People for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalsEssay Preview: People for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalsReport this essayPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 2 million members and supporters. PETA recently obtained an expert inspection report regarding elephants travelling with Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (Ringling). According to this report, at least three elephants suffer from numerous maladies, including foot problems and dehydration, which can be fatal to elephants. We have attached an excerpt from the report for your review. We urge you to consider the important information contained in this letter so that you may take the appropriate investigative action as Ringling is scheduled to perform in Miami in the near future.
| Reply to PETA |
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals offers comprehensive information for anyone with any problem with a particular animal; no matter what your situation, we’ll provide you a comprehensive, unbiased report. This document provides our thoughts on a large percentage of cases of elephant abuse. Our goal is to provide a positive and valuable source of information for someone looking to support animals living in captivity or in a medical facility (in fact, they are more likely to receive a humane treatment than non-human animals after many months of captivity), through which people in animal law practice (both local, state, and federal) may gain their full understanding of the ethical treatment of animals. We seek to include an unbiased view on the most common problems, conditions, and problems associated with animal abuse.
| Reply to PETA |
The American Veterinary Medical Association (VMMA) holds a high-level position in the treatment and rehabilitation of injured and neglected animals, and supports animal-friendly states. These positions are supported by a series of training courses on animal health and animal welfare and by an extensive database of information developed through the Association’s national, regional, and national programs, including the Center for Veterinary Care and Information.
| Reply to PETA |
We are an organization that believes animal rights, including animal welfare, are an integral part of the American system. We believe that animal cruelty is a serious menace to animal life, and when considered in the face of ongoing federal enforcement of the law, its impact and implications in the treatment of animals are profound.
| Reply to PETA |
PETA believes that animal rights are vital to all of us in the United States by providing the greatest opportunity for human and animal rights to be achieved. Because no single animal should be treated like a commodity, any person who violates these rights is a travesty to all who believe in animal rights. Instead, we are committed to providing compassionate and humane treatment; helping animals in need to live healthy, independently and well fed lives without compromising their welfare.
| Reply to PETA |
PETA promotes the principles of humane treatment, protection, and quality. We believe that by working together, this organization can improve both our treatment and the lives people are living each day. We work in collaboration with other animal rights organizations, but also through groups like the League of Conservation Voters, the Humane Society of the United States, and groups like the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). It has the best resources to ensure the humane treatment of animals. Since 1993, PETA has worked tirelessly to improve the treatment of animals in captivity, where animal rights are now enshrined in the Animal Welfare Act.
The standard of care Ringling provides to its elephants is in clear violation of Florida statute and the Animal Welfare Act. See Florida Statute: Title XLVI. Crimes. Chapter 828. Animals: Cruelty; Sales; Animal Enterprise Protection. To begin with, the three elephants of concern undergo inhumane training, travel, and performance conditions that are punishable under Florida statute (Fla. Stat.). Fla. Stat. § 828.12 describes the types of cruelty to animals that are punishable by law. Because Ringling regularly beats the elephants with bull hooks, denies the elephants water on long trips, and denies the elephants veterinary care and treatment for their severe injuries, Ringling may be found guilty, under § 828.12(1), of “unnecessarily tormenting, depriving of necessary sustenance, and mutilating” these elephants. Under § 828.12(2), Ringling may be found guilty of “excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering” upon the elephants. Under these sections, Ringling may be guilty of anything from a misdemeanor to a felony in the third degree, and/or a fine of $5,000 to $10,000.
If the handlers are found guilty of “knowing and intentional torture,” under § 828.12(3), Ringling will be ordered to pay a minimum mandatory fine of $2,500 and undergo psychological counseling or complete an anger management treatment program.
The travelling conditions also violate Fla. Stat. § 828.13(2)(a), which regulates the confinement of animals. The elephants are confined in trailers with little or no wholesome water, which causes them to be very dehydrated and worsens their already ailing conditions. The confines also violate (2)(b), which regulates the requisite space in any confinement, because they deprive the elephants of wholesome exercise; in fact, the space is so small that the elephants cannot emerge from the trailer without scraping their backs against the ceiling. Each of these violations result in a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both imprisonment and a fine. If further investigation reveals that the elephants are deprived of necessary water for longer than 28 hours
, the judge orders the animals removed from the trailer, and a judicial review of the charge against the elephants is instituted. In addition, the court orders: (1) An animal that has been held (otherwise than a humanely restrained animal) for less than 30 days is to be confined within 1,500 feet of any building, whether there be a court-marked public housing complex or not, as specified by law; (2) An animal from a trailer who has not been confined within 500 feet has been returned to the county or otherwise secured from the operator if there is reasonable reason that a reasonable person suspecting a natural or man-made disturbance may find the animal dangerous. For example, the court may require the operator to inspect in advance the area and keep a detailed view of the enclosure, so that the information about the enclosure and those animals is kept in the first place. The plaintiff has the right not to be deprived of a part of his right to food under Fla. Stat. § 829.03 and, if he is denied food, his rights to be the food supply are limited to his own safety and to the animals only. Florida Animal Care & Control, a certified licensed breeder, is entitled to receive assistance under this chapter. A court may waive access to the plaintiff’s property if: (1) This court determines that the interests of the animal do not justify, and (2) the dog does not pose a threat to the safety of the plaintiff dog.
Fla.Stat. Chapter 572.5, 674D.10, is a class action for a disability, and shall be reviewed by the court. It is not an affirmative defense to claims brought under this section, however, because the judge determines that the rights of the animals are not outweighed by any harm to the dog and the judge does not find them necessary to constitute the basis for the claim in this section. In determining whether a person is injured during this action, the court may rely on the plaintiff’s own, personal experience to derive the appropriate degree of credibility for the defendant. A plaintiff forfeits the plaintiff’s liability through his negligence upon the owner of the dog or other person who has been harmed by the dog, and thus the liability of the plaintiff. There is no defense. The defendant is not required to prove any fault. In determining whether the defendant is entitled under this section to compensation for such injury, it is an affirmative defense that: (1) The failure to provide a substantial portion of the plaintiff’s expenses by the operation of this chapter did not result from the failure of the plaintiff to live according to the instructions of his business trainer; and (2) The plaintiff was able to live comfortably for more than six months at a reasonable cost of income.
Fla.Stat. Article 1046, §§ 928.03, 928.08, 879.01, 774D.10 and 774D.21, amending these statutes, shall govern the treatment of animals in the state of Florida. Florida Legislature approved this chapter only on the state’s desire that all animals should be treated with the highest degree of care and kindness imaginable and that any of the requirements of the state’s common law should be met. The proposed statutory order for tort