Exotic Animals and Circuses On Their Way Out

Monday, April 30, 2007 10:21 PM

Prince George City Council has decided the days of the performing tigers and elephants are numbered.

It was June of last year that City Councilors asked staff to prepare a report on how the City could deal with a request from the BC SPCA that all circuses using exotic animals be banned from Prince George.

Well, the Jordan Circus has been booked for Prince George, and the Jordan Circus uses elephants and tigers. The report before Council says if the City bans such circuses, then $10 to $15 thousand dollars will be lost in booking revenue. The Jordan Circus has already signed a contract to appear in Prince George this July.

That contract would be honoured regardless of Council’s decision.

There were four options presented to Council:

Continue to allow them and let the BCSPCA carry out the inspections to ensure the animals are allright ( that’s how Edmonton deals with it)
Draft a bylaw prohibiting exotic animal performances in circuses and shows ( 20 B.C. municipalities are going this route although Vancouver is taking it one step further and prohibiting the ownership of exotic animals.)
By policy, refuse to rent civic facilities to such circuses, although nothing would prevent a private land owner from providing a site
Have a resolution sent to North Central Municipal Association and the Union of BC Municipalities calling for a Provincial ban on a standardized list of exotic animal performances.

Council Don Zurowski moved that Council adopt option 2.

Bylaw Officer Ken Craig told Council his office has not received any complaints about cruelty or mistreatment of animals.

"It is progressive and its the right thing to do" says Councilor Brian Skakun. Councilor Deborah Munoz says the City shouldn’t allow any kind of show that caused any mistreatment of any animal exotic or not.

Councilor Murry Krause, says "Caging wild animals is archaic, and its time we show how progressive Prince George really is."

Councilor Sherry Sethen "There are things that cause animals some stress, and I would suggest that as we move forward we will be challenged by others in the community and I would hope we stand firm and not change our minds".

Councillor Glen Scott "We always have these groups come forward saying why this should take place, and its a backward step just regimenting another part of our lives." Scott was the only one to vote against the development of the bylaw.

Kathi Travers, an animal welfare activist, and a member of the BC SPCA had pushed for such a bylaw for years. When the vote was complete, a jubilant Travers wept with joy.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 10:21 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: DPJ on April 30 2007 11:29 PM

Will miss the traditional circus

Posted by: owl on May 1 2007 1:43 AM

I have always missed the Circus Maximus performances of gladiators against lions and tigers ..... now those were the days ...

;-)

Posted by: owl on May 1 2007 1:46 AM

"The report before Council says if the City bans such circuses, then $10 to $15 thousand dollars will be lost in booking revenue."

?????? Do Circuses with exotic animals pay that much more for space than those without? I wonder why tht would be? I would think that Cirque du Soleil would be able to pay more than that and draw a much bigger crowd. Sort of like Blue Man.

Posted by: wrinkledawg on May 1 2007 5:25 AM

Wanna see a circus,Go to city hall. ;)

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on May 1 2007 7:34 AM

One has to look at this as one heck of a good economic pportunity for places like Hixon.

I bet Hixon could draw thousands of people and their kids to see a show down there. Or have the circus come to Pineview. The circus could certainly save money and draw as big a crowd, or bigger, than downtown. I would go for sure if the venue was out of the city.

Obviously City council just doesn't want to have anyone competing with their circus on Monday nights! Lots of weird stuff comes out of that Chamber of Horrors. Brrrr. HeeHee!

Posted by: owl on May 1 2007 7:47 AM

I think we need to cage YDPC up in a 6 foot x 10 foot enclosure and travel him around the country for 8 months of the year. Maybe then he'll get it.

;-)

Posted by: owl on May 1 2007 7:51 AM

"its a backward step just regimenting another part of our lives."

I gather he does not care too much about the lives of others .....

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 1 2007 9:32 AM

I think option number 1 with a bylaw that prohibits the ownership of exotic animals for pets is the better choice.

Remember, in some countries, owning an elephant is no different than owning a horse. I enjoyed the Jordan Circus last time they were here and so did the little ones. I did not see any evidence of mistreatment and the animals were all very healthy and obviously well cared for.

I think if you want to see exotic animals otherwise, go to Joe's Place.

If you want to see a circus, try downtown PG on a Friday or Saturday night.

Posted by: seamutt on May 1 2007 10:29 AM

Here we go another control on what we can see or not see. These animals from what I've seen are very well taken care of. How else can the common person get to see and appreciate these animals. I find them a joy to see. Has the city hall looked into the care of these animals. Hey I have an idea hire a consultant, city hall seems very good at that.

Does anyone else have concerns on how the SPCA seems to be sticking their nose's into eveyones business more and more. If the SPCA are so concered about the welfare of animals, what about the welfare of police dogs and horses? These animals are injured and killed but not a peep out of the SPCA. The dogs are always penned, can't socialize and are put in harms way to be stabbed, kicked, shot etc.

Posted by: jonnypg on May 1 2007 3:27 PM

Taking away the rights of others...if you have a problem with the circus then dont go and see it!..Just dont keep taking away "MY" options!

Posted by: owl on May 1 2007 6:05 PM

I do not know about the circle of people you associate with, but in society we are generally allowed to do what we wish unless it affects the well being of others.

don't kill .... don't beat someone up .... don't kidnap .... don�t take things from others against their will �. don't lock someone up against their will .... don't harass someone ...... etc. etc ...

These are all things about which we would not say that if you have a problem with them, then don�t participate in them or don�t watch them.

These are things about which we say that if you are a member of society you should have a problem with them. If you do not, and if you do them, then we will have to stop you from doing them since they are asocial.

What is asocial today and what was asocial yesterday is quite different. The concept changes over time and varies form place to place. It is okay to stone a woman as punishment for having sex out of wedlock in some places on this globe; it is not in other parts.

This is not radio or TV or a newspaper or a web site. The saying you have simply does not apply to such an activity.

More and more we have been giving animals the same respect as we give to humans. After all, like humans, they are animals too.

Posted by: owl on May 1 2007 6:15 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article731367.ece

As far as elephants in those parts of the world where they are not exotics, they, as with other animals are loosing habitat and are displaying some of the actions that elephants in captivity display on occasion.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 1 2007 11:44 PM

Do you have chickens in your living room ?

Just wondering. Animals with the same status as human beings...hmmmmm. Do we need to build social housing for them too ?

"Treat the animals humanely" does not mean treat them as if they were human. There's a little bit of a difference there.

Many animals do much better domestically than they fare in the wild. Many of them might not even have survived or be alive and healthy today, if it were not for being in captivity with proper care.

Posted by: owl on May 2 2007 3:39 AM

Many humans would fare much better if they were fed regular diets rather than choosing their own food ... not smoking .. not driving ... exercising each day ... not getting stressed ....

If longevity were the goal of most people, they would live completely different lifestyles ....

Longevity, however, goes by the wayside when compared to simply living as human nature causes us to live .....

Longevity is not the key objective ... living life to the fullest ought to be the object for any sentient being, including humans. Remember, the constitution of the nation south of us says it right in their document ... "the pursuit of happiness" ...

I applaud those who feel the need to take risks which put their lives in danger. They have a passion, they follow it and they acccept the consequences.

Non human animals are no different. They are meant to take care of themselves in nature. Their entire essence is that. They did not evolve to be tigers and elephants to survive travelling in a trailer for 8 months of the year. That is completely contrary to their nature.

Who said that treating animals humanely meant to treat them as humans? Treating an animal humanely is to leave those that were in the wild, in the wild and giving those who were born into captivity as close to a natural habitat as is possible, unless they can be returned to the wild and will be able to fend for themselves.

Posted by: seamutt on May 2 2007 7:48 AM

What right does city hall have to ban exotic animals in a circus. Is there a law being broken here? Has the care of the animals been looked into before making this decision. Do the same animals spend eight months on the road? I will answer that no, they are rotated. Kathi Travers the local SPCA rep says circuses treat their animals badly. Did anybody think to check this out before making this ban or are they just taking one persons word. From what I have seen the animals are treated quite well. In the past maybe a different story. Check out the Ringling Bros. web site and their work with elephants. Travers mentions a better way to see animals is visit the internet or go to foreign countries. That has to be the stupidest statement I have read since Al Gore. I'm sure every kid in town can aford to travel. If a person cannot see, feel or even smell the animal how can there be any appriciation for them.

A decision like this just shows how dysfuctional city hall is.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 2 2007 11:18 AM

They all have chickens in their living rooms.

Animals don't seek happiness or understand the concept. They merely act with a view to survival, that's it. People are the ones that overthink everything.

Animal psychics are a hoax. Animals do not have such deep feelings or understanding of things.

Ms. Travers must have been the one that was protesting outside the circus when we went there. The only people protesting was a man and woman and their kids. They looked like extreme-view types.

Posted by: duffer on May 2 2007 5:40 PM

I can't believe the city bowed to the wishes of one radical again. If people think animals are being mistreated then they will not go to circuses and in turn the circuses will go bankrupt. If these animals are being properly cared for and getting the proper nutrition, which they might not get in the wild, then what is the problem? I think city council's time could be a lot better spent, like trying to figure out ways to decrease taxes instead of trying to find more ways to spend our money.

Posted by: whynotyou on May 3 2007 9:06 AM

When the circuses are banned and have to close up shop because there is nowhere to go anymore, nowhere to take the animals anymore, I hope with all my heart that Kathi Travers is there to rescue all the now unwanted animals who, of NO fault of their own, are suddenly abandoned, left to starve to death, to die, or turned loose to fend for themselves in a world they know nothing about.

Another case of man's need for control instead of compatibility or compromise. This should be clearly a compromise. Man has already interfered with the natural life of these animals, their instincts have been coerced into submission, their dependence to survive is now on man, the compromise would be to monitor and supervise their care to ensure it is proper and not cruel.

The Animial Rights Activists are capable of doing this. What they sometimes are not capable of doing is walking away when they can find no evidence of mis-treatment. Their need to control sometimes appears to be of greater importance than what is really happening to the animals they claim to care about.

Make no mistake, I am 1000 percent against any kind of cruelty to an animal of any kind for any reason. Animals have no greed, greed is one of man's greatest weaknesses. An animal is capable of loyalty, it is also capable of obedience. The loyalty comes from love and care, obedience comes from punishment. You cannot tell me an animal is not capable of choice or respect or love. It's just that their emotions are naked and true, where man has learned deceit.