animals sometimes use to communicate expectations of appropriate behavior to each other. As everyone should condemn coercion that is abusive, we believe our disagreement centers on coercion that is more benign. If such concerns are specific for elephants or other nondomestic animals in captivity or for specific uses, they are best addressed by discussing the underlying view. If applicable to all animals under human control, then leash training of dogs, harness training of horses, and other activities might also be considered inappropriate. Most of society and the veterinary profession do not currently support this view. A challenge for veterinarians is how to restrain animals for venipuncture, bandage changes, and other procedures in a fashion no more coercive than the application of quality training. Regardless of an animal’s willingness to cooperate, a human is making a decision about what is best for the animal’s welfare and imposing this on the animal.

Implicit to Drs. Kislak and Hynes’ use of legal citations are unstated assumptions that actions against a defendant are indicative of the defendant’s guilt and that all similar persons or entities are similarly guilty of inappropriate activities. We disagree with both assumptions, and our judicial system does not support them either. As it would be inappropriate to ban leashes for all dogs because of the actions of a few people, we do not support universal prohibitions on use of training tools for elephants when they can be, and regularly are, used humanely.

It is not clear whether Dr. Hynes is opposed to the keeping of elephants in captivity or merely to the use of elephants in circuses. Both are valid philosophic views; however, dialogue is best served by addressing those views rather than tangential concerns. The AVMA supports the humane use of animals for human purposes, and the Animal Welfare Committee has developed policy specific to the humane treatment of animals used in entertainment.

David S. Miller, MS, DVM, DACZM

Zoo and Wildlife Medicine Representative, AVMA Animal Welfare Committee and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo

Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, MACVSc (Animal Welfare)

Director, Animal Welfare Division, AVMA Schaumburg, Ill

Please sign this petition to NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and the NYC Council, asking them to vote for and pass INTRO 389, which would ban wild and exotic animal performances in New York City.

My Testimony to Massachusetts Senate in support of Senate Bill 1870- An Act Related to the Treatment of Elephants

November 12th, 2009

November 8, 2009

To Members of the Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development:

I am a veterinarian, and I currently practice in New York and New Jersey. My purpose today is to offer testimony to support the passage of Senate Bill 1870- An Act Related to the Treatment of Elephants/ Commonwealth of Mass.

For the past two years, I have been actively involved with the New York League of Humane Voters, the Humane Society of the United States and other animal welfare groups to educate the public about circus animal abuse. One of the main tools used on elephants for physical punishment and to intentionally inflict fear and injury is the “bullhook”.

I have actively lobbied for the passage of Intro 389, a bill introduced by Council Member Rosie Mendez in NYC, which would ban wild/exotic animal performances in NYC, with particular regard to elephants.

On November 5^th, 2009, I met with Speaker of the New York City Council Christine Quinn regarding obtaining a hearing for Intro 389. Council Member Mendez was present, along with RaeLeann Smith, Circus and Government Affairs Specialist, and Captive Animal Rescue and Enforcement Agent from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Patrick Kwan, NYS Director of the Humane Society of the United States, and John Phillips, Executive Director of the New York League of Humane Voters. Speaker Quinn watched the entire undercover video of Ringling Bros handlers beating and abusing the elephants before their performances at Madison Square Garden in NYC last summer. She listened intently to the evidence that was presented, which will hopefully lead to a hearing and a vote on this bill.

Abuse of elephants in circuses is as old as the circus itself, but it should no longer be an accepted practice. These majestic animals are deprived of almost all natural behaviors in the captivity of circuses. Many of them are captured in the wild, and traumatized during transport to their new destinations. They are beaten until they perform acts that are not only unnatural, but dangerous for the animals and the trainers. When they are not performing, they spend most of their time chained and/or travelling in boxcars or trailers.

The elephants that are born in captivity are taken from their mothers at very young ages, often with the knowledge of USDA inspectors, and trained for the circus. Although this is a clear violation of the Animal Welfare Act, inspectors frequently look the other way. The USDA violations for neglect, mistreatment, and abuse against circus owners, trainers, and handlers could fill volumes.

Most children do not want to hurt animals, or see them suffer. If children knew the suffering and cruelty that occurs under the Big Top, I would surmise that most of those children would choose not go to an animal circus. There are several lawsuits currently pending against Ringling and other circuses for multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act, which I am sure you will hear about in other testimony.

I ask you today to take a first step towards more humane entertainment for the people of your state. I think this bill merits immediate passage. I personally do not think it goes far enough, but this bill would at the very least, eliminate the use of a brutal instrument that more often than not is used as a weapon to punish, and to inflict fear, pain and suffering.

Sincerely,

John G. Hynes, D.V.M., P.C.

Member, Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association

USDA accredited in NY and NJ

Enc. Copy of Intro 389 (NYC)