Subscribe to my Feed
« Don’t manage impressions | Home | What’s in America’s orange juice? »
$270,000 may not be enough to stop animal cruelty
By Lauren | January 10, 2012
In April of last year, I reported on the efforts of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to call to account the Feld Corporation, the company that operates the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus. At the time, Ringling had been accused of abusing its elephants and allowing a lion to die by refusing to provide an adequate cooling system or water to the big cat during a train trip across the desert. I was upset then - I’m more so now.
Ingrid Newkirk, President and co-founder of PETA, appeared on the Kojo Nnamdi Show this afternoon. She reported that the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently hit Ringing Bros. with a $270,00 fine, the single largest penalty ever assessed against a U.S. circus for mistreatment of its animal performers. I was elated … until Ms. Newkirk observed that $270,000 is “manicure money” for the circus and its parent Feld Entertainment, and that the fine essentially gave the circus a clean slate from which to start - and maybe abuse - again.
Thinking that Ms. Newkirk’s claims might be a little exaggerated, I did some independent checking. Feld Entertainment is a private company, so it’s more difficult to verify its profit margins. However, in 2010 the Seattle Times reported, “Feld Entertainment these days tours 67 countries, tallying more than 5,000 performances a year. Its annual audience exceeds 30 million, generating nearly $900 million in revenue. On a big weekend, the far-flung empire is entertaining nearly 1 million patrons from Denmark to Greece to Wheeling, W.Va.” Ms. Newkirk was right; compared to $900 million, $270,00 doesn’t amount to much.
And that is precisely why I think that regulators either need to go big or go home where fines are concerned. Even this largest penalty ever assessed against a circus could be viewed as little more than an annoying cost of doing business for a company that deals in millions of dollars and patrons. Minimal penalties send a mixed message at best. If the USDA is really serious about giving companies a real incentive not to abuse animals, it needs to impose meaningful fines that can’t be paid back with peanuts and cotton candy.
Topics: Business Ethics, Social Ethics, corporate responsibility, ethics |