'Tiger King' Suits: New Spin on Old Environmental Laws

to admit it, but i will admit it. I Binge watched Tiger King. It came out on Netflix at the very start of the pandemic lockdowns here in the US, and there really wasn't a whole lot else you could do for those with higher standards in television entertainment than I have. Tiger King is a seven part documentary that follows the lives and quarrels of the shall we say eccentric personalities in the world of wild animal collecting Layton Gentlemen.

Before you hear it on the names, I'm gonna tell you myself about an hour ago, we had an incident where one of the employees stuck their arms for the cage and a tiger toward her arm off. I can give you your money back, or I can give you a rain check. A central character in the show, a man who goes by the name Joe Exotic, is now serving twenty two years in a federal prison after a conviction in a murder for higher plot, which the Netflix

show examines in granular detail. But what many may not realize is that Exotic was convicted of violating several laws, one of which was the Endangered Species Act. Yes, that's right, the Nixon Arrow law that typically governs industrial accidents or the international ivory trade is now being used to bring the Joe Exotics of the world to court. Bloomberg Laws. Maya Earls wrote a story about this new trend in

environmental law. She says, environmental activists and even federal agencies are using existing laws like this one to go after some of the people featured in Tiger King, who are still involved in the roadside petting zoo world to this day. Actually,

there's too law and play here. There's first Endangered Species Act, which protects animals listed as endangered or threatened, and it comes into play here because some of these people had tigers and lemurs and other animals that are protected under this law. There's also the Animal Welfare Act, which is generally used to protect animals that are used for testing, but also animals and zoos that are open to the

public and animals sold as pets. When I typically think of Endangered Species Act issues, though, I think of like lots of animals being harmed, like an oil spill or an industrial accident. But here we're talking about one animal at a time. Is this a new way of thinking about the law. So when it comes to Tiger King, this idea isn't exactly new. For example, PETA the group pursued a lawsuit in the nineties against a Las Vegas

nightclub owner who was allegedly mistreating orangutans. But Tiger King, I would say, has brought new attention to this issue, and we're also seeing the federal government start to get involved in a battle that's typically waged by the animal groups themselves right well, And that's one of the unique things about the Endangered Species Act and a lot of the other like big environmental laws, is that you can have citizen suits where like anyone who can say they're

harmed by an environmental issue can file a lawsuit. It's not just you know, standing is very broad in these suits. Is that why the environmental groups and the you know, APEDA and groups like that have really gotten involved in this. Yes, the citizen suit provision is really important, and it's one of the kind of few openings that these groups have to really go after some of these exhibitors. We've seen recent successes with tiger king, but there have also been

some setbacks. One of the things that they have to show is that you know, the actions are affecting them in some way. You know, they can't say that, you know, the animals being harmed and that's why they're bringing the suit. They have to say, you know, the animals being harmed and it's affecting my viewership or my experience. And some judges you know, haven't accepted that they have shown enough

harm to themselves to have these lawsuits go forward. Has there been any suits that have argued, like, you know, tigers are a part of our cultural heritage, so like any harm to a tiger is a harm to like the culture of the entire like human race. I haven't seen that argument yet, but I would say never say never,

and especially now that we're seeing. There's this bigger issue of a lot of species going in extinct, and you know, there's been kind of a widespread extinction issue, and so I wouldn't be surprised if we see some sort of argument like that in the future, shifting from citizen suits to government suits. You know, the as you mentioned, the federal government has a big role to play here in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act and the Endangerous Species Act,

but it sounds like they haven't really done that. Why not. One of the people that you quoted it in your story said that these statutes are massively under enforced. What's going on? Yes, so some of the reasons cited by the groups were funding. Another is just not having enough inspectors and not having enough staff to actually go to

these facilities. And I think another aspect, especially when it comes to the Dangered Species Act, is just agency priority kind of like you said before, you know, typically the focus has been on these big industries and you know, massive trafficking organizations that you know, when you think of elephant tests or rhino tests, that has been the big focus, and not a lot of attention has been played to

the little guys. Tyger King in a way turn the spotlight on them and also on this giant cub petting industry that's going on all over the US. Yeah, I guess, I don't know. Maybe this isn't really the way that I guess the justice system is supposed to work, But it seems like if prosecutors can make headlines by prosecuting certain people, maybe they will choose to do that. I mean, is that what's going on? Kind of that that the success and the attention of the the TV show has

made it more her worth prosecutors time to pursue. I think that's part of it. I think another part of it is also these were kind of more egregious examples, and even in the show, the exhibitors were very vocal about how they were operating the zoos and how they were maintaining the animals. So I think that, you know, some of this was maybe a little bit more easy and a little bit more visible. So, yeah, we should talk about the argument from the other side, which you

talked about in your story. Can you summarize some of the arguments that the defendants here are making. The folks who were shown in Tiger King, well, their arguments were that they were taking care of the animals as best they could. Recently, you know, one of the important aspects is that they are exhibiting the animals, and so some of the people in the lawsuit said, you know, we're not actually showing the animals to the public, so we

can't be prosecuted under these laws. But I think in general, one of the big arguments is that, I mean, other than the standing issues, one of the big issues is that these lawsuits are expensive. And I think if you ask the animal groups, they would say that, you know, if the federal government did a better job at enforcing the law, then they wouldn't have to go after these lawsuits.

But I think if you asked the exhibitors, they would say most of them would say that they are doing a good job and that these lawsuits are taking money and time away from some of their efforts at taking care of the animals and some of their other conservation efforts. So finally, let's talk about the future here. You know, we have a new presidential administration in office, you know, a democratic administration which tends to be a little more

aggressive about environmental enforcement. Do you see the way that the Indeger Species Act and the Animal Welfare Act are enforced as being you know, more expansive now in the Biden administration, or is this the kind of thing that presidents of either party are reluctant to pursue just because it's so complicated and so time consuming and resource consuming. I think that I think that with Tiger King bringing more attention to the issue, than we could see some

more enforcement. I mean, we have already seen a little bit so far, and I think, you know, whether it's one off thing or whether this is actually more common, I'll have to wait and see. But kind of as you said before, this has been an issue under many different types of administrations, both Republican and democratic, and so I guess this remains to be seen as to whether they will continue their focus on individual exhibitors or they'll continue to focus on more large industries and more issues

that affect a larger group of animals. All Right, Well, that was Maya Earls, a reporter on our Legal Intelligence desk, talking about last year's Netflix hit show, Tiger King. We'll have you back on in a little bit to talk about the Queen's gambit. I'm sure there's some environmental issues related to chess that you can discuss my earls. Thank you so much, Thank you for having me. That was Maya Earls, an environmental reporter on Bloomberg Law's legal intelligence task.

And that's it for today's episode of Parts per Billion. If you want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter. We use the handle at environment just that at environment, nothing else. I'm at David B. Shultz. If you want to share your Tiger King fan fick with me, go for it. Today's episode of Parsper Billing was produced by myself, David Schultz. Parsper Billing was created by Jessica Coons and Rachel Dagle, and our executive producer is Josh Block. Thank

you everyone for listening. Hi, I'm Laura Carlson, and I'm dropping into your feed to tell you about Prognosis, a new daily show from Bloomberg Monday, if your Friday, We'll spend a few minutes with you every afternoon to help you understand life in the time of COVID nineteen. The show was available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. So come back every afternoon for our coverage and stay safe.