Review: The Greatest Show On Earth, Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey, 2023

The biggest circus story of 2023 was the return of The Greatest Show on Earth. It's a show with 150 years of history behind it. The name is known throughout the world, evoking huge tents with three rings in a golden age of entertainment. Even the names of the men behind it - the Ringling Brothers and PT Barnum - now immortalised on film as The Greatest Showman - are legendary.

But history can also be baggage, anchoring a name or concept in the past while the world changes and fashion moves on. By the 2010s, the Ringling show was on the wrong side of history. The elephant parade that was part of its brand belonged to a time when such things were uncontroversial. By 2016 they were the cause of protest, lawsuits and legislation that made them nonviable in the world of commercial entertainment.

Ringling ditched the elephants but also lost its audience and closed the following year, after 146 years on the road.

Could it come back, after a six year break, with a new all-human look and reclaim its throne as the Greatest Show on Earth?

For me, as a British observer, the show's challenge was filling arenas that seat 20,000 people. Not just filling all those seats, but filling a vast performance space more suited to sports events.

In Europe, we're accustomed to the intimacy of the big top. A circus tent that folds snugly around its spotlit ring is a magical place in its own right. Part of the appeal is the closeness of the action. In the front row, the trapeze artists swing over our heads. The clowns are close enough to squirt us with water. We can see the trembling of a straining muscle and the sweat on a performer's brow. Can a man balancing on a rola-rola be as involving when he's a distant stick figure?

I've watched the Ringling show several times on YouTube videos shot from various positions in the arena and it's clear that some seats feel a long way from the action. If you're at one end of the arena, a hoop jumping act at the far end is hard to even see, let alone feel the physicality in the way that you would if it was happening just feet from you.

At the same time, though, arena seating can offer a new perspective. In the highest seats - and the cheapest, perhaps? - you can sit above the high wire artists and look down on them, instead of looking up at them. You can sit at the level of the flying trapeze platforms and watch the flyers swoop down away from you into the well of the arena. It's a refreshingly different angle and might it even convey a greater sense of height than viewing such acts from the ground?

Ringling, in any case, was staging shows in three-ring tents this size 100 years ago, and moved into arenas in the 1950s, so they (or Feld Entertainment, to credit the current operators) know how to work the space. 

At the start of the show, an impressive number of performers run out to fill the arena floor. 75 of them, although with all the colour and movement it looks like more. Lauren Irving belts out the stirring and catchy theme song, 'Welcome to the Greatest Show on Earth' and a blaze of swirling lighting effects quickly whips a substantially full auditorium into a celebratory atmosphere.

The centrepiece of the arena is a raised ring-cum-stage. Shaped like an upturned bowl, it has sloping sides that form a ramp for access and continuously changes colour while displaying moving patterns across all its surfaces. It also has a moving track within its top, allowing some props and performers to revolve while others stand still, and a central disc that can be raised on hydraulic lifts to put the spotlight on a rola-rola or balancing act.

A British circus like Gandeys or Circus Extreme really needs to get one of these illuminated stages, which would look great within a big top, and perhaps even better than it does in an arena.

There are additional raised square stages at each end of the building, which give patrons in the end seats a close-up view of particular acts, such as a very strong skipping act, with several people standing on each others' shoulders while they jump the rope.

The area around the stages is laid out like a skate park that is used to great effect by a team of stunt cyclists, who swarm about, drawing our eye this way and that across the huge space, and turn impressive somersaults as they fly off the scattered ramps.

Comedy is provided by Equivokee, a trio from Ukraine. I'm not going to complain about the lack of red noses and clown make-up, although some traditionalists have. For me, slapstick is about more than make-up, as Laurel and Hardy proved a century ago. The funniest thing on UK TV at the moment is a children's programme called Danny and Mick which stars Danny Adams, Mick Potts and Clive Webb - the stars of Cirque du Hilarious. They dress as normal people while doing all the old clown routines like the wallpaper routine, and make them funnier than ever.

I can't say that Equivokee made much of an impression on me, but I think that was less their fault than the size of the arena. Clowning works best close up when you can see the facial expressions and the twinkle in an eye, and when the jesters are engaging directly with - or picking on! - the audience. At a distance, the humour evaporates within too much space.

Luckily, the Greatest Show on Earth fields plenty of 'big' acts that make good use of the space and height available.

A triangular high wire act by the Lopez Family is apparently a world first. It's such a simple and visually impressive concept that it's a wonder no one has thought of it before. Instead of performers crossing a single wire, there are performers simultaneously doing different things on three wires arranged in a triangle.

It's an act that would fit neatly above the ring of a big top, and which a UK circus should import, although it comes with additional challenges. According to Maria Lopez, the walkers have to cope with vibrations coming from the other wires.

Another big act that perfectly fits the space, and another update on an old theme, is a criss-crossing flying trapeze routine by the Flying Caceres. With two sets of performers crossing paths it literally adds another dimension - depth, towards us and away from us - to an act that usually only draws our eye from side to side.

The Nevas Troupe perform side-by-side on a Double Wheel of Destiny (a pair of what used to be called the Wheel of Death - because people have died performing it). They make impressive leaps atop the spinning contraptions and the release of fireworks adds to the thrills. One performer makes a daring leap between the two wheels and back again. That is the only moment, though, that two wheels is better than one. I found myself watching only one as it was difficult to watch two at the same time, and that made having two a little pointless. That one leap between them aside, I wonder if it would be better to separate the wheels and have one at each end of the arena, so that everyone would get a better view of at least one of them, rather than confining the pair to one end.

Speaking of world firsts, Wesley Williams rides the world's tallest unicycle as confirmed in the Guinness World of Records. The 34-foot-tall contraption, which is the equivalent of sitting astride a three-storey-tall ladder that isn't resting against anything (and is in fact balanced on a wheel!) puts his head right up among the lights in the roof.

It's true that he doesn't ride it very far, just back and forth across the width of the arena. Imagine if he could do a lap of honour around the whole building! He also wears a visible safety wire, but who can blame him?

But what about the absence of animals, which has offended some old school fans? Did I miss the parade of rubber mules that were Ringling's trademark? No, I didn't.

In the past, I have championed animals in the big top, and I enjoyed seeing what will probably be the last elephants and big cats to appear in a British circus. But that was a decade ago. The UK circus has almost entirely moved on from animals and, dare I whisper it among circus fans, it's better for it.

When I began reporting on the circus scene, the industry was up to its neck in the animal issue. There were pickets at the gates and negative press. Even the circuses without animals were compelled to talk about them. The image of the big top was so bad that many people hated circuses without ever seeing one. The ageing proprietors were embattled and embittered. It was no atmosphere in which to stage bright, happy family entertainment. The business was being sucked down like a man dying in quicksand.

Today, with the animals almost entirely gone, and no one even talking about them anymore, the circus feels like it has been reborn. The shows have a clean, modern aesthetic, with stages and floored seating replacing sawdust and mud. The negative image has evaporated, and audiences bring their kids without having to worry about ethics. The atmosphere in the shows and among a new generation of show-runners is invigorated and forward looking. The scene feels like it's thriving.

The new Ringling show feels like that, too, and maybe enough time has passed for it to find a new audience without alienating its old one.

And yet, Ringling hasn't copied Cirque du Soleil, the first big show to pioneer the idea of a circus without animals. The Greatest Show on Earth has not been produced in the style of 'new circus' - a format that once, and perhaps still does, sat apart from the big top kind, with both parties disliking each other in equal measure.

Ringling has not switched camps. There is no story line here, no theme, no message, no attempt to dress circus up as art. It is a traditional circus - perhaps we could say New Traditional - in the sense of providing colourful spectacle and uncomplicated family fun. It's only aim is to entertain, and it does so in abundance.

Although the acts aren't linked, they flow effortlessly from one to the next and the feel-good spirit will send you home singing "Welcome to the Greatest Show on earth!" Reader, I've been singing it all week!

The finale is 'human rocket' Skyler Miser. It's a simple act, but one guaranteed to put a smile on the face. As Skyler steps into her cannon, the whole arena chants the countdown: "Ten, nine, eight..." I even chanted it aloud at home: "Five, four, three..."

Boom! Like the immortal spirit of the circus, Skyler flies the length of the arena and lands on an inflatable crash pad.

Irving signs off with the company's slogan, which has become the salutation of circus worldwide: "May all your days be..." But wait! Instead of saying, "circus days," she says, "may all your days be Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey days!"

Has the image of circus become so tarnished in America that the Felds won't even utter the C-word? The word is conspicuously absent from the description of the show on their website.

This is a circus, however, and one that deserves to put the shine back on the word. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in 2023 it is currently the Greatest Circus on Earth.

For tour dates and tickets, click here.

  

 

Bring in the holographic horses, as Circus Roncalli rides into the future

With animals steadily disappearing from circuses around the world, some traditional big top fans may see Circus Roncalli's latest attraction as another surrender to animal rights activists. But as we celebrate 250 years of the first modern circus - created by horseman Philip Astley - it's important to remember that the circus tradition is a tradition of innovation.

Astley wasn't the first trick horse-rider of his day - there were many like him, newly returned from the wars, who found a new use for their equestrian skills. Astley's innovation was to put horse stunts in a circle, as opposed to on a long straight, which gave his displays a more theatrical setting. He then added a series of other acts, from tumblers to strongmen and clowns, that made up the variety show format of circus as we know it.

The strength of that format has always been its ability to include new, different and never-before-seen acts designed to keep the crowds coming back each season.

Over the past 250 years, circus promoters have been tireless in finding new spectacles: the flying trapeze, wild animals, freaks of nature, acts from different cultures around the world, be it American cowboy knife-throwing and lassoing or oriental plate-spinning and martial arts.

From hippos that sweat blood to the chainsaws and motorbikes of Archaos, circus has always traded on the new.

And so it is with Germany's Roncalli. Established in 1976, the company was among the first to update circus by linking acts with themes and storylines, which paved the way for the mega-success of Cirque du Soleil. For 2018, they now bring us holographic horses, elephants and giant fish.

Is it a surrender to the animal rights movement or, as I prefer to see it, the latest step in the big top's ever forward-marching quest to give audiences something brand new to go "Wow, I've never seen anything like that before!"

The answer, for me, lies in those shots of jam-packed seats. Sure, it's possible to miss the real animals, but for all the sense of tradition that sometimes surrounds it, the circus has never thrived by looking back - it's lifeblood has always been the new.

When I set out to write Circus Mania, I didn't want to write a history book. Yes, there is history in it, because there are glimpses of tradition everywhere you look in the big top, and it's hard to look at any new act without seeing the ghosts of performers from fifty, a hundred or 250 years ago. My real concern, though, was to explore the lives of circus performers as they are lived today. As such I found myself backstage in a world of constant innovation as predominantly young people strove to create new acts and new styles of show that moved the old traditions forward. The Mail on Sunday called Circus Mania "A brilliant account of a vanishing art form." But is it really vanishing? Some of the older styles are, yes, just as the past is always receding into the distance. But, just as a snake leaves its old skin behind, the ever evolving circus itself keeps coming up fresh and new.
Take a glimpse into the ever-changing world of the big top by clicking here to order the new and revised second edition of Circus Mania from Amazon.

The Vegan Agenda - Why Circuses Were Just The Thin Edge of the Wedge

Warning from the big top

For decades now, campaigners such as ADI (Animal Defenders International) and Peta (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals) have been saying that circus animals are cruelly treated. And it's worked. Animals have been gradually squeezed out of the circus ring on both sides of the Atlantic by local legislation that prevented circuses operating in prime municipally owned venues and, increasingly, national bans, such as the one has has this month come into force in Scotland.

The Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey circus, the self-proclaimed Greatest Show on Earth and arguably most iconic circus in the world, was forced to close after more than a century because of such legislation.

The evidence does not support these bans. In 2007, the UK government-commissioned Radford report found circuses were as capable of meeting their animals' needs as zoos or other captive environments. Since 2012, a licensing scheme has regulated the use of wild animals in circuses and has produced no evidence of mistreatment.

The government has announced, however, that when the licensing scheme expires it will not be extended, bringing in a ban by default.

Why are circus animals being banned if there's no evidence that they are intrinsically cruel?

Martin Burton

When I interviewed Zippos owner Martin Burton for my book Circus Mania he explained that the campaigners were motivated by a deeper agenda: they didn't believe people should even keep pets or eat meat.

At the time, I confess that I didn't fully connect the dots. Yes, I thought, anti-circus campaigners may well be anti-vivisectionists and vegetarians and so on... but I couldn't see that side of their agenda catching on with the wider public. It's one thing to support a campaign against perceived or alleged cruelty (whether proven or just suggested) another to turn your back on meat and pets.

In the last couple of years, however, the mass media push for veganism has been impossible to miss. You can't open a newspaper or magazine without reading about a new meat-free business or recipes for meat-free meals.

Today the circus,
Tommorow...?

Protests against fast food restaurants, supermarkets and local butchers are becoming as familiar as the demonstrations that were once confined to circuses. I have seen full-page national newspaper adverts against milk production, which shows how well-funded and/or connected the vegan lobby is.

The anti-circus campaigners, meanwhile, are revealing their wider hand. At the foot of a press release that came my way today, ADI outlined its mission:

Active worldwide to end the suffering of animals: animals in entertainment – film, television, advertising, circuses, and sport or leisure; animals used for food or fur; protection of wildlife and the environment; trade in animals; zoos, pets, entertainment, and laboratories.

Note the words "food" and "pets" - there for all to see.

It's very similar to Peta's slogan, as displayed on its website:

ANIMALS ARE NOT OURSto eat, wear, experiment on, use forentertainment or abuse in any other way

The ADI press release was in support of a film called Anima, in which representatives from 12 religions talk about changing our attitudes to meat.

According to one of the participants, Rabbi Singer: “Our belief in Judaism is that God never actually meant us to eat animals,” explaining “In the Garden of Eden, God shows us the fruit of the trees, the grass in the fields, and says ‘You may have any of this to eat.’ But God never mentioned animals.”

ADI president Jan Creamer, meanwhile, has this to say: “Millions of people across the world draw their beliefs and perceptions about the other species who share our planet, from their faith. There has never been a more important time to challenge themisunderstandings which have, in the past, been used to justify exploitation of animals. As Dr Lo Sprague says in ANIMA, every religion has compassion as part of its mandate. It is time to mobilize that.”


The film appears to say nothing about circuses, but the fact it is being promoted by ADI proves what the circus industry has been telling us all along: that the massive fundraising campaigns built around 'circus cruelty' were never really about circus cruelty at all, just part of a wider agenda.

As the post-circus campaign for worldwide veganism unfolds around us, it's a shame the warnings from the big top mostly fell on deaf ears.

Brexit, sentient animals and animal rights - a lesson from the circus

So Theresa May's government has voted that "animals can't feel emotions or pain." That's what the headline says in the London Evening Standard and the Independent. Boy, has that got people up in arms on Facebook and Twitter. The Tory Brexiteers haven't sounded so heartless since May campaigned on wanting to bring back fox hunting and the ivory trade.

The only thing is... it isn't true.

The UK government is currently deciding which bits of European Union law it wants to write into the British statute after Brexit. Among the items they have rejected, Caroline Lucas of the Green Party wanted them to adopt Clause 13, Title 11 of the Lisbon Treaty which was introduced in 2009 and says "animals are sentient beings with feelings and that must be taken into account when creating policy that affects them."

That sounds fine on the face of it. After all, anyone who has a pet dog or cat knows their pet is both sentient and capable of feeling pain, fear, affection and other emotions. So why wouldn't we want that on the statute books?

The reason is the animal rights agenda, which isn't the good thing that many unthinkingly believe it to be. I didn't know anything about it myself until I began looking into the question of animals in the circus.

I used to believe that organisations such as Peta and Born Free campaigned against circuses because they thought training and transporting animals involved cruelty. When I started talking to circus trainers, I realised that they cared greatly for their animals and that their animals appeared to be happy in thier lives. So were Peta and the rest mistaken?

Eventually, I discovered that the issue wasn't cruelty at all. It is the vegan ideology that, regardless of how they are kept, animals shouldn't be in circuses at all. Not only that but, according to Peta, we shouldn't be farming them for food or skinning them for clothes, betting on horse races, visiting zoos or even using things like wool and eggs which don't involve killing animals but does involve keeping them in captivity.

Peta doesn't hide this agenda, which is stated in the motto on its website: "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse in any other way."

Key to that is agenda is the idea of "animal rights." Again, the phrase "animal rights" sounds fine on the face of it. They've the right to be treated well, yeah? Well yes. But supposing those rights become closer to the rights of humans. We don't eat other humans, so therefore we wouldn't be able to eat an animal that had the same rights as us.

The words "sentient" and "feelings" in Clause 13 of the Lisbon Treaty makes it easier for groups like Peta to argue that animals have those rights, not to improve the conditions in which they are farmed but to legislate against them being farmed at all.

If that sounds far-fetched, look at the way animal rights lobbyists have driven nearly all the animals out of circuses on both sides of the Atlantic - destroying even the mighty Ringling Bros in the process. As Thomas Chipperfield argued in the Times a couple of years ago (If They Ban Circus Lions Pet Cats Will Be Next) circuses have always been the thin end of a very large wedge.

In fact, if you start researching the animal rights influence on agricultural policy in America in particular, and the campaigns against even milk production, you may start to wonder whether circus is the canary in the animal rights coal mine.

In that context, keeping the words "sentient" and "feelings" out of UK legislature is not a step towards a culture of cruelty to animals, as casual readers of the Standard and Independent may conclude. It is instead a sensible step back from a future of animal rights extremism in which all animals have 'personhood' and are completely excluded from human ownership.

Update 22 November 2017.
To clarify what MPs actually voted for, Stuart Andrews, MP for Pudsey, explained why he voted against inclusion of the EU clause:

“Can I make it very clear that I absolutely believe that animals are sentient beings. Of course they have feelings, emotions and feel pain – any pet owner, like myself, will know that first hand.

“I did not vote that animals cannot feel pain. We said the exact opposite. Minister Dominic Raab said in the debate. “Animals will continue to be recognised as sentient under domestic law”. This has been the case since 2006 and will continue to be so.

“A specific amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was not deemed to be right, but the Government will deliver the same result using a different route.

“I am proud and pleased that the UK has higher animal standards than any other country in Europe and in the past four months we have announced an Ivory ban, CCTV in slaughter houses, increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty and are banning microbeads. EU law is no panacea: you can keep animals in unspeakably cruel conditions without breaking a single EU law."

Growing up in the circus - a picture that says it all

Here's a picture that surely sums up how wonderful it must have been to grow up in one of the great circuses of yesteryear. Two kids taking an elephant for a walk down a suburban street... on skateboards!
That's Bobbo Roberts in the foreground (read about his new clown show here) and his sister bringing up the rear. As for the elephant... surely this picture sums up the harmony in which circus folk and their animals once lived.* The jumbo was obviously part of the family, a big pet, considered safe enough to play in the street with two young children who she clearly trusted completely, and them her.
Notice there's not a bull-hook in sight. Bobbo's father Bobby Roberts, the circus owner and elephant trainer never used nor even owned one. He thought an ankus was something you found on a boat.
What a shame we're unlikely to ever see scenes like this on a British street again - a picture from the days when human and animal relationships were considered both normal and natural, to be celebrated, not outlawed, as they are today.
*And yes, I know there are still circus trainers keeping alive the tradition, but they are becoming ever more rare and the threat of a ban on their vocation grows ever closer in Wales (see article here) and now Scotland, where a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses will be debated in the Scottish Parliament next year.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if those with the power to ban could gaze upon a photo like this, from the days before protesters, political correctness and killjoys, and realise that those simpler times were better times. Let's bring them back!

Saving Anne the Elephant by Claire Ellicott - Book Review.

Bull-hook (noun) A pointy stick used by animal rights activists to bash circuses and prod the consciences of fans.

It was largely local bans of the bull-hook, ankus or elephant goad that led Ringling to retire its iconic elephant parade. Without the guiding tool, which has been used by Indian mahouts for thousands of years, it would be impossible for the circus to safely control its elephants in the street or circus ring, thus making it untenable for the show to visit major cities such as Los Angeles.

Or would it?

I recently watched some Golden Age footage of Britain’s Bobby Roberts working his elephants at the height of his fame. It was an exciting, fast moving act. The elephants ran around the ring, sat on tubs with their forelegs in the air, laid down in perfect choreography and performed headstands... all the things circus elephants are famous for doing.

Bobby and Anne
Look ma, no bull-hook.

Yet Roberts says he has never used or even owned a bull-hook in his life. His control of his herd, which he worked from their infancy - when he himself was just a lad - was entirely with his voice.

“I always said if you couldn’t hold it (the elephant) with your tongue, you couldn’t handle them,” said Bobby. “When I shouted, that was enough.”

The only tools he used were a whip (for cracking, not hitting the elephants) and a walking stick that the lead elephant would hold in its trunk when he led his parade, marching trunk to tail, from railway station to circus ground.

That’s one of the surprising details to emerge from Claire Ellicott’s new book, Saving Anne the Elephant - The True Story of The Last British Circus Elephant.

It was, of course, undercover film of Anne being hit by Romanian groom Nicolae Nitu that led to the closure of Bobby Roberts Super Circus after a media outcry in 2011. The case led to Lord Taylor announcing a ban on wild animals in UK circuses, although the legislation has yet to be introduced.

Click here to read about my part
in the BBC documentary The Last Circus Elephant

There’s no getting away from the fact that Ellicott’s book is part of the ongoing campaign for a ban - and many fans and circus industry insiders won't like it for that reason.

It is, however, an important record of a landmark case and in attempting to untangle the complex issues involved, Ellicott includes plenty that the animal rights groups that protested Roberts' circus won't like either.

Ellicott was one of the reporters that originally broke the story of Anne in the Daily Mail. The paper campaigned and fundraised to get the elderly Anne moved from the circus to Longleat Safari Park and, on the surface, Saving Anne plays to the expectations of readers who want a clear cut story of an abused animal given a happy ending.

Ellicott takes the view “it is now almost universally agreed on that elephants shouldn’t perform in circuses.” She heavily lays on the “terrible suffering” of Anne at the hands of Nitu at a time in the twilight of her career when, as the last survivor of Bobby’s herd, the arthritis-stricken elephant was too old to perform and the ageing Roberts was himself too ill to personally care for her.

A lot of space is given to the views of Jan Creamer and Tim Phillips, the husband and wife founders of Animal Defenders International who spent 15 years trying to infiltrate Roberts’ circus before obtaining the undercover footage. Further anti-circus opinion is provided by Dr Ros Clubb of the RSPCA and Professor Stephen Harris, the latter a long term opponent of circuses who is currently heading a study of circus animals on behalf of the Welsh government (Read more about that here).

But Ellicott's concise, journalistic book also looks at the story from the point of view of the Roberts family, and Roberts is portrayed perhaps surprisingly sympathetically as a "victim of circumstances."

It was Ellicott who first showed ADI’s video to Bobby and his wife Moira. She saw their reaction first hand - they were as disgusted by Nitu’s actions as anyone else. She clearly warmed to the couple’s sincerity and devotes two chapters to an interview with the couple carried out especially for this book.

As the author writes, “It’s hard not to be fascinated by the Robertses lives.”

Anne at Longleat

The most compelling chapter relates the history of the circus family’s illustrious lineage and glory days; Anne’s meetings with the Queen, Princess Anne and other celebrities; and Bobby’s romance with Moira, the fairground girl who ran away with the circus. In their early days the couple had a western act and Bobby accidentally shot off the finger on which she wore her wedding ring. Moira hid the injury from both Bobby and the audience and finished the act.

Back in the present, Ellicott airs the Robertses' belief that they were set up: that Nitu was paid to attack Anne; that it was suspicious that he never normally wore a hat, only in the video to hide his face, as if he knew he was being filmed. That he conveniently disappeared the morning the news broke, despite speaking no English and having no money as he hadn’t been paid.

It’s also suggested he hit Anne with a plastic pitchfork and that the thwack of a metal bar was overdubbed - a theory consistent with the observation that the noise was “almost the only sound on the video” - as well as with Anne’s minimal reaction to the blows and subsequent lack of marks on her body.

The truth about Nitu may never be known as animal cruelty is deemed too minor an offence to extradite him from Romania, where he fled to.

Bobby took the fall for employing a keeper who betrayed his trust and Ellicott stresses that there's no evidence he was personally cruel or knew what Nitu was doing.

The book also makes clear that Anne wasn’t seized from the Robertses; they gave her away voluntarily, and had in fact been looking into her retirement for a few years, but sanctuaries are hard to find in the UK and Anne was too frail to fly to America.

YouTube footage of Anne leaving the circus HQ.

When Anne moved to Longleat, Bobby walked her into the transporter  (This can be viewed on YouTube. With not a bull-hook in sight he leads her by the trunk with his hands). He was perplexed when her new owners wouldn’t walk her out without chaining her legs together. He was also apprehensive of her new keepers’ bull-hooks - it was the first time Anne had seen such an instrument.

Anne looks in much better condition in the video than she is described by the animal rights lobby. One of the new keepers in fact angered the animal rights groups by saying on TV “Hats off to Bobby” for getting Europe’s oldest elephant to such an advanced aged (around 60-years-old) in such good shape. The safari park depended on Roberts showing them how to look after Anne in her first few days there.

The move to Longleat was, in fact, a “slap in the face” to the circus-hating ADI, as it had been founded by the Chipperfield circus family.

It’s a shame Ellicott ultimately supports a ban on the grounds of changing times, and that she didn’t speak to more supporters of animals in the circus. After pages of anti-circus rhetoric by Ros Clubb and Stephen Harris, a couple of short quotes from Martin Lacey Sr and Chris Barltrop are taken from old Daily Mail articles.

My Daily Telegraph interview
with Thomas Chipperfield.

Thomas Chipperfield is however described as “the most interesting defender of circus animals” and some of his “fascinating insights” into training are quoted from the interview I did with him in the Daily Telegraph.

Elephant osteopath Tony Nevin, meanwhile, treated Anne while she was travelling with the circus in 2007 and comments that she was mentally more content than most zoo elephants, which he attributes to her varied life: “She got to swim in the sea, go on beaches, go across moorland. All sorts of stuff she’s done over the years. Then you look at most zoo elephants and they’re plodding around the same paddock.”

Ultimately, Anne is portrayed as happy in her purpose-built £1.2 million new home where she listens to Classic FM, rolls in the sand and eats wine gums “just like any old lady.”

Bobby, meanwhile, is labelled  "a misunderstood relic of a past era who had the best intentions," - a man who loved his animals and couldn't understand why what was acceptable 30 years ago was no longer accepted today.

But was he actually ahead of his time, a genuine elephant whisperer who needed no bull-hook to command his herd, just his voice and a bond built up in a lifetime?

Perhaps there are more out there like him, or will be, who could one day take elephants back into Los Angeles regardless of a ban on the bull-hook.

Saving Anne the Elephant by Claire Ellicott is published by John Blake and available from Amazon.








Further reading: For more on the bull-hook, click here to read Ringling Elephants and the Ankus - Is it Time to Let Circuses off the Hook?

Conservative MP Will Quince calls for ban on wild animals in circuses

Under threat
One of Britain's last performing tigers

As the Welsh Government works towards banning travelling circuses with wild animals (read about it here), Conservative MP Will Quince will bring the debate back to Westminster this Wednesday  (Feb 10) when he attempts to use the Ten Minute Rule to introduce his Wild Animals in Circuses (Prohibition) Bill.

The 10 minute rule allows any MP to propose a piece of legislation for future debate. Most never progress to law, but a rare few do. Since 1945, sixty acts of parliament have become law after originally being introduced under the 10 minute rule. The most recent was the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002.

In most cases, MPs know private members bills stand little chance and introduce them purely as a way of gaining publicity for their chosen cause.

Throughout the second half of 2014, Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick kept the issue of banning circus animals in the media by using the 10 minute rule to introduce a similar bill every few weeks, after the Government failed to pass a ban it promised in 2012 would be law by December 2015. On each occasion, Fitzpatrick's bill was blocked by either of the Conservative MPs Andrew Rosindell, a genuine circus supporter, or Christopher Chope, who took the official party line that the matter would be debated "when Parliamentary time allows." (Click here for more)

Some in the circus industry see the government's delay as a sign they have no heart to bring in a ban that was promised in haste after the media storm surrounding Anne the Elephant.

Animal rights groups, by contrast, maintain that the Prime Minister has assured them that a ban is still on the agenda, promising, "We're going to do it."

Update 10 February: Chris Chope brings hope that the government is changing its mind about a ban. Click here for latest. And click here to see what YOU can do to make a difference.

Whatever the truth about the government's intentions, Wednesday's motion is just the latest move in a 100-year history of attempts to ban animals from entertainment. Read the century-long timeline here.

And click here to read 10 Reasons Why The Show Should Go On!

10 Facts the Welsh Assembly needs to know about Circus Animals

Rebecca Evans of the Welsh Assembly wants
to ban performers such as Britain's last lion tamer
Thomas Chipperfield, who toured Wales last year.
She is not believed to have met him, seen his show
or inspected his animals.

In December, the Welsh Assembly’s deputy minister for farming and food, Rebecca Evans announced, “The Welsh Government believes there is no place for the use of wild animals in circuses.” In the next step to introducing a ban in Wales, she has commissioned Professor Stephen Harris - a man with a long history of opposition to animals in the big top (which you can read about here) - to carry out a review of their welfare

I was brought up to believe it was wrong for animals to perform in circuses, so I understand why many people harbour that belief. But having investigated the matter in great depth for my book, Circus Mania , I changed my mind and would like to present 10 reasons why the show - with animals - should go on.

1 The Radford Report (Read it here) found no grounds for a ban. In 2006, the last Labour government commissioned a six-month study of circus animals, with full participation by circuses and anti-circus campaigners, and concluded that circuses were as capable as other captive environments, such as zoos, of meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care.

2 An earlier study by animal behavourist Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington found circus animals suffer no stress during performance, training or transportation. The 18-month study, sponsored by the RSPCA and published as Animals in Circuses and Zoos: Chiron’s World? (Read it here) also pointed out ways in which the relationship between animals and trainers could contribute to our scientific understanding of how animals think, learn and perceive the world.

3 Circuses with wild animals are strictly regulated by a licensing scheme, introduced in 2012, that sees them inspected by vets six times a year (twice unannounced) with the results available online. Every aspect of the animal’s life, diet and accommodation is governed by strict guidelines. Plus, every circus, including animal accommodation, is on continual show to the public.

4 Circuses aid conservation through breeding programmes and by raising awareness. It was largely the tricks performed by dolphins in aquariums that convinced the public they were intelligent and worth saving. Animals in the wild are endangered by human predators and shrinking habitats, and live short, dangerous lives. Circus animals receive food, shelter and veterinary care. They live twice as long as their cousins in the wild.

5 Circus animals lead rewarding lives. Every cat and dog owner knows their pet enjoys playing with humans, and it’s no different for a horse or a lion. Training and performance are organised play, like throwing a stick for a dog or pulling string in front of a cat. Zoos stopped animal performances to distance themselves from circuses, but have reintroduced them because animals benefit from the stimulation. These days they call it ‘enrichment.’

Click here to seeBritish circus big cats

6 Children are enthralled by circus animals. It’s the only form of entertainment where the under-fives are guaranteed to enjoy themselves as much as their grandparents, making it a cheap day out for all the family. Seeing the skill and intelligence of animals at close quarters can only foster admiration and respect for other species. Even adults will seldom get as close to wild animals as they do in a big top. expectancy

7 It’s what the public want to see. Unlike most contemporary all-human circus shows, traditional circuses with animals receive no public funding and survive entirely on ticket sales. I’m not sure who was surveyed in the oft-mentioned ‘public consultation’ that found 98% of respondents supported a ban, but it wasn’t circus fans. The consultation was held during the year I was writing Circus Mania and regularly attending circuses, but I never heard about it. Perhaps it was only publicised by animal rights organisations to their existing supporters?

8 No other profession is judged by the actions of individuals. There have been 7 prosecutions of circus trainers in 130 years; a tiny minority of the trainers who worked blamelessly in that time. Banning circus animals because of the case of Anne the elephant would be as ridiculous as banning children’s television presenters because of Jimmy Savile. We have existing laws to deal with individual cases of cruelty.

9 A ban on circus animals would be the thin end of the wedge because animal rights campaigners have a wider philosophical agenda than animal welfare. The next targets would be zoos and aquariums, horseracing, meat consumption, wool, silk and leather-wearing, medical research and pet ownership. The slogan of the world’s largest animal rights organisation PETA is “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

10 The circus is a 250-year-old art form that Britain gave to the world. It was started in London by horse-rider Philip Astley and although the global success of Cirque du Soleil proves circus can flourish without animals, surely there should be room in the land of its creation for a few well-run and regulated shows that keep alive the entertainment in its most pure form, with a mixture of human and animal acts.

Douglas McPherson is the author of Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus (Peter Owen Publishers) 

Is Welsh Assembly trying to 'fix' a circus animals ban?

That’s the opinion of a circus industry angered at the appointment of Professor Stephen Harris, a long term opponent of circuses with animals, to head an “independent review” of whether they should be banned in Wales.

As one insider told me, “A travesty of law-making is about to take place.”

Harris was commissioned to carry out a review of animal welfare in circuses by the Welsh Assembly’s deputy minister for farms and food, Rebecca Evans who announced in December, “The Welsh Government believes there is no place for the use of wild animals in circuses.”

His report is expected to be completed by the end of February, but many in the circus believe his bias will make his findings a foregone conclusion.

In December, Harris was discredited as an expert witness in a fox hunting trial because of his links to the animal rights group, League Against Cruel Sport. His opposition to wild animals in the big top, however, has never been hidden.

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday in 2008, Harris said, ‘Every intelligent person knows that circuses are cruel. They should not be allowed to use wild animals.’

In 2011, he told the Daily Mail, ‘You can’t control big wild animals without the use of force, and that means regularly beating the living daylights out of them. It’s as simple as that. For this reason, and for many others, wild animals should not be allowed in circuses.’

Harris previously published a study on the Welfare of Wild Animals in Circuses. His findings were entirely negative, but his methodology was fundamentally flawed. Rather than carrying out any original research of his own, he relied on existing studies of animals in captivity from around the world, most of which had no relevance to animals in the very specific circumstances of life in the circus, and particularly circuses in Britain.

At one point, for example, he notes that there were no scientific studies on stress levels of circus animals during transportation. Instead of taking the opportunity to conduct a study of his own, he relies on a study of cortisol (the stress hormone) levels of zoo tigers during transport - ignoring that fact that zoo tigers would never become acclimatised to transport in the way that circus tigers are.

There has, however, since been a cortisol test  on the lions of Martin Lacey Jr, during a 800 km trip across Europe that showed the animals suffered no stress whatsoever. What’s more, the lions were so comfortable with their trainer that he was able to take saliva swabs from the animals’ mouths with his fingers - something that would be impossible with zoo tigers, which would generally have to be anaesthetised before being handled so intimately. The test can be viewed on YouTube here.

It appears Harris will take the same approach with his current report as he did with his last, drawing on previous studies from around the world rather than visiting actual UK circuses and inspecting the animals and their living conditions for himself, as he has so far made no approaches to the UK’s wild animal trainers .

There have previously been only two comprehensive studies of circus animals in the UK.

The first by Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington was sponsored by the RSPCA in the late 80s and concluded that circuses did not by nature cause distress to their animals. You can read it here.

The Radford Report, commissioned by the last Labour government, similarly found no welfare reasons to ban circus animals. Read it here.

It would be nice to think Harris’ report might highlight the findings of those two studies.

Unfortunately, this is what Harris told the Daily Mail about the Radford Report at the time: “The whole review process was dishonest and a waste of time. It’s cruel to train animals to do tricks, keep them in tiny cages, truck them around the country and prevent them from expressing their natural behaviour. It’s farcical to claim otherwise.”

It seems Harris was angered at having his own contribution to the Radford enquiry ignored. Who could blame the circus industry for fearing that his current review will be an opportunity for him to finally bring forward the ban he has always wanted?

Update 10 February: Meanwhile in Westminster... Chirstopher Chope brings hope that government is changing its mind about a ban. Click here for latest.

Update January 2017: Although the Harris report supports a ban, the Welsh government appears to be moving towards a licensing scheme similar to that in England, although this will be subject to a public consultation in the coming year. Read more on this story here.

Does the news from Wales reflect changing attitudes in a post-Trump, post-Brexit world? Click here for more on the political circus.

Did you know this debate has been going on for a century?
Click here to read the 100-year history of attempts to ban animals from entertainment.

And click here for 10 Facts the Welsh Assembly Needs to Know About Circus Animals.

Circus Cruelty Videos - The Camera Doesn't Lie, or Does It?

Michael Hackenberger
Telling it like it is?

Animal rights groups will tell you that circus animals are beaten into submission and forced to perform through fear. It’s easy to believe if you never go to a circus with animals, which is why campaigns to “stop circus suffering” generate such a big income from armchair animal lovers (the combined income of UK organisations including Peta, ADI, CAPS and Born Free is over £350 million per annum).

Circus trainers will tell you they love their animals like their children and train them with a system of rewards and kindness that enriches the animals’ lives. That makes sense, because lots of other animals are trained, from guide dogs and riding horses to household pets - and nobody assumes they are cruelly treated.

But then there are those covertly shot videos of behind-the-scenes abuse that periodically show up in the news and live forever on YouTube to nag at the conscience of even the most ardent circus fan.

The latest star of such a video is Michael Hackenberger who trains big cats in a circus ring at Bowmanville Zoological Park in Ontario. Just before Christmas, Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) released a video of Hakenberger appearing to whip a tiger twenty times during a training session.

Hackenberger, who owned the tiger used in the film Life of Pi, thought he was in the presence of a woman interested in animal training, but didn’t know she was secretly filming him. The video shows him telling her that it’s more effective to hit a tiger’s foot while it’s on its pedestal, because being trapped “like a vice” between the whip and the hard surface “it stings more.”

Clearly an abuser caught bang to rights, you might think.

Except that Hackenberger is the first trainer filmed in such circumstances to reply with a video of his own explaining how his actions have been taken out of context. View it here.

First, he shows us that far from whipping the tiger twenty times, he was actually whipping the air near the animal to make a lot of noise without touching it. His purpose wasn’t to hurt it, but to show his displeasure at it jumping onto the ring kerb which, during a performance, would be dangerous.

He demonstrates with the same tiger, which shows no fear of the whip, and points out that if he’d actually been beating it, its natural reaction would be to try and kill him.

Next, he explains that in another segment from the Peta video he hit the tiger’s paw, but only to stop it taking a swipe at his assistant.

Discipline is part of any training regime and, given an animal’s short attention span, has to be administered at the moment of bad behaviour - just as rewards are given at the moment of good behaviour.

It’s the animal equivalent of smacking a child to stop it running into the road. Witnessed in isolation the wallop may make you wince, and if a celebrity were filmed hitting their offspring it might cause a media storm. But, in the real world, it doesn’t mean the parent is generally abusive or that the child won’t be all smiles again five minutes later.

Some people will question why Hackenberger needs to assert his authority over a wild animal. His answer is that in a world of shrinking habitats, captivity is a necessary option. Boredom and obesity are the biggest problems for zoo animals, whereas training gives them exercise and stimulation.

As justification, Hackenberger invites us to look at Uno, the tiger from the Peta video, who is with him throughout his own film: as relaxed around humans as a housecat, and the constant recipient of treats, strokes and affection.

Hackenberger’s anger at the Peta video isn’t with the two minutes of his training session that it shows, but the 90 minutes that it doesn’t show.

“If there was anything bad in that time, they’d show you,” he reasons. So could it be the complete film would put two instances of responsible discipline in the context of a caring training regime, or actually show the tiger enjoying the interaction the way a well-trained dog enjoys playing with its owner?

Take a look at another of Hackenberger’s videos filmed in an outdoor exercise pen and make up your own mind.

When the last Labour government commissioned the Radford Report on the welfare of circus animals, undercover film submitted by animal rights groups was excluded as evidence, precisely because it had no context. In the words of then Minister of State Lord Rooker: “A film showing a lion pacing up and down may indicate evidence of stereotypical behaviour, but equally the film may have been shot when the lion had seen its keeper approaching with food.”

Without such film, the report concluded there was no evidence that animals were more likely to suffer in the circus than any other captive environment.

I understand why many people harbour an instinctive objection to the idea of performing animals. I was brought up with that belief. But when I became interested in circus, I knew I had to visit one of Britain's last big top shows with elephants, tigers and horses to get a glimpse into the disappearing history of where the art form began. My interviews with trainers and my changing opinion on their work forms a major thread of Circus Mania, the book the Mail on Sunday called "A brilliant account of a vanishing art form." Click here to read a sample on Amazon.


Author's Note: I'd be interested to hear the views of any animal trainers on Michael Hackenberger's video and training methods. My impression is that he's maybe at the harsh end of the scale and perhaps a little old school, but I reckon he's sincere. Whether his honesty will cut any ice with his detractors is another matter. We live in an age where the Daily Mail has just run an hysterical piece about a training display during an open day at Amazing Animals - the UK's leading supplier of trained animals to TV and film. There's no 'evidence' of mistreatment underpinning the piece, just the opinion of TV presenter Chris Packham that the very idea of using animals to entertain the public is wrong. In such a climate, it's no wonder that few trainers speak as openly about their methods as Hackenberger. But an open debate on what happens 'behind closed doors' is necessary if the animal training industry is to gain the wider public's trust. Hackenberger's bravery in opening that debate is to be commended.

Update: Unfortunately we live in a world where an open debate on what does or doesn't constitute the abuse of animals is increasingly difficult to have. I wanted to give this post a wider airing on the Huffington Post - a supposedly open-door blogging platform for the expression of all viewpoints - but because Hackenberger admits to striking his tiger twice (in a responsible way) the Huff wasn't "comfortable" with publishing the piece. So TV presenters such as Packham can have their views of animal training aired in the media, but animal trainers, who are the only people who know anything about animal training, aren't allowed to tell us how they work. How can the public make up its mind if it only hears one side of the argument?


 

Ringling Elephants Retire 18 Months Early in May 2016

If you want to see the last appearance of the elephant parade in the Greatest Show on Earth, you'll have to hurry. The pachyderms will be making their final bow this May.

Last year, the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus announced it would be phasing out its iconic rubber mules by 2018, with the 11 animals currently in the show, joining the 29 that the company keeps at its Centre for Elephant Conservation in Florida.

Having progressed quicker than anticipated on the building of new accommodation, however, the elies will now leave the show at the end of its current season in May, and a new elephant-free version of the Ringling show will take to the road in July without the trunks that have been its iconic symbol for more than 100 years.

Feld Entertainment, which owns Ringling, cited changing public tastes and new legislation such as a ban on use of the ankus, bullhook or elephant guide in Los Angeles, which would make it impossible for the circus to appear there.

The elephants new role will include assisting in cancer research. The low incidence of cancer in elephants has led some scientists to believe that their blood and DNA could be key to finding a cure for cancer.

The retirement of the Ringling elephants is seen as a victory for animal rights groups that have long picketed the show and called for an end to all animals in circus. But are claims of cruelty justified?

Click here to read my piece on Ringling Elephants and the Ankus - Is it time to let circuses off the hook?

Me and the elephant

Read about my meeting with Britain's last circus elephants in Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book for Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus.

Why Sherlock's Dr Watson Martin Freeman is wrong about circus animals

Martin Freeman
No s***, Sherlock

Martin Freeman, who plays Dr Watson in TV’s Sherlock, is the latest celebrity to join forces with PETA in calling for a ban on circus animals. In a letter to prime minister David Cameron, he said, “I’d like to see my children grow up in a country where animals are treated with respect, not as objects of ridicule.” The actor, who is also known for his role as Bilbo Baggins in the Hobbit films added that “allowing circuses with wild animals to continue sends the message that it’s okay to dominate animals and ignore pain and suffering.”

As someone who was brought up to believe that the idea of performing animals was wrong, I can understand why Freeman might harbour that instinctive belief. But I have to wonder whether he has witnessed any “ridicule,” “pain” or “suffering” first hand. Because when I looked into the matter in great depth for my book, Circus Mania, I found myself forming a very different view of the unique relationship between trainer and animal and the benefits that watching such interaction can offer audiences and society as a whole.

I expect Sherlock Holmes would advise his sidekick to consider all the evidence before jumping to conclusions. So, for the benefit of Dr Watson, here are my reasons why I believe the show, with animals, should go on.

The Radford Report, commissioned by the last Labour government found no grounds for a ban. Although Labour wanted to introduce a ban, their six-month study, found only the inconvenient truth that circuses were as capable as other captive environments, such as zoos, of meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care.

An earlier 18-month study by animal behavourist Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington found circus animals suffer no stress during performance, training or transportation. Kiley-Worthington found circus training methods to be no harsher than those in riding stables, kennels or other animal husbandry environments, and noted that while farm animals find transportation stressful, circus animals quickly become acclimatised to it and enter their transport without concern. Her report, which was sponsored by the RSPCA and published as Animals in Circuses and Zoos: Chiron’s World? also pointed out ways in which the relationship between animals and trainers could contribute to our scientific understanding of how animals think, learn and perceive the world.

Historically, just 7 UK circus trainers have been prosecuted for cruelty in 130 years - a tiny minority of the trainers who worked blamelessly in that time, and a tiny number compared with the number of livestock farmers and pet owners brought before the courts. Malpractice exists in every profession, but the solution is to ban the bad practitioner, not the profession as a whole.

Regulation is better than prohibition, and since 2012, UK circuses with wild animals have been strictly regulated by a licensing scheme that sees them inspected by vets six times a year (twice unannounced) with the results available online. Every aspect of the animal’s life, diet and accommodation is governed by strict guidelines. There is little room left for wrongdoing, and should it occur, we have existing laws to deal with it.

Mr Freeman doesn’t want his children to see animals ridiculed, but that’s not my experience of what you’ll see in a circus ring. Typically, animals are encouraged - not forced - to display perfectly natural behaviour, such as jumping and rolling over.

The children I’ve seen at ringside were enthralled by the animals they saw, and witnessing their obvious skill and intelligence at close quarters can only foster respect for other species, just as it was largely the tricks performed by trained dolphins that convinced the public that they were intelligent and therefore worthy of conservation.

The animals that I’ve seen in the circus, meanwhile, showed every sign of enjoying the interaction with their trainers. Every cat, dog and horse owner knows their pet enjoys playing with humans, and it’s no different for a zebra, camel or lion. Training and performance are organised play, like throwing a stick for a dog or pulling string in front of a cat. To see how that works in practise, click here to watch Thomas Chipperfield’s video diary in which Britain’s last lion tamer demonstrates how he trained two young lions with patience and reward.

For some people, of course, the issue is simply that animals should be free. But we shouldn’t anthropomorphise and assume that a captive-bred animal is intellectually capable of sharing our concept of freedom - or assume that it is any worse off than its wild-born cousin.

Animals in the wild are endangered by predators (including human predators) and shrinking habitats. They live short, dangerous lives. Circus animals receive food, shelter and veterinary care, and as a result live twice as long. One of Thomas Chipperfield’s tigers, for example, is 18-years-old. In the wild she would have died long ago, either from wounds or disease, or from starvation when she reached an age where she could no longer fend for herself. In captivity, she enjoys a healthy and pampered old age.

Do I think she’s happy? Elementary, my dear Watson.

January 2016 update: for more on the double standards of actors including Brian Blessed and Roger Moore who have campaigned against the circus while working with circus animals on stage and screen, click here to read my article in The Stage.

Douglas McPherson is the author of Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus (Peter Owen Publishers)