Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1063611 Posts in 70698 Topics- by 18586 Members - Latest Member: THERIVERSIDEHOTBAND
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) Animal Rights--Now a Topic on Purely Politics.
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Animal Rights--Now a Topic on Purely Politics.  (Read 923 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Euphanasia

*
Offline Offline

Location: Moses Lake, WA
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 5828

View Profile
« on: Jan 17, 2017, 06:40AM »

I figured someone needed to start a thread here so folks can stop filling the "Ringling Brothers" thread with points about animal rights.

I don't follow Chit Chat, so I won't answer back. Evil

One point I would make is that many have criticized the Humane Society and other organizations for paying witnesses. The thing is, proving that they did so doesn't disprove the allegations they were making. It was simply a reason why the case was dropped. You might as well argue that whistleblower payments prove that large businesses don't really break the rules. Testifying against your employer generally causes you to lose your job and makes you look bad to other employers. Payments to witnesses offset that.

The Circus thread also has some arguments that are mired in logical fallacies: Appeal to tradition--"RBBB has always packed animals into boxcars for eight hours a day so they should be able to continue to do so," moral equivalency--"RBBB should fight local rules against animal abuse because they're hard to follow and we often break them anyway," false dichotomy--"RBBB treats them better than people in Myanmar do, so RBBB can't be criticized," post hoc--"people stopped coming after RBBB started phasing out the elephants, thus they stopped coming because we lost the elephants" and so on.

Also note that it wasn't just the elephants. Here's an article that discusses the tigers in the Red Unit. The criticisms aren't coming from Ingrid Newkirk or any other "activist." They're from Jay Pratte, who consults with zoos and is in the business of evaluating the condition of animals. An article in the "Daily Beast" pulled the following from his report:

"the tigers displayed 'several signs of severe and chronic stress' along with physical conditions that could be 'easily treated and/or avoided' if the animals were given 'the appropriate level of care.' Pratte notes 'obesity, hygromas [or cysts], cracked foot pads, cuts, punctures, and scarring' on many of the tigers in the Red Unit along with 'psychological distress.' His account also noted that the tigers’ '"enclosures" appeared clean,” but that 'the living environments were overly sterile…had minimum to no shade' and provided 'no means of avoiding other cats’ presence or conflict.'
Pratte also told The Daily Beast that he found Ringling met 'none of the minimum standards and none of the individual standards.'

It's sad that the RBBB Circus folded. However, it's also sad that for years, they packed large animals whose native habitat was jungle or open space into small train cars, and the loss of animals is only one factor in many that led to the folding of the circus.



Have at it!!
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49862
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: Jan 17, 2017, 07:56AM »

I'm sorry you won't follow this thread, Euph. 

First, we mistreat animals all the time.  Look at nearly any farm.  Chickens and pigs in crates or packed tightly together in coops.

For that matter, look at mot zoos.  The animals are hardly in a truly natural habitat either.

But we have a problem.  There is less and less habitat for wild animals because we Humans are squeezing them out.  It may soon be that the only way to see some wild animals will be in captive settings.

I won't whitewash RBBB's treatment of animals.  It is  cruel to put them in boxcars and haul them for 8 hours.  It's cruel to do that to humans, too.  And not only RBBB does it; look at the cattle ranchers.  And these poor souls [the cattle] are simply being hauled to their deaths.

I just find that too many animal rights activists are arguing about the theory rather than the reality.  Note that the elephants in RBBB are born here and are trained from childhood to live in the Circus environment.  Much like we deal with oxen or horses.  The elephants are more pets than tamed wild beasts.

The circus elephant was originally an oddity and except for the circus nobody in America would EVER see one.  I'll bet they used Asian elephants because they were tamed in India and Siam for domestic use, much like oxen and horses were in Europe.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Jan 17, 2017, 09:14AM »

Great Sequoia National Park has groves of magnificent and rare trees... so magnificent and so rare, that when initial reports of them came to the east coast, no one believed them. They had to cut down some, cut them into numerous pieces, and ship them by rail car back east to reassemble to show full width.

As people starting coming to see, they took a dozen more trees and turned them into "tunnel trees" by cutting an opening in the massive base for a person or vehicle to pass through and take pictures to help evidence the massive massive size.

But that's what it took to stir interest in those magnificent trees, and eventually get them protected in the national park they are now. A few took the hit so that many more would stay around.


Maybe some don't feel that any form of domestication of a wild animal is humane. And to that end, there has been a massive campaign against the circus, which the circus just won a large malicious prosecution case against. They should be wild! Ok... and we take them out of public eye more and more, leaving them to the wild, where many are dealt with as a local wild threat as we continue to encroach on their territory.

We don't respect their wild spaces, yet we supposedly respect them to much to bring into shows to get them in the public eye. That's a good way to lose all of them. And really, how "humane" is that?
Logged
Euphanasia

*
Offline Offline

Location: Moses Lake, WA
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 5828

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: Jan 17, 2017, 09:27AM »


We don't respect their wild spaces, yet we supposedly respect them to much to bring into shows to get them in the public eye. That's a good way to lose all of them. And really, how "humane" is that?

There is a growing movement toward preserving them in zoos, where the habitat can be controlled and they live relatively happily with planned sensory stimulation and enclosures that are built around their needs rather than those of the zoo's visitors. I don't think this has ever happened in the circus. Yes, to answer Bruce's point, the performers are also on those trains. However, if you were to lock them in cubicles that are relatively small and that offer little or no sensory stimulation--no iphone, no tablet, no other people to talk to--and you can bet that those performers would be very unhappy.

Circuses did a lot to bring our attention to the existence of these animals, but if the cost of preserving them is treating the few remaining individuals in ways that suit the needs of humans and not the animals, what's the point in keeping them around at all? Why not just hire a taxidermist?

And yes, we're all implicated to some extent, but that doesn't mean we should criticize the people who are trying to make a difference. I'm not perfect, but I've made conscious choices in my lifestyle to lessen the suffering of animals.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17876
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: Jan 17, 2017, 10:03AM »

I don't follow Chit Chat, so I won't answer back. Evil
I'm sorry you won't follow this thread, Euph.

Yeah, his participation is missed--this just highlights it.
 
Can't blame him though ... it's worse in here in most significant ways than it ever was.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Radar

*
Offline Offline

Location: Rochester NY
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 579

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: Jan 17, 2017, 10:16AM »

Animal rights activists have a certain agenda and amount of bias from the start.  I agree that Animal abuse exists in many shapes and forms, but I've also seen things that don't appear to be abusive that they classify that way.  I can't speak specifically about Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey but I'm sure that in recent history they have been treating there animals as humanely as they can.  Many of the things they complain about regarding the treatment of circus and zoo animals you see happening on dairy farms and horse ranches on a daily basis.  If you can't keep a tiger or an elephant in a box car for 8 hours while transporting them maybe pet owners shouldn't keep hamsters in little cages either.  Beating Animals and starving them to death, not letting them get sufficient exercise are all abusive, perhaps we may be a little zealous in some instances when we define where the line is between abuse and normal ethical treatment.  Perhaps an 8 hour train ride if they are exercised before and after the ride isn't that abusive.  Unless you want to totally outlaw pets, animal farming, and zoos, and circuses, and any other type of entertainment that involves animals we are going to create some level of discomfort for Animals.  We as humans also put ourselves in situations that are uncomfortable from time to time (have you ever taken a plane flight lasting 8 hours in coach (not the most comfortable situation in the world).  We need to be careful and reasonable when we set the limits between what is normal and ethical treatment, and what is abuse that we don't go so far that we prohibit all interaction between animals and humans.  Zoos and circuses aren't ideal places for Animals to live in we can all agree on that, but how many species have been preserved or will be preserved because of their existence in zoos. Lets just make sure that we don't become so hands off with Animals that as natural habitat starts to shrink that we don't start loosing species that we would otherwise have preserved:  http://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/8-zoos-helping-animals-edge-out-of-extinction
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: Jan 17, 2017, 11:04AM »

There is a growing movement toward preserving them in zoos, where the habitat can be controlled and they live relatively happily with planned sensory stimulation and enclosures that are built around their needs rather than those of the zoo's visitors.
With some, such as the lions and tigers, having thousands of times less space in captivity than in the wild, and the NEED for sensory stimulation in an otherwise small jail. Per your example, the difference of being locked in a cubicle with or without a phone... either way, it's still hardly "humane" to spend life locked in a cubicle.

I don't think this has ever happened in the circus.
Why would a circus be compared to a zoo? They serve two very different functions with two very different ways of going about it.

Circuses did a lot to bring our attention to the existence of these animals, but if the cost of preserving them is treating the few remaining individuals in ways that suit the needs of humans and not the animals, what's the point in keeping them around at all? Why not just hire a taxidermist?
Same can be said if they only continue to exist in zoos.

How does the presence of one negate the other? Is it bad to have shared impacts but work in different ways?
Logged
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1525

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Jan 17, 2017, 12:15PM »

I don't like the mistreatment of animals.

But I think that's a different issue to the discussion of rights.

I tend to think that rights go hand in hand with responsibility.  So would think that animals shouldn't get rights without also having responsibilities.  But how can you expect an animal to have a responsibility? eg Tigers could have the right to freedom but that would come with the responsibility not eat people or livestock.   So if that's right animals shouldn't have rights either.

So if that's right then the proper treatment of animals would have to be dealt with in terms of our rights and responsibilities.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49862
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Jan 17, 2017, 01:17PM »

I have two dogs.  Dogs normally hunt in packs.  But my dogs don't.  They sleep on the bed and get fed twice a day.  They get snacks when we eat.  They get taken for walks.  But they spend all their time inside my house and get petted and cuddled.  Am I being cruel to them?  I don't think so.  They don't seem to be anxious to leave.

I think the animals in today's RBBB are more like pets.  The elephants, lions, tigers, and any other performer animals (horse and dog acts used to be popular, giving rise to the "dog and pony show").  If you followed Megan's blog you would find that they would walk the elephants from the rail yard to the venue and sometimes set up a "buffet" of fresh fruits and vegetables for them to eat as a treat beyond what they normally got as chow.  All they had to do in return for this is to perform in a show.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Doug Elliott
Lord of the Rims

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 6346

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Jan 17, 2017, 02:22PM »

When I was there it definitely looked like the employees all treated them as pets.
Logged

www.DougElliottMouthpieces.com
XT LexanN104,C+,D2, Williams 6, K&H Slokar alto, K&H Slokar Solo .547 open wrap
JP
*
*
Offline Offline

Location: San Diego, California, USA
Joined: Sep 6, 2000
Posts: 4151

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: Jan 17, 2017, 02:37PM »

I played as a pick up local musician several times in the 70's, 80's with the RB/BBC. I only saw gentleness and affection towards all the animals. However, the employees behavior toward each other was pretty rough. Saw a few fist-fights over who is cleaning up stuff like elephant dung after the crowd left.

More abuse between the humans and each others than the animals.
Logged

JP
Trombonists just slide through life
Euphanasia

*
Offline Offline

Location: Moses Lake, WA
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 5828

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: Jan 17, 2017, 02:57PM »

OK--I'll stick around if things stay civil.

I have two dogs.  Dogs normally hunt in packs.  But my dogs don't.  They sleep on the bed and get fed twice a day.  They get snacks when we eat.  They get taken for walks.  But they spend all their time inside my house and get petted and cuddled.  Am I being cruel to them?  I don't think so.  They don't seem to be anxious to leave.

I think the animals in today's RBBB are more like pets.  The elephants, lions, tigers, and any other performer animals (horse and dog acts used to be popular, giving rise to the "dog and pony show").  If you followed Megan's blog you would find that they would walk the elephants from the rail yard to the venue and sometimes set up a "buffet" of fresh fruits and vegetables for them to eat as a treat beyond what they normally got as chow.  All they had to do in return for this is to perform in a show.

But there's clear evidence from objective observers that states that some, if not all, of the animals, have health problems. Go back to what I posted about the tigers. If your dog had "obesity, hygromas [or cysts], cracked foot pads, cuts, punctures, and scarring" and showed signs of psychological distress (it's not a chihuahua, is it? They're always under psychological stress...) I think you'd be re-evaluating how you treat him. A lot of people who raise fighting dogs treat them as pets when they're not "performing." Does that make dogfights OK?

You state that dogs hunt in packs. I don't think that's true, unless you're talking about the ancestors of our modern domestic dogs. I think if you took in a raccoon or a coyote and tried to treat it as you treat your dog, the raccoon or coyote would be unhappy and unhealthy.

You're comparing very different things. Yes, elephants are domesticated, but they aren't housepets. Dogs have been bred to be housepets. If RBBB were selectively breeding their elephants to make them better suited to life on the road, that would be one thing. However, they're taking animals that are only a few generations from the wild and putting them in unfamiliar and unfriendly situations.

With some, such as the lions and tigers, having thousands of times less space in captivity than in the wild, and the NEED for sensory stimulation in an otherwise small jail. Per your example, the difference of being locked in a cubicle with or without a phone... either way, it's still hardly "humane" to spend life locked in a cubicle.
Why would a circus be compared to a zoo? They serve two very different functions with two very different ways of going about it.
Same can be said if they only continue to exist in zoos.

How does the presence of one (zoo) negate the other (circus)? Is it bad to have shared impacts but work in different ways?

A zoo can create an environment that is quite close to an animal's natural habitat. To my understanding, a circus can't because of safety and travel issues.

Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: Jan 17, 2017, 03:29PM »

But there's clear evidence from objective observers that states that some, if not all, of the animals, have health problems. Go back to what I posted about the tigers. If your dog had "obesity, hygromas [or cysts], cracked foot pads, cuts, punctures, and scarring" and showed signs of psychological distress (it's not a chihuahua, is it? They're always under psychological stress...) I think you'd be re-evaluating how you treat him.
Sounds like problems in that happen in zoos as well.

Seems like this example would easily fit the list:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/18/american-born-panda-twins-return-to-china-but-struggle-with-the-language-and-food/?utm_term=.64016d41be18

Though one of my dogs has been told he was a bit obese by the vet, and my other dog regularly comes back with small cuts and punctures and potentially torn pads after chasing squirrels and deer through the brush during long hikes.

Both have also suffered periods of psychological distress as I've moved around. 

The things you list are also things common to people and children, and hard to claim they are severe issues or signs of strong and regular mistreatment or abuse.


However, they're taking animals that are only a few generations from the wild and putting them in unfamiliar and unfriendly situations.

A zoo can create an environment that is quite close to an animal's natural habitat.
Zoos do the same, though they occasionally take animals straight from the wild or poachers.

That said, a tiger's natural habitat covers 60-100 km2. I've seen a few zoos now, ranging from small to large. Can't say any I've seen have offered an environment close to that. Most seem lucky to get an acre or two for a group of them.


All that said, I think I found your article....

It's from a cursory view of animals as sponsored and reported by PETA: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/28/ringling-bros-circus-abuses-tigers.html

I should note, they also opposed Zoos just as strongly, Including their response to your last point:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/animals-used-entertainment-factsheets/zoos-pitiful-prisons/
Quote
Despite their professed concern for animals, zoos can more accurately be described as “collections” of interesting animals than as actual havens or homes. Even under the best of circumstances at the best of zoos, captivity cannot begin to replicate wild animals’ habitats. Animals are often prevented from doing most of the things that are natural and important to them, like running, roaming, flying, climbing, foraging, choosing a partner, and being with others of their own kind. Zoos teach people that it is acceptable to interfere with animals and keep them locked up in captivity, where they are bored, cramped, lonely, deprived of all control over their lives, and far from their natural homes.

also...

http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/
Quote
Even large, well-known, and popular zoos engage in unscrupulous practices, such as dumping unwanted  animals or taking animals from the wild. In 2003, the San Diego Zoo and Tampa’s Lowry Park Zoo imported 11 African elephants from Swaziland. In 2006, accredited zoos in Denver; Houston; Litchfield Park, Arizona; San Antonio; San Diego; and Tampa, Florida, imported 33 monkeys who had been illegally trafficked by poachers in Africa, rather than working with wildlife rehabilitators to return the primates to their natural habitat.

Proponents of zoos like to claim that zoos protect species from extinction—seemingly a noble goal. However, wild-animal parks and zoos almost always favor large and charismatic animals who draw large crowds of visitors, but they neglect less popular species that also need to be protected. Most animals in zoos are not endangered, and while confining animals to zoos keeps them alive, it does nothing to protect wild populations and their habitats.
Logged
slideorama

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, TX
Joined: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 885

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: Jan 17, 2017, 04:12PM »

I'm not sure I understand this thread. Bringing up animal rights in the circus thread makes people feel uncomfortable, so you divert the "activist" conversations here to "have at it."

Wow, OK. That is some lame stuff right there. But whatever.

Sure, the circus would never say the cruelty to animals was a reason to fold up the tent, but then why did the elephants escape the show over a year ago? No one here can honestly say animals in a circus have a healthy, happy life. If you disagree, you probably still enjoy seeing whales in swimming pools and think that is OK.

Anyhoo, just kinda shocked this topic was split, when it is integral to the end if the circus days.
Logged

Michael Lawson
Dallas/Ft.Worth, TX
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 49862
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: Jan 17, 2017, 04:32PM »

The other topic was more related to the plight of 800 circus performers (and a few dozen elephants along with an odd tiger or two) resulting from the closing of the circus.

The elephants will be housed on a preserve that already is a "retirement home" for elephants who are no longer performing.  Don't know about the lions and tigers; probably go to a similar preserve but maybe not Feld run.

My take here is that the circus animals were primarily "pets", i.e. not captured from the wild but domestically bred.  This wasn't the case in the past and I'm sure back then there were some really bad things done.  I remember reading about a circus elephant that was convicted of murder and then hanged because she killed her handler.  But that was in the 19th Century.

I won't contest that some animals are maltreated.  Orcas are not used to swimming in tanks; they are used to traveling in pods in the open ocean.  And captured orcas are indeed being maltreated.

Many exotic birds being sold as pets are also captured in the wild and are mistreated being smuggled into the US.  I remember reading about a huge number (over 100) parrots who were suffocated because they were stuffed in tubed to smuggle into the US.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Euphanasia

*
Offline Offline

Location: Moses Lake, WA
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 5828

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Jan 17, 2017, 05:12PM »

I'm not sure I understand this thread. Bringing up animal rights in the circus thread makes people feel uncomfortable, so you divert the "activist" conversations here to "have at it."

Wow, OK. That is some lame stuff right there. But whatever.


??? I don't follow you at all. It's "lame" to discuss this, or it's lame to divert a political discussion to "purely politics" or it's lame that people "have at it?"  I re-started the political discussion here because if people want to avoid it, they can while still participating in TTF. Incidentally--not that I'm too easily offended--but "lame" is one of those words (like "retarded" and "gay") that I find offensive. I have friends with disabilities. Using something that describes their physical condition as a description of something that is completely unacceptable? That's unacceptable.



Anyhoo, just kinda shocked this topic was split, when it is integral to the end if the circus days.

It really isn't. The show had been suffering financially for quite awhile. The elephants left in May 2016. I don't think you'll find that there was sudden and drastic drop in attendance in the eight months since.

Sounds like problems in that happen in zoos as well.

...

The things you list are also things common to people and children, and hard to claim they are severe issues or signs of strong and regular mistreatment or abuse.

Zoos do the same, though they occasionally take animals straight from the wild or poachers.

That said, a tiger's natural habitat covers 60-100 km2. I've seen a few zoos now, ranging from small to large. Can't say any I've seen have offered an environment close to that. Most seem lucky to get an acre or two for a group of them.

I've already addressed this. Zoos are not perfect. However, due to their larger spaces and the fact that they needn't constantly move animals from place to place, they are better equipped to create habitats with opportunities for enrichment and a more "natural" lifestyle. There are cases that prove this. Benjamin, a baby elephant with RBBB, was traumatized and drowned after his trainer hit him with a bullhook because he wouldn't leave a pond to get back on a train. Yes, it's a tragic accident and there was no intent to kill him, but expecting a baby elephant to respond to deadlines, corporal punishment, and "responsibility" is just not going to work.

All that said, I think I found your article....

It's from a cursory view of animals as sponsored and reported by PETA: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/28/ringling-bros-circus-abuses-tigers.html

I should note, they also opposed Zoos just as strongly, Including their response to your last point:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/animals-used-entertainment-factsheets/zoos-pitiful-prisons/
also...

http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/

That's a "genetic fallacy." "I don't like where it came from, so it must be false." If PETA said "It's raining" would that be reason to go outside in shorts and a t-shirt? Yes, Ingrid Newkirk is an extremist. However, PETA also has been responsible for ending a lot of unnecessary animal abuse. Judge the information, not its source.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: Jan 17, 2017, 05:49PM »

The show had been suffering financially for quite awhile.
Gradually, though that changed to a drammatic drop after the elephants were removed.

I've already addressed this. Zoos are not perfect. However, due to their larger spaces and the fact that they needn't constantly move animals from place to place, they are better equipped to create habitats with opportunities for enrichment and a more "natural" lifestyle. There are cases that prove this.
Again, not according to the same source you cite for attacking the circus.

Benjamin, a baby elephant with RBBB, was traumatized and drowned after his trainer hit him with a bullhook because he wouldn't leave a pond to get back on a train. Yes, it's a tragic accident and there was no intent to kill him, but expecting a baby elephant to respond to deadlines, corporal punishment, and "responsibility" is just not going to work.
(since this is politics) and the fourth candidate to get more votes than jill stein, harambe... ? He lived happily after, right? You can find individual examples in almost anything. That does not make the rule, however.

That's a "genetic fallacy." "I don't like where it came from, so it must be false." If PETA said "It's raining" would that be reason to go outside in shorts and a t-shirt? Yes, Ingrid Newkirk is an extremist. However, PETA also has been responsible for ending a lot of unnecessary animal abuse. Judge the information, not its source.
Actually, you article was mostly PETA propaganda, so their other similar articles towards your favored alternatives are quite valid. Zoos for example... PETA uses AZA standards to criticize the circus here, however they themselves hate the AZA standards. Kinda goes against their own argument, to show more of the motive as it's own end.

Per the article itself, It was a walk through observation by a member of PETA shortly before and after two shows and conversation with three handlers, without bothering to view history or records, and based the observations on zoological standards - which as you state have very different operating conditions. To judge one by the standards of another shows misdirection right off the bat. And they are, otherwise they would be basis for legal violations and fines which have not been levied. Other claims such as:

"During my discussion with the female supervisor in the afternoon, she happily relayed that when
the circus acquires new tigers as cubs, general circus staff are allowed and encouraged to play
with and handle the cubs. The trainers explained to me that their reasoning is to get the cats used
to being around people. This would indeed habituate them to the unnatural contact with humans.
However, big cats are not domesticated. Their genetic programming is the same as a wild
counterpart. To force cubs to interact with another species interferes with normal neural
development. "

Are based on little more than the author's philosophical approach, and criticizes the circus for using approaches that domestic animals to animals he obviously should be wild and free - something the zoo standards he likes to judge by would fail at as well. And the bigger irony? Jay Pratte (the author) is an animal trainer at the Omaha Zoo. An occupation which goes against "natural instincts" to train animals to perform commands and socialize them unnaturally to people.

Full link to the report here: http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/RinglingBigCatReport.pdf

The bigger aspect to consider is that the circus readily let the report author into their facilities to openly talk with their people and see their animals and freely take pictures. Real animal cruelty sources shut that down with things such as "ag-gag" laws and numerous lawsuits.

The full story is that the circus has recently won a rather large course decision against groups such tactics as being intentionally misleading and using malicious prosecution to attack it.
Logged
Euphanasia

*
Offline Offline

Location: Moses Lake, WA
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 5828

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: Jan 17, 2017, 06:09PM »

Gradually, though that changed to a drammatic drop after the elephants were removed.

I wasn't able to find any statistics on this. What's your source?

Again, not according to the same source you cite for attacking the circus.

I'm not attacking the circus. I'm pointing out that animal rights activists had a valid point in criticizing RBBB.

(since this is politics) and the fourth candidate to get more votes than jill stein, harambe... ? He lived happily after, right? You can find individual examples in almost anything. That does not make the rule, however.

No, it does not. However, the death of Harambe was caused by irresponsible humans. This will probably shock you, but I don't think they should have shot Harmbe for simply acting like a gorilla. And this is what zoos tend to do that circuses don't. Zoos, more and more, are letting their animals act like the animals they are. Circuses draw visitors by making animals act according to the rules of people.

Actually, you article was mostly PETA propaganda. . .,


Aaaaaand I'm done. I've pointed out three times that the source of the information doesn't invalidate it, but there you are, flogging that "happy" smiling elephant. You guys have fun. 
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5180

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Jan 17, 2017, 06:17PM »

I wasn't able to find any statistics on this. What's your source?
Nemerous, from news outlets to the feld group itself. quick example - http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/apnewsbreak-ringling-bros-circus-close-146-years-44784915

"Attendance has been dropping for 10 years, said Juliette Feld, but when the elephants left, there was a "dramatic drop" in ticket sales. Paradoxically, while many said they didn't want big animals to perform in circuses, many others refused to attend a circus without them.

"We know now that one of the major reasons people came to Ringling Bros. was getting to see elephants," she said. "We stand by that decision. We know it was the right decision. This was what audiences wanted to see and it definitely played a major role.""


I'm not attacking the circus. I'm pointing out that animal rights activists had a valid point in criticizing RBBB.
And using a single propaganda article from a group found to use misleading propaganda and prosecution to do it, with no other support.

No, it does not. However, the death of Harambe was caused by irresponsible humans.
Sure. It could also said to be a result of poor environment, or even placing the animal in a situation it should never be in to begin with depending on who is spinning it. After all, what was a wild animal doing so close to children?

Aaaaaand I'm done. I've pointed out three times that the source of the information doesn't invalidate it, but there you are, flogging that "happy" smiling elephant. You guys have fun. 
You mean your own "source" article, an opinion piece by PETA, about a PETA member judging a circus by incorrect zoological standards on cursory views and his own philosophical approach? The same group, that upon hearing the circus was closing issued a "victory statement"? Yeah... that's actually your source, and this is actual critique against it.

Sorry you find that so offensive... but really, what part of that is supposed to be credible?

At this point, you have talked about your article in vague terms, and tried to pull out the "worst" parts without real context. I found the article and provided a link. I found the report and provided a link as well. They are nothing more than propaganda, judging the situation at a very quick and cursory level through improper and irrelevant standards, ultimately by a person who trains animals in similar "unnatural" behavior that he criticizes the circus trainers for using.

Guess from your dismissal that you don't have anything of real merit.


And if that's your real support, I have to lean towards the response from the feld group...
“Last time I checked, PETA doesn’t actually care for any tigers at all. We’ve been doing it for over 100 years.”
Logged
Jhereg

*
Offline Offline

Location: Touring
Joined: Jun 12, 2009
Posts: 298

View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: Jan 24, 2017, 12:08PM »

As a circus employee, it is always difficult not to go off on an anti-animal rights tirade, or to get extremely defensive when accusations of animal abuse come my way.

So to avoid getting heated here (which I am bound to do if I get involved in this thread), I'd like to instead share some of what I've learned while working here, and some writings that I've made on Quora on this subject.

What are animal rights like in your country?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-animal-rights-like-in-your-country/answer/Megan-OMalley-3

What is the difference between animal rights and animal welfare?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-animal-rights-and-animal-welfare/answer/Megan-OMalley-3

How and why are the circus companies with wild and domestic animals in their troop spared from animal rights protection organizations?
http://tinyurl.com/gr8l2ve

Why do people allow the circus to abuse animals by forcing them to do tricks in shows?

http://tinyurl.com/zxmgfnp

How do traveling circuses and carnivals care for their large animals?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-traveling-circuses-and-carnivals-care-for-their-large-animals/answer/Megan-OMalley-3

Why are people against animal circuses?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-against-animal-circuses/answer/Megan-OMalley-3

Should we stop circuses from animal entertainment?
https://www.quora.com/Should-we-stop-circuses-from-animal-entertainment/answer/Megan-OMalley-3

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. I absolutely respect that. And I hope that anyone reading these answers will also consider my own opinions and the facts that accompany them in a respectful way. I'm not asking anyone to agree, just to consider what I have to say. Thank you.
Logged

"Passion is born from earnestness.
Miracles have value precisely because you cause them."
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: