Journal of Animal Ethics

David Wilson explores the history of the use and treatment of animals in performance with a view to considering their impact upon animal welfare. While the majority of the book focuses upon the use of animals in performance in Britain over the past 100–150 years, he begins with a brief history of animal performance dating back to the classical era. As well as touching upon the oft-cited public slaughter of animals (and humans held in servitude) in the amphitheaters during these historical periods, he also documents the use animals in festivals, parades, and performances; they are exhibits that would not look out of place in the shows currently being promoted in the animal circuses still operating today.

The book has a strong focus upon the lobbying process which led to, and followed, the introduction of the U.K.'s Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925, a statute which started life as a proposal to prohibit the use of animals in performance (p. 46) but which, by the time it was enacted, required "no more than registration . . . and restricted inspection" (p. 82) and was decried at the time by those concerned over the cruel treatment of animals in performance as ineffective (p. 181). The select committee charged with the issue heard evidence from both sides of the performing animal debate; this evidence forms a large part of the book's content. The evidence itself consists of a somewhat overwhelming array of accusations of animal cruelty on the part of those seeking prohibition and rebuttals to those accusations by those who wished for the practice to continue. The result is a sense of a cyclical "tit-for-tat" argument that does not appear to progress to any form of conclusion, nor decisive action on the part of the government. What is perhaps most frustrating in reading this work—certainly from my perspective as an advocate who has been directly involved in work on this issue in the United Kingdom for a number of years—is that the arguments on both sides remain the same today as they did in the late 1800s, while the practice itself remains legal (although diminished in scale).

A horrifying list of abuses are outlined throughout the ages, with complaints including ponies and dogs being whipped (p. 150), horses "being trained with clubs" (p. 153), and the declawing and defanging of big cats (p. 156). A primary concern raised repeatedly over the last century is that free-living animals, in particular, cannot be trained to submit to a person's will through [End Page 223] kindness, but that cruelty is necessary in order to ensure compliance (Chapter 4.3). In addition, the confined accommodation and regular transportation was of great concern to early animal advocates (Chapter 4.1).

Those defending the use of animals in performance claimed that training of animals could only be carried out using kindness (Chapter 4.3), that those who had invested heavily in animals (in both time and resources) would be foolish to mistreat them, and that those who raised concerns over the issue were ill-informed "sob-stuffed cranks . . . comprised mainly of bureaucratic men and neurotic women" (p. 69). Where admission was made that cruelty within the industry existed, this was blamed on "cruel foreigners" (p. 91) and the suggestion was also made that "fanatics" opposed to the use of animals in performance harmed animals themselves in an attempt to discredit the industry. One article suggested that painting the animal trainers in a bad light also helped the charitable organizations opposing their trade to gain financial support. It stated, after horses belonging to a performer died from arsenic poisoning, that "we believe that our animal trainers have been sadly maligned by these subscription chasers" (p. 69).

While these arguments were first laid before the select committee in the 1920s, one would have difficulty differentiating between them and those still being used today on the issue. Those continuing the campaign for prohibition maintain to this day that training (of "wild" animals at least) cannot be carried out without some cruelty. The rudimentary and confined nature of the accommodation afforded performing animals remains an important justification for ongoing calls for prohibition (Captive Animals' Protection Society, 2010).

On the other hand, those defending animal performance today continue to use the "crank" or "radical" labels for those who oppose their trade and imply that the motivation on the part of those who raise concerns is purely financial. For example, the vice president of Feld Entertainment, which owns Ringling Brothers Circus, said in a press statement in early 2014 that his company was interested in animal welfare and "not the radical animal rights agenda supported by [the animal rights group] PETA," adding that his company contributed to conservation efforts, "something PETA's fast fundraising machine cannot claim" (Payne, 2014). In 2012, the implication was made (but never substantiated) by the owner of a traveling circus touring in Ireland that animal rights activists had drugged his elephants (English, 2012).

Despite the "tit-for-tat" nature of the lobbying process that, for so long, saw no real progress on either side, Wilson's book ends on a high note for those on the side of prohibition. He notes that the U.K. government had announced in 2013 its intention to ban the use of "wild" animals in traveling circuses in England and that "all wild animals would be out of traveling circuses by the end of 2015." Unfortunately, the book went to press in late 2015 and therefore Wilson was not to know that the promise made would be broken. At the time of writing this review in April 2016, the use of "wild" animals and domesticated animals remains legal across the United Kingdom, despite over a century of attempts to see the practice outlawed.

While this may appear to suggest, for those who seek to see an end to the use of animals in this way, that efforts over the decades have been somewhat futile, I would suggest instead it highlights that, while political lobbying and seeking legislative reform forms a vital component of many animal advocacy campaigns, we should not look to political progress alone as a measure of the success of animal advocacy.

In focusing on the relative lack of progress on the legislative level, in the United [End Page 224] Kingdom at least, Wilson omits a point of vital importance in his historical account. That is that the number of animal circuses in the United Kingdom (and animals used by them) is, in fact, at an all-time low, with just two circuses with "wild" animals touring England and employing less than 20 animals. It is clear from Wilson's comprehensive portrayal of the legislative process that the current situation is not thanks to changes in the law. Instead, the near complete extinction of the traveling animal circus industry in the United Kingdom can be attributed in large part to advocacy to change public attitudes carried out by nongovernment organizations, grassroots groups, and individuals using a combination of protest, media collaboration, and educational campaigns, among other things.

While the work of groups and notable individuals in the campaign to end animal performance is covered by Wilson (particularly his portrayal of Edmund MacMichael), I believe that a wider exploration, outside of political process, would have allowed a more rounded understanding of the history of this controversial issue. For those interested in understanding the arguments for and against the use of animals in performance throughout history, this book is an extremely valuable resource, but I believe that to understand the issue in its widest context (both socially and historically), research outside of Wilson's work would be advised.