Washington Post:

Many countries ban circuses with wild animals. These lawmakers want the U.S. to follow suit.

 

Mexico, Peru and several other Latin American countries have banned or restricted the use of animals in traveling circuses in recent years. Performing animals are even rarer in Europe, where many nations prohibit them.

 

There is no such federal law in the United States. But dozens of local bans, as well as Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey’s recent decision to fold its tent, have some lawmakers hoping the American political terrain might now be fertile enough to send all circus elephants, tigers and bears to retirement.

 

U.S. Reps. Ryan Costello (R-Penn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) appeared on Capitol Hill this week to introduce a bill that would prohibit wild or exotic animal performances in traveling circuses. Flanked by television actors Jorja Fox and Eric Szmanda, the representatives argued that the Traveling Exotic Animal and Public Safety Protection Act — known by the unwieldy acronym TEAPSPA — would end the suffering of creatures that profit-motivated humans force to perform unnatural behaviors and live in cramped conditions.

 

“I don’t think that those practices have any place in the fabric of our society,” said Costello, who added that his constituents are keenly interested in animal welfare issues.

 

[One problem with shutting down the circus: Where will the animals go?]

 

The question is whether they and lots of other Americans are interested enough to push for a nationwide ban on circus animals. The bill is only the latest iteration of a proposal that’s been introduced in Congress several times before but has never gotten far. Also at the Hill event was former U.S. representative Jim Moran of Virginia, who noted that he was “sorry” it had never passed before but said the idea “did make some inroads.”

 

There’s little question that public sentiment about performing and captive animals, particularly those considered highly intelligent, is changing. The Ringling Bros. announcement in January, which cited a decline in ticket sales, came after local laws and pressure from animal protection groups prompted the show to retire its elephants. Last year, SeaWorld decided to stop breeding orcas, and the National Aquarium in Baltimore is planning to move its dolphins to a sanctuary.

 

And animal welfare issues, as Costello suggested, have far more bipartisan support than many topics under consideration in Washington.

 

[Ringling’s elephants are retiring. Will their lives be better?]

 

What’s more, backers of the bill say, the Trump administration’s zeal for cost-cutting could work in their favor. Circuses with animals are subject to federal inspection under the Animal Welfare Act. Retiring the animals would therefore reduce spending on inspections, making it a “win-win” for the government and for the creatures, said Jan Creamer, president of Animal Defenders International, whose campaigns helped drive the Latin America bans.

 

“There’s an immediate budget cut,” Creamer said. She said a ban would affect 19 traveling circuses with about 300 animals.

 

A trainer moves a dromedary during a show at the Cedeno Hermanos Circus in Mexico City in 2015, before a ban in that nation took effect. (Henry Romero/Reuters)

But there’s also an anti-regulatory zeal these days in Washington, and many lawmakers are loathe to dole out sweeping new restrictions to industries — and that includes circuses. One opponent of TEAPSPA is the Cavalry Group, an advocacy group for “animal enterprise,” which last year said the idea “would deprive countless Americans the ability to experience endangered animals up close, such as elephants and tigers.”

 

The company that runs Ringling Bros., of course, has also lobbied against the bill in the past. Stephen Payne, a spokesman for Feld Entertainment, indicated it would no longer be a priority now that the circus is closing. But, he said, it remains a bad idea premised on inaccurate inform