Speaker 1: Hey, remember Tiger King. You know that show on Netflix
Speaker 1: we all watched last year when we were stuck at
Speaker 1: home and losing our minds. Well, today on Parts per Billion,
Speaker 1: we talk about the environmental laws that are being repurposed
Speaker 1: in creative new ways to take Tiger King's rogues gallery
Speaker 1: cast of characters to court. Hello, and welcome back once
Speaker 1: again to Parts per Billion, the environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, David Schultz, So I'm not totally proud
Speaker 1: to admit it, but i will admit it. I Binge
Speaker 1: watched Tiger King. It came out on Netflix at the
Speaker 1: very start of the pandemic lockdowns here in the US,
Speaker 1: and there really wasn't a whole lot else you could
Speaker 1: do for those with higher standards in television entertainment than
Speaker 1: I have. Tiger King is a seven part documentary that
Speaker 1: follows the lives and quarrels of the shall we say
Speaker 1: eccentric personalities in the world of wild animal collecting Layton Gentlemen.
Speaker 1: Before you hear it on the names, I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you myself about an hour ago, we had an incident
Speaker 1: where one of the employees stuck their arms for the
Speaker 1: cage and a tiger toward her arm off. I can
Speaker 1: give you your money back, or I can give you
Speaker 1: a rain check. A central character in the show, a
Speaker 1: man who goes by the name Joe Exotic, is now
Speaker 1: serving twenty two years in a federal prison after a
Speaker 1: conviction in a murder for higher plot, which the Netflix
Speaker 1: show examines in granular detail. But what many may not
Speaker 1: realize is that Exotic was convicted of violating several laws,
Speaker 1: one of which was the Endangered Species Act. Yes, that's right,
Speaker 1: the Nixon Arrow law that typically governs industrial accidents or
Speaker 1: the international ivory trade is now being used to bring
Speaker 1: the Joe Exotics of the world to court. Bloomberg Laws.
Speaker 1: Maya Earls wrote a story about this new trend in
Speaker 1: environmental law. She says, environmental activists and even federal agencies
Speaker 1: are using existing laws like this one to go after
Speaker 1: some of the people featured in Tiger King, who are
Speaker 1: still involved in the roadside petting zoo world to this day. Actually,
Speaker 1: there's too law and play here. There's first Endangered Species Act,
Speaker 1: which protects animals listed as endangered or threatened, and it
Speaker 1: comes into play here because some of these people had
Speaker 1: tigers and lemurs and other animals that are protected under
Speaker 1: this law. There's also the Animal Welfare Act, which is
Speaker 1: generally used to protect animals that are used for testing,
Speaker 1: but also animals and zoos that are open to the
Speaker 1: public and animals sold as pets. When I typically think
Speaker 1: of Endangered Species Act issues, though, I think of like
Speaker 1: lots of animals being harmed, like an oil spill or
Speaker 1: an industrial accident. But here we're talking about one animal
Speaker 1: at a time. Is this a new way of thinking
Speaker 1: about the law. So when it comes to Tiger King,
Speaker 1: this idea isn't exactly new. For example, PETA the group
Speaker 1: pursued a lawsuit in the nineties against a Las Vegas
Speaker 1: nightclub owner who was allegedly mistreating orangutans. But Tiger King,
Speaker 1: I would say, has brought new attention to this issue,
Speaker 1: and we're also seeing the federal government start to get
Speaker 1: involved in a battle that's typically waged by the animal
Speaker 1: groups themselves right well, And that's one of the unique
Speaker 1: things about the Endangered Species Act and a lot of
Speaker 1: the other like big environmental laws, is that you can
Speaker 1: have citizen suits where like anyone who can say they're
Speaker 1: harmed by an environmental issue can file a lawsuit. It's
Speaker 1: not just you know, standing is very broad in these suits.
Speaker 1: Is that why the environmental groups and the you know,
Speaker 1: APEDA and groups like that have really gotten involved in this. Yes,
Speaker 1: the citizen suit provision is really important, and it's one
Speaker 1: of the kind of few openings that these groups have
Speaker 1: to really go after some of these exhibitors. We've seen
Speaker 1: recent successes with tiger king, but there have also been
Speaker 1: some setbacks. One of the things that they have to
Speaker 1: show is that you know, the actions are affecting them
Speaker 1: in some way. You know, they can't say that, you know,
Speaker 1: the animals being harmed and that's why they're bringing the suit.
Speaker 1: They have to say, you know, the animals being harmed
Speaker 1: and it's affecting my viewership or my experience. And some
Speaker 1: judges you know, haven't accepted that they have shown enough
Speaker 1: harm to themselves to have these lawsuits go forward. Has
Speaker 1: there been any suits that have argued, like, you know,
Speaker 1: tigers are a part of our cultural heritage, so like
Speaker 1: any harm to a tiger is a harm to like
Speaker 1: the culture of the entire like human race. I haven't
Speaker 1: seen that argument yet, but I would say never say never,
Speaker 1: and especially now that we're seeing. There's this bigger issue
Speaker 1: of a lot of species going in extinct, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's been kind of a widespread extinction issue, and so
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if we see some sort of
Speaker 1: argument like that in the future, shifting from citizen suits
Speaker 1: to government suits. You know, the as you mentioned, the
Speaker 1: federal government has a big role to play here in
Speaker 1: enforcing the Animal Welfare Act and the Endangerous Species Act,
Speaker 1: but it sounds like they haven't really done that. Why not.
Speaker 1: One of the people that you quoted it in your
Speaker 1: story said that these statutes are massively under enforced. What's
Speaker 1: going on? Yes, so some of the reasons cited by
Speaker 1: the groups were funding. Another is just not having enough
Speaker 1: inspectors and not having enough staff to actually go to
Speaker 1: these facilities. And I think another aspect, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to the Dangered Species Act, is just agency priority
Speaker 1: kind of like you said before, you know, typically the
Speaker 1: focus has been on these big industries and you know,
Speaker 1: massive trafficking organizations that you know, when you think of
Speaker 1: elephant tests or rhino tests, that has been the big focus,
Speaker 1: and not a lot of attention has been played to
Speaker 1: the little guys. Tyger King in a way turn the
Speaker 1: spotlight on them and also on this giant cub petting
Speaker 1: industry that's going on all over the US. Yeah, I guess,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe this isn't really the way that
Speaker 1: I guess the justice system is supposed to work, But
Speaker 1: it seems like if prosecutors can make headlines by prosecuting
Speaker 1: certain people, maybe they will choose to do that. I mean,
Speaker 1: is that what's going on? Kind of that that the
Speaker 1: success and the attention of the the TV show has
Speaker 1: made it more her worth prosecutors time to pursue. I
Speaker 1: think that's part of it. I think another part of
Speaker 1: it is also these were kind of more egregious examples,
Speaker 1: and even in the show, the exhibitors were very vocal
Speaker 1: about how they were operating the zoos and how they
Speaker 1: were maintaining the animals. So I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: some of this was maybe a little bit more easy
Speaker 1: and a little bit more visible. So, yeah, we should
Speaker 1: talk about the argument from the other side, which you
Speaker 1: talked about in your story. Can you summarize some of
Speaker 1: the arguments that the defendants here are making. The folks
Speaker 1: who were shown in Tiger King, well, their arguments were
Speaker 1: that they were taking care of the animals as best
Speaker 1: they could. Recently, you know, one of the important aspects
Speaker 1: is that they are exhibiting the animals, and so some
Speaker 1: of the people in the lawsuit said, you know, we're
Speaker 1: not actually showing the animals to the public, so we
Speaker 1: can't be prosecuted under these laws. But I think in general,
Speaker 1: one of the big arguments is that, I mean, other
Speaker 1: than the standing issues, one of the big issues is
Speaker 1: that these lawsuits are expensive. And I think if you
Speaker 1: ask the animal groups, they would say that, you know,
Speaker 1: if the federal government did a better job at enforcing
Speaker 1: the law, then they wouldn't have to go after these lawsuits.
Speaker 1: But I think if you asked the exhibitors, they would
Speaker 1: say most of them would say that they are doing
Speaker 1: a good job and that these lawsuits are taking money
Speaker 1: and time away from some of their efforts at taking
Speaker 1: care of the animals and some of their other conservation efforts.
Speaker 1: So finally, let's talk about the future here. You know,
Speaker 1: we have a new presidential administration in office, you know,
Speaker 1: a democratic administration which tends to be a little more
Speaker 1: aggressive about environmental enforcement. Do you see the way that
Speaker 1: the Indeger Species Act and the Animal Welfare Act are
Speaker 1: enforced as being you know, more expansive now in the
Speaker 1: Biden administration, or is this the kind of thing that
Speaker 1: presidents of either party are reluctant to pursue just because
Speaker 1: it's so complicated and so time consuming and resource consuming.
Speaker 1: I think that I think that with Tiger King bringing
Speaker 1: more attention to the issue, than we could see some
Speaker 1: more enforcement. I mean, we have already seen a little
Speaker 1: bit so far, and I think, you know, whether it's
Speaker 1: one off thing or whether this is actually more common,
Speaker 1: I'll have to wait and see. But kind of as
Speaker 1: you said before, this has been an issue under many
Speaker 1: different types of administrations, both Republican and democratic, and so
Speaker 1: I guess this remains to be seen as to whether
Speaker 1: they will continue their focus on individual exhibitors or they'll
Speaker 1: continue to focus on more large industries and more issues
Speaker 1: that affect a larger group of animals. All Right, Well,
Speaker 1: that was Maya Earls, a reporter on our Legal Intelligence desk,
Speaker 1: talking about last year's Netflix hit show, Tiger King. We'll
Speaker 1: have you back on in a little bit to talk
Speaker 1: about the Queen's gambit. I'm sure there's some environmental issues
Speaker 1: related to chess that you can discuss my earls. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Thank you for having me. That was
Speaker 1: Maya Earls, an environmental reporter on Bloomberg Law's legal intelligence task.
Speaker 1: And that's it for today's episode of Parts per Billion.
Speaker 1: If you want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter.
Speaker 1: We use the handle at environment just that at environment,
Speaker 1: nothing else. I'm at David B. Shultz. If you want
Speaker 1: to share your Tiger King fan fick with me, go
Speaker 1: for it. Today's episode of Parsper Billing was produced by myself,
Speaker 1: David Schultz. Parsper Billing was created by Jessica Coons and
Speaker 1: Rachel Dagle, and our executive producer is Josh Block. Thank
Speaker 1: you everyone for listening. Hi, I'm Laura Carlson, and I'm
Speaker 1: dropping into your feed to tell you about Prognosis, a
Speaker 1: new daily show from Bloomberg Monday, if your Friday, We'll
Speaker 1: spend a few minutes with you every afternoon to help
Speaker 1: you understand life in the time of COVID nineteen. The
Speaker 1: show was available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
Speaker 1: So come back every afternoon for our coverage and stay safe.