It is in the best interest of the state that the use of elephants in entertainment be prohibited, and that the state use its authority to aid in the protection and welfare of these animals. – State of New York S2098B Bill Text (Elephant Protection Act)

As public sentiment continues to turn against forcing wild animals to perform in entertainment acts, a flurry of new legislation has been enacted across the U.S. that reflects this attitude change. Although several cities and counties have passed legislation prohibiting wild animal performances, Illinois recently enacted the first statewide ban on the use of elephants in traveling acts. New York soon followed suit, becoming the second state to prohibit the use of elephants in entertainment acts.

Illinois’s SB 1342, signed by Governor Bruce Rauner in August 2017 and effective January 1, 2018, amends the state’s Criminal Code to make it unlawful to use an elephant in a traveling act, defined as any “undertaking where animals are require to perform tricks, give rides, or act as accompaniments for entertainment, amusement , or benefit of a live audience.” The new section reads:

A person commits unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act when he or she knowingly allows for the participation of an African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) or Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 in a traveling animal act. (c) This Section does not apply to an exhibition of elephants at a non-mobile, permanent institution, or other facility. (d) Sentence. Unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act is a Class A misdemeanor.

Soon after, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed New York’s SB 2098B, also known as the “Elephant Protection Act,” into law on October 19, 2017. It amends the state’s Agriculture and Markets Law and its Environmental Conservation Law to prohibit the use of elephants in entertainment acts. The New York law does not specifying “traveling” acts but expressly exempts accredited zoos and aquariums. It takes effect in two years. In contrast to the Illinois law, which makes violation a Class A misdemeanor, the New York law provides a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation because offenses against animals are not part of New York’s Penal Code.

The legislation was drafted by undergraduate students in Pace University’s Environmental Policy Clinic, who also lobbied for its passage and collected student signatures in support of the bill. Several New York chapters of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund submitted letters in support of the bill to Governor Cuomo over the summer.

New York’s law contains a strongly worded “legislative findings” section that clearly enumerates the many problems faced by elephants used in entertainment performances, concluding not only that New York should use its authority to help protect elephants but also that prohibiting their use in entertainment is in the state’s best interest. It reads:

The legislature hereby finds that…it is widely recognized that elephants used for entertainment purposes (“entertainment elephants”) suffer physical and psychological harm due to the living conditions and treatment to which they are subjected, resulting in increased mortality with life spans only one half as long as wild elephants; entertainment elephants are trained with cruel techniques that involve the use of objects to control and punish, such as bullhooks, electric shocks, metal bars, whips, chaining, and other forms of physical restriction and painful coercion; entertainment elephants live in conditions that are in no way similar to their natural habitat, including an unnatural diet, restricted movement, inappropriate housing and a hostile climate; entertainment elephants are subjected to confinement and social isolation, leading to physiological, behavioral and psychological impairments; entertainment elephants transported into the state spend a significant portion of their lives inside trucks, trains or trailers, enduring additional physical restrictions and social isolation; the use of elephants in entertainment provides a false and inaccurate educational experience for children and adults, often including performance tricks that are never executed by elephants in the wild and that are stressful or harmful to the animal; and it is in the best interest of the state that the use of elephants in entertainment be prohibited, and that the state use its authority to aid in the protection and welfare of these animals.

This statement reflects the growing awareness that elephants suffer not only physically but also psychologically in captivity. Although these laws could be made stronger by being more inclusive and covering all wild animals in entertainment, not just elephants (for example, Santa Fe’s recent law also includes bears and tigers) – they are a step in the right direction and a harbinger of a cultural shift that is well underway regarding wild animals in captivity.

In particular, the past few years have seen a stark change in attitudes regarding the acceptability of forcing wild animals to perform unnatural behaviors for amusement and profit. Multiple factors have contributed to this shift in public opinion, but many credit the 2013 documentary Blackfish as being a significant catalyst. In what is commonly referred to as “the Blackfish Effect,” this acclaimed documentary shined a spotlight on the inherent cruelty of keeping orcas in captivity and resulted in an outcry for their release from SeaWorld. Following the film’s success, SeaWorld’s profits and attendance plummeted, and the corporation eventually announced it would discontinue both breeding captive orcas and using them in entertainment shows. In 2016, the California legislature enacted the California Orca Protection Act, codifying SeaWorld’s new company policy into law. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is currently working on similar legislation in Florida.

Blackfish’s 2013 release tapped into growing public unease about keeping large mammals in captivity, especially when they are forced to perform in unnatural entertainment acts. In addition to aquatic theme parks like SeaWorld, circuses have come under increased scrutiny in recent years, with momentum increasing in 2017.

In January 2017, amid sluggish ticket sales and mounting public criticism, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus permanently shut down after operating for almost 150 years, following a 2015 announcement it would stop using elephants in its performances by 2018. Just as the California Orca Protection Act came on the heels of SeaWorld’s decline, the movement to ban circuses has only accelerated since Ringling went out of business. The bans in Illinois and New York are just the latest examples of a national legislative trend.

In June 2017, the New York City Council voted to prohibit the use of all wild animals in circus performances, creating a broader law than the statewide ban, which applies only to elephants. This added NYC to the growing list of major cities that have banned the use of wild animals in entertainment, including San Francisco in 2015 (whose strong law includes film shoots). In April of this year, the Los Angeles City Council approved a similar ban.

With bans on the use of elephants in circuses reaching beyond the local to the state level, we are moving closer to codifying into law changing social norms about using animals in entertainment. We can expect to see similar laws passed moving forward as the cruel practices used to force wild animals to perform for human amusement – and the lies told by the corporations that profit from this exploitation – continue to be revealed by undercover investigations and poignant documentaries like Blackfish.

Beyond the abusive training methods that are necessary to compel wild animals to perform for us, keeping large intelligent animals such as elephants and orcas in captivity – even if they are not forced to do tricks – causes them inherent physical and psychological harm. As demonstrated by facts brought to light in recent lawsuits against large, well-established zoos like those in Los Angeles and San Antonio, captivity in itself is often detrimental to an animal’s wellbeing, frequently resulting in significant suffering and premature death. The idea that animals exist to be held captive for our gaze and amusement, rather than as subjects of their own lives, is thankfully becoming more antiquated with each passing day. Recent laws like those passed in Illinois and New York are just the beginning.

Further Reading: