NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey, which starts a five-day engagement at Staples on Wednesday, is scheduled to undertake the circus tradition of marching its elephants into town. A passel of elephants will start walking from Union Station to Staples Center at 3:30 a.m. Tuesday, according to Kathy Davis, interim manager of the city's Animal Services department, which issued the permit to Ringling Bros.
As you know, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, the "Cruelest Show on Earth," is coming to Los Angeles next week, and we need your help to raise awareness about the cruelty and violence that go on behind the scenes at the circus. When Ringling is in your town, it's up to kind people like you to let the circus know that this cruel show is not welcome!
Experts, eyewitnesses, and video footage prove that physical abuse is standard practice for training elephants in circuses. Ringling's trainers have been observed hitting and jabbing elephants, including babies, with sharp steel-tipped rods called "bullhooks." CEO Kenneth Feld recently admitted in federal court that he's seen handlers use bullhooks to hit elephants under the chin, behind the ears, and on the legs. We know that Ringling causes pain and suffering to animals, but we must share this with others so that they, too, will boycott the circus.
What: Ringling demonstration
When: Wednesday, July 8, 6 p.m.
Where: Staples Center, 1111 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles
If you have any questions about the demonstration, please contact me at DavidS@peta.org and let me know what city you're in. For more information on this campaign, to learn what former employees say about Ringling, and to view PETA's videos, which show behind-the-scenes training, please visit Circuses.com.
We're in this fight together, and we couldn't do it without you. We're grateful that you're part of our Action Team, and we encourage you to take full advantage of the network by contacting us any time with questions, requests, or concerns. Thanks so much for everything that you do for animals!
For all animals,
David Salisbury
Assistant Activist Liaison
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
User1 responding to a comment by palucha66
07.6.09 - 11:48 pm
Seriously? You guys are gonna buy into that BS? Have y'all done your research and fact-checking on PETA, before getting "information" from them?
I'm a lifelong animal person. I work with animals (yes, elephants too) at my job in an animal welfare organization. My job is to make sure all the animals I encounter, elephants included, are treated humanely. And still I personally don't have a problem with Ringling Bros. I have volunteered with their animal department (prior to my current job) and I did not see a single thing that concerned me. The animals were clean, healthy, calm, and content. Particularly with the elephants, people who have never worked with them don't have the first clue what bullhooks are or how they're actually used; they simply assume that it's some kind of hideous torture device.
I think that the misinformation that PETA spews out about animal rights is tragically hilarious. It's tragic because they dupe otherwise intelligent people, but hilarious because they pull "facts" out of their asses. I know I'm unlikely to sway PETA fans since animal rights activists are pretty irrational people anyway, but for what it's worth, Ringling's elephants are FINE. Your energy is better spent worrying about animals that actually ARE suffering.
P.S. Before you buy into PETA's antics, ask yourself if you know how to determine if elephants are suffering. Can you "read" elephant behavior? Ever worked with them hands-on? If not, it's best to take allegations of abuse and suffering with a grain of salt.
yay lets take majestic intelligent creatures of the wild and force them to do tricks for the entertainment of humans!
regardless of how well Ringling Bros. may treat their animals... we don't need to humiliate the dignity of any creatures for our own selfish entertainment. a rescue? sure, lets save beings from pain... but a circus? c'mon... we dont need to teach our children that animals are mere robots here for our entertainment.
Roadblock responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.8.09 - 4:03 pm
Will you be painting National Geographics with this same cloud of suspicion? Neither links below even mention PETA, yet it's the same story. Is National Geographic a bunch of wackos too?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_crushing
National Geographic reports on the use of nails and sticks stabbed into the ears and feet of an elephant the subject of a crush in Thailand. Other reports cite the use of beatings with sticks, chains or bullhooks, sleep-deprivation, hunger, and thirst to "break" the elephant and make them submissive to their owners. It is not clear whether all training crushes involve the use of corporal punishment.
From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0406_040406_circuselephants_2.html
On its Web site, Ringling states that the display and care of elephants and other performing animals are subject to animal-welfare laws and regulations at the federal, state, and local levels. "Ringling Bros. has an excellent record of care for all our animals," the circus company says.
Tom Rider, a former Ringling Brothers employee, travels around the country speaking out against what he calls the "systematic daily abuse of circus elephants."
From June 1997 to November 1999, Rider worked as an afternoon "barn man" whose job was to feed and clean up after the elephants.
He claims to have seen handlers hitting elephants with bull hooks behind their heads, legs, and ears. Afterward, he said, the elephants had large, bleeding wounds.
"Most of the time the hitting was done because they wouldn't do the command fast enough," Rider said. "One time, my boss was mad at his wife and came in and beat the elephants."
User1 again,
Bottom line is the elephants are being trained to do stuff that isn't natural to them and for our own amusement. That BS I can do without and so can others!
User1 responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.8.09 - 4:05 pm
In the late 90s, PETA had some thing going where they would 'rescue' 'unloved' pets... from their owners. The only sign of abuse used to determine this? Whether or not the animal was outside. They would throw the animal's collar on the front porch/back of the gate as a sign that it was their work. One time when we let my cat out into the yard, we found her collar, opened, in the driveway. That type of collar is all but impossible to open without intent by a human being.
danya responding to a comment by Roadblock
07.8.09 - 4:10 pm
Danya, are you positive that PETA took your cat? is that the only evidence you have or was there a clear indication that PETA were the culprits.... I hate to say what the other possibility was... some people are kind enough to return collars to the residence when their cats are found victims of cars or coyotes. a couple of our cats growing up were victims of similar fate with similar situations of neighbors giving us the heads up.... just saying....
That's the only evidence I have, yeah. My parents were friendly with the neighbors back then, and my mom did quite a bit of investigation when the cat went missing. I don't think she would have lied to me. The collar had clearly been thrown over the fence, and I don't know why someone doing a favor would throw it over the fence instead of ringing the doorbell or putting it in the mailbox.
danya responding to a comment by Roadblock
07.8.09 - 4:25 pm
people are weird like that.... I know I personally would find it very hard to go up to a neighbor and tell them that their cat is dead - even if I knew them well.... in our case one of our cats was run over by a car and whomever it was actually put the body in a garbage bag and left it on our porch - my guess is that the person who did that was the actual person who ran over the cat and couldnt bring themselves to tell our family. my guess is that your cat was NOT stolen by PETA to be very honest with you. PETA can be extremist but I highly doubt that they would go around stealing people's cats. what would they do with them all? domesticated animals cant survive in the wild and that's commonly known to animal rights activists of all stripes.
it may not have been the UCLA employees themselves, but a subcontractor hired by UCLA charged with providing animals for research.
what I could see as a likely scenario is that said subcontractor more than likely did not steal the animals from backyards but probably "rescued" the animals from shelters after they were found stray and had not been claimed by their owners yet....... do you see how complicated the world can be?
Roadblock responding to a comment by imachynna
07.8.09 - 4:35 pm
When people use PETA AND Wikipedia as references, then I get REALLY worried. I didn't see a single incriminating thing in the National Geographic article . . . maybe a few whack jobs saying things in an effort to make a name for themselves, but nothing incriminating.
As far as elephants being "pulled from the wild", this is more PETA BS. Those elephants are born in captivity. A few years ago I even saw animal rights activists handing out flyers that said, among other things, the elephants were pulled from their mothers in Africa. That was especially laughable since the elephants are Asian; they look REALLY different from African elephants so anyone with even rudimentary elephant knowledge can easily tell the difference.
In response to the idea of them performing unnatural tricks that humiliate them . . . do the elephants feel embarassed? Extremely doubtful. (Have you asked them?) Saying the tricks are degrading and unnatural is anthropomorphism. (And it's also reflective of a lack of knowledge about modern animal training; trainers cue animals to do behaviors, not tricks). Elephants, being extremely intelligent, need mental stimulation. There are fewer better ways to mentally stimulate an animal than training it. I used to care for an elephant who got virtually no training by her trainer and it broke my heart. The happiest elephants I know are the ones who have good trainers, get "out" often (for performances etc.), and are constantly in training. Personally, I'd much rather be a performing elephant than one in a zoo.
"do the elephants feel embarassed? Extremely doubtful. (Have you asked them?)
Saying the tricks are degrading and unnatural is anthropomorphism."
... have YOU asked them if they like it? my guess is that having to use a bull hook or prod them with food rewards in the process would indicate the answer is no - they DON'T like it.
anthropomorphism means attributing human characteristics to animal... i think it's obvious that pain and happiness are emotions felt by humans and all creatures.... but that's not really the point... the point is that we humans don't need animals doing tricks (or trained behaviousrs) to have fulfilling lives as entertained beings.... we've got plenty of people willing to be animals that can entertain us!
actually does any one feel for little kids who are "trained" at an early age to entertain us? LOL I always feel for kids who's parents seem to force them into a life of entertainment.... I imagine the same indignity for animals....
Roadblock responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.8.09 - 4:54 pm
Tell me what news organization you respect, and I'll produce a story they write up of animals being abused by the Ringling Brothers.
In regards to the National Geographic article, it reads in part....
"The release of elephants from traveling shows is critical," Derby said. "They really don't have the opportunity in a circus community for any kind of a good quality of life."
In the wild, elephants migrate over long distances and live in highly intelligent and well-structured social groups. But in circuses, Derby said, they don't have much opportunity to bond with other elephants. And if they do, those relationships are often severed when one is traded or sold.
The controversy surrounding circus elephants and their treatment may be dying a natural death—not because of city bans or a truce between activists and circuses, but because the captive elephant population in North America's zoos and circuses is not reproducing fast enough to sustain itself.
Whereas there are an estimated 300 elephants currently in captivity in North American zoos and circuses, one study predicts that in 50 years only 17 elephants will be left, and those will be too old to breed.
user1 again....
As far as animals being pulled from the wild, not where that comes from. Who here said that? Everything I'm reading in regards to charges against Ringling Brothers is that they have been stalling this trial against them for well over 9 years now. Looks like it's finally starting though. The lawsuit alleges that a number of Ringling Bros.’ routine handling practices violate the Endangered Species Act, including the striking of elephants with sharp instruments, called bullhooks, for control and "discipline," and the constant chaining and confinement of the elephants for most of the day and night, sometimes for days at a time when they are transported between circus venues in dark and cramped rail cars. Life at Ringling Bros. is a source of unyielding misery for the elephants, who in the wild may walk dozens of miles a day, and organize their social lives in close-knit matriarchal family groups.
These animals belong in the wild. Not in some circus for our pleasure. Do you not agree to this? Yeah sure an elephant is happier in a circus than a zoo, but that still doesn't make it right.
User1 responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.8.09 - 5:30 pm
@ team creanberry: you lost me at "animal rights activists are pretty irrational people"
sure PETA has it's flaws. but i am grateful that someone is out there doing the research and making public the allegations. i applaud them for every designer they get to stop selling fur, and every meat-eater they turn into a vegetarian.
yes, i believe animals have rights. i don't care where the elephant came from. it should not be traveling by truck or train around the country to perform. if you asked it, and gave it a choice, i wholeheartedly believe the elephant would choose freedom over captivity.
"In the late 90s, PETA had some thing going where they would 'rescue' 'unloved' pets... from their owners. The only sign of abuse used to determine this? Whether or not the animal was outside. They would throw the animal's collar on the front porch/back of the gate as a sign that it was their work. One time when we let my cat out into the yard, we found her collar, opened, in the driveway. That type of collar is all but impossible to open without intent by a human being."
that story is ridiculous danya. no, i do not believe your cat took it's collar off and tossed it back over the fence as it headed out to explore the new world. but, i highly doubt that PETA was responsible for taking anyone's cat (or dog) simply for leaving them out. come on. there are a lot of bad people in the world. perhaps your mom was trying to protect you from an uglier truth.
kurtz responding to a comment by danya
07.8.09 - 5:47 pm
Again, my JOB is animal welfare, it's a subject I'm highly passionate about, and I hate seeing animals suffering. My job is to eliminate it. But few things frustrate me more than the misinformation and flat-out lies that circulate about the animal industry. I've been on both sides; 10 years ago I was an overzealous vegan with strong animal rights leanings. I began to get educated (by having been a part of the animal industry for awhile) and realized that animal rights activists routinely either take facts and completely twist them, or make things up entirely. Now I've learned to be skeptical of everything I see or hear, from either side of the fight, and make my moral decide what is right or wrong based on experiencing things for myself, rather than believing what those what others say (especially when "others" are a militant animal rights organization, or those financially invested in animals). So, on a daily basis, I have quite literally gotten my hands dirty in exploring these animal issues. I know about animals in food production, animals in entertainment, animals in zoos, animals in rescues/sanctuaries, and animals in research from a FIRST-HAND basis. And I'm an open book in terms of what I think is right and wrong.
>>... have YOU asked them if they like it?
Well, I'm a lot closer to knowing what they think than you are, probably. I'm doubting that anyone else posting on this issue has even been within 50 feet of a working elephant. Ever even held a bullhook? Do you know what each end is used for? Do you know why you use it? Do you know what Ringling Bros. trainers' stance on it is? Have you ever met an elephant trainer? (That's easy; if you don't join the protest outside the circus you can go and meet the trainers and before the show and talk to them about the animals' care. Seriously. They do meet-and-greets. Ask them all the tough questions you want.) Do you know what motivates elephants in training? Really, do YOU know how to tell if an elephant is happy or not? Because I do.
>>my guess is that having to use a bull hook or prod them with food rewards in the process would indicate the answer is no - they DON'T like it.
Food isn't used with elephants the same way with free-contact elephants as it is with some other animals. Honestly, you're proving that you don't know what you're talking about (or, as you said yourself, "guessing" about).
>>anthropomorphism means attributing human characteristics to animal..
You don't need to define it for me. I believe that animals lead lives that are every bit as emotionally rich as ours. Anthropomorphism isn't the perfect world, but it comes the closest to what I mean, which is that saying the animals are humiliated is assuming that because YOU would be humiliated, the animal is too. I'm not denying that elephants have emotions, I'm just saying they don't have YOUR emotions. You have to accept them as elephants and look at their needs and what motivates them.
>>the point is that we humans don't need animals doing tricks (or trained behaviousrs) to have fulfilling lives as entertained beings.... we've got plenty of people willing to be animals that can entertain us!
Well, sure, we don't need it, but just because we don't need it doesn't make it wrong. The ethics of animals in captivity in the first place is a whole other can of worms, so I'll save it for now, except to say that I believe having animals as a part of our lives.
One last thing - don't you all wonder why animal rights activists target big cats, elephants, primates, and marine mammals? It's not because these animals suffer the most, it's because people LIKE them the most. It pulls on people's heartstrings more to hear of a tiger suffering than an octopus suffering (and octopuses are really effin' smart). Animal rights activists know and exploit this tendency. In my specific line of work, people are always surprised to find that horses usually suffer the most. But of course the animal rights activists would rather get you hooked into the cause and get your dollars than address the issues that need the most attention, so of course everyone overlooks the performing pigs, camels, and dogs in the circus even though they're being exposed to all the same things that the elephants are.
Well, why does the fact that it's "unnatural" make it ethically wrong? Does the elephant know that it's not "natural"? (And do you have animals in any capacity in your life? Because I'm willing to bet there are tons of "unnatural" things about their lives.) As I said before, I'd much rather be a trained elephant being mentally stimulated and physically exercised every day than an elephant in a zoo that is exhibiting "natural" behaviors all day long - but bored to tears. And for what it's worth, much of what you might see as unnatural behaviors really are natural behaviors, or closely based on natural behaviors, but you wouldn't know what elephants actually do in nature, would you?
If the circus wasn't so damn expensive, I'd definitely go this year (I'm still thinking about it despite the cost). I think it's thrilling to see the elephants work, and to watch their trainers work, to think about the training process involved with each behavior, and appreciate the elephants (and of course, all the other animals). One thing that's striking to many people about trained elephants is how quick, agile, and athletic they really are. They're not the slow, lumbering creatures everyone thinks they are.
"One last thing - don't you all wonder why animal rights activists target big cats, elephants, primates, and marine mammals? It's not because these animals suffer the most, it's because people LIKE them the most. It pulls on people's heartstrings more to hear of a tiger suffering than an octopus suffering (and octopuses are really effin' smart). Animal rights activists know and exploit this tendency. In my specific line of work, people are always surprised to find that horses usually suffer the most. But of course the animal rights activists would rather get you hooked into the cause and get your dollars than address the issues that need the most attention, so of course everyone overlooks the performing pigs, camels, and dogs in the circus even though they're being exposed to all the same things that the elephants are."
no activist is overlooking the other performing animals.
were you trying to be ironic by stating that animal rights activists are using animals in an exploitative manner?
look at the motive on both sides. ultimately both ringling brothers and PETA want your money. but i believe PETA's intentions are to take your money and help animals. i do not believe the same can be said for ringling brothers.
again, PETA has it's flaws. but show me another organization with the strength and far-reaching capabilities of PETA. more power to em!
kurtz responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.8.09 - 7:25 pm
Nah, I got my education through hands-on experience.
If I were you, I wouldn't be so proud to identify myself with an organization that is widely recognized as a joke, spends its time getting its name into the headlines by attempting to re-name fish "sea kittens," worrying about the fly that Obama killed, promotes violence, downplays human suffering by comparing animal suffering to the Holocaust and slavery, and creates entire campaigns designed to shock and horrify young schoolchildren, and has caused animal suffering for their campaigns against animal suffering.
I've never heard of PETA doing one goddamned positive thing for an animal. They create outrageous campaigns to get their name in the headlines, and that's IT.
I watched the entire video. something I get the feeling that TC wouldnt do for the vids that kurtz posted... the points they make I don't find very shocking - Penn and Teller and other PETA detractors would have you think that the fact that PETA puts animals to sleep is shocking. it's true, sometimes the only humane thing to do is to put the animal to sleep. PETA probably deals with some of the worst cases of animal abuse in which the animals are in so much pain and have no chance of recovery. I'm not shocked....
there's also a lot of hearsay and taking statements out of context.... example, that progress in medicine is dependant on animal research and that without it there is no progress.... while it's true that animal research has led to cures... it's not true that without it there would be no progress. in fact, the term "progress" is subjective.... is viagra progress? are 90% of the pharmaceuticals being pushed on the public progress? In my opinion no. what about animal research for things like hair care products? sheesh... just put some olive oil in your hair and call it a day vain people....
Roadblock responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.8.09 - 8:26 pm
Why do you think having animals in our circus ethically right? Simply for our crass enjoyment? WTF? Where do you get off thinking this is OK? And for the record I don't have any pets. You even question if the animal knows they are living in a natural setting or not while in a circus. How do you know different? I would want to error on the side of caution and have the animal living in it's natural setting, than living in a f**king circus! AND living in a circus maybe a step up from the zoo, but who's defending that the zoo is doing right? That seems to be your biggest defense here, but guess what? I object to both treatments!
Even raising up an elephant up in captivity would not be acceptable. So don't even bother going there. You don't erase thousands of years of genetic programing in one generation. And you're a complete idiot in denial if you think you can.
User1 responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.8.09 - 9:36 pm
>Why do you think having animals in our circus ethically right?
I didn't say that it was ethically right, but I did say it's not ethically wrong. I just don't see how a circus, by its basic definition, can be considered evil. And of course there absolutely is abuse in some circuses, but that doesn't make it OK to condemn them all. Ringling Bros. would be the least of my concerns, circus-wise, but it's an easy target because it's the biggest and best-known.
>And for the record I don't have any pets.
Just because you don't own pets doesn't mean animals aren't involved in your life. Even the most hardcore uber-vegan knows that animal products aren't entirely avoidable. So, yes, you too use animals.
>You even question if the animal knows they are living in a natural setting or not while i>n a circus. How do you know different?
Because they're animals. If you want to get into "How do you know different" questions, we can debate the existance of leprechauns and unicorns.
>I would want to error on the side of caution and have the animal living in it's natural >setting, than living in a f**king circus!
So you're an animal liberationist? You can wave goodbye to the ark of species we have in zoos that are extinct or becoming extinct in the wild.
> but who's defending that the zoo is doing right?
Me. When was your last visit to a zoo? When was the last time you worked in one?
>Even raising up an elephant up in captivity would not be acceptable.
So you don't mind that there really isn't a "wild" for a lot of these animals to be in anymore, and without elephants in captivity we could lose them altogether?
>You don't erase thousands of years of genetic programing in one generation.
Uh, Asian elephants are a semi-domesticated species. Which means they've been kept in captivity and used by people for many generations.
- Since 1993, Ringling Bros. has been cited for more than one hundred deficiencies in animal care during inspections conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
- Ringling Bros. has consistently opposed legislation and regulations to improve the conditions of animals forced to perform. For example, Ringling Bros. opposed legislation to limit the time an elephant may be confined in chains in a 24-hour period.
- USDA affidavits (available from IDA) reveal that Ringling Brothers is responsible for the death of a baby elephant named Benjamin who drowned under questionable circumstances in 1999 and that a Ringling employee repeatedly asked if the USDA can call before they come for inspections and even tried to stop government officials from taking pictures!
Elephants are such amazing creatures...There is still so much people are learning about there complex social structures. Sad that some kids only get to see them as Travelling entertainment spectacles. Makes me so upset when I see the videos of them turning on their trainers... not because of death or injury to the trainers...but beCause I know it ends with the elephant getting killed.
>> Since 1993, Ringling Bros. has been cited for more than one hundred deficiencies >>in animal care during inspections conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture >>(USDA).
I can tell just by the way these facts are written that they came from PETA. I've already made my thoughts on PETA clear, but it's important to recognize that there's a hell of a lot more behind each of these "facts" than Average Joe realizes. First of all, Ringling Bros has several different circuses traveling around the country, so that's a lot of animals. USDA inspectors show up unnanounced at least once a year, and it's virtually impossible for any animal facility, even the best, to pass an inspection with no violations (if you do, it's only because your inspector was in a good mood). No pet owner could ever pass the inspections, no matter how well cared for little Fluffy is. I've watched one facility get cited for having medication that was a day over its expiration date. I've seen another facility get cited for standing water in an animal enclosure because there were puddles in it, IN THE MIDDLE OF A DOWNPOUR! (The puddles dried up a couple hours after the inspector left.) Of course, the inspectors also make corrections on very important things for the animals' well-being and safety, but given the number of facilities Ringling has, and the way these inspections work, I don't think that number of citations an issue.
>Ringling Bros. has consistently opposed legislation and regulations to improve the >conditions of animals forced to perform. For example, Ringling Bros. opposed >legislation to limit the time an elephant may be confined in chains in a 24-hour period.
Probably because the legislation and regulations were introduced by animal rights activists, and weren't realistic or beneficial to the animals. I'd like to know what the legislation to limit the time that elephants are chained was all about . . . I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to prevent elephants from being chained at all. People don't think much about seeing a horse tied to a hitching post, but think it's cruel to see an elephant chained (again, it's an emotional thing. Chains must = evil). It's usually done overnight or while traveling, while the elephants are unattended. They still have room to move around and do their thing, and believe me, it's for their safety.
>USDA affidavits (available from IDA) reveal that Ringling Brothers is responsible for >the death of a baby elephant named Benjamin who drowned under questionable >circumstances in 1999
Have you heard Ringling's side of the story on this?
==============================================
I'm already very, very bored with this thread. It's not like I haven't heard the same arguments from animal rights activists hundreds of times. Animal rights activists tend to have a lot more anger and passion than brains, and I say that having been an anti-circus, anti-zoo, anti-research vegan. I know they tend to approach all animal issues with open mouths and closed minds, because I used to be that person too. But if anyone really wants to talk about this, feel free to approach me on one of the rides. I'm an open book. (And I promise I'm nice, too. I can argue with you all day long and still think you're a cool person . . . as long as you don't like PETA :) )
Furthermore, I strongly encourage everyone to go and get involved with various animal facilities on some level before forming an opinion. I was vegan and anti-circus when I volunteered for Ringling Bros. Boy, did I learn a lot. I don't think volunteering with them is an opportunity available to most people, but you can go and talk to the trainers before the circus and ask them anything you want (and see the animals' living conditions, too). Volunteer at a zoo, or at least talk to keepers at the zoo. If you don't approach these people in a hostile manner, a lot of times they're surprisingly candid about aspects of their animals' care that they do and don't like. And it's always very important to realize that there are good zoos (we have one of the best zoos in the world in San Diego) and shitty roadside zoos. There are good circuses, and circuses that I wish would disappear. It's like that with anything involving animals. But on the whole, the animal industry has improved by leaps and bounds in the last few decades and it's getting better all the time (OK, except the food industry, which has only gotten more industrialized, but it IS possible to find small, humane food producers). Just take anything you hear with a grain of salt, and get as involved as you can with zoos, circuses, research facilities, or anythiing involving animals BEFORE you decide they're evil.
i wonder if animal rights activists were responsible for any of the improvements made in the 'animal industry'.
i am bored too. i won't change your mind, and you won't change mind. i will only check in to respond to others' postings.
both of us come from a position of speculation and conjecture. neither of us is an elephant. but the difference between you and me is: i am always going to err on the elephant's side as far as safety and welfare are concerned.
kurtz responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.9.09 - 9:07 am
"and it's virtually impossible for any animal facility, even the best, to pass an inspection with no violations (if you do, it's only because your inspector was in a good mood)."
that pretty much says it all right there.... no further comment needed
"Probably because the legislation and regulations were introduced by animal rights activists, and weren't realistic or beneficial to the animals."
ha. who else but animal rights activits would introduce a bill for..... drum roll...... animal rights haha
"I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to prevent elephants from being chained at all. People don't think much about seeing a horse tied to a hitching post, but think it's cruel to see an elephant chained (again, it's an emotional thing. Chains must = evil)."
yup.
EDIT: and yeah sure, you can talk to trainers all day and they will sugar coat everything and show the public that these magnificant beasts love to be in chains and perform under the duress of an electric prod or bullhook. just like George Bush and his possee of war criminals would tell wonderful tales of freedom for the Iraqis while simultaneously killing hundreds of thousands of their people (and like circus advocates I believe that Bush truly believes his treatment of Iraqis were for their own good).... but the dirty reality is always going to leak out... anyone going to the Circus consider this video... the ending is horribly bittersweet... the elephants get their revenge maiming selfish and ignorant spectators and killing fucking carnies left and right before being killed themselves in their mad bid for freedom...
finally, my point is not that animals cant live with humans or be cared for by them or that it's impossible for animals to have happy lives under the care of a human - I think we all can see and feel the happiness shared by animals that are truly loved by their owners as companions (as opposed to money production robots). the point I'm making is that animals shouldnt be forced to perform "tricks" for the entertainment of humans. it's selfish. and all you are arguing about is that circuses (most of the time) care for their animals. yet you also acknowledge that circuses are less than perfect. PETA argues that circuses are FAR LESS than perfect... you can only counter that the line is closer to humane... the truth is somewhere in between and that's tragic. we humans dont NEED to see animals perform tricks. we can find other forms of entertainment. seeing animals perform tricks is not a vital part of life and the fact is both you and PETA agree that violations to the animals in Circus culture exist no matter what. so why not err on the side of humane treatment and just do away with circuses that feature animals all together.
further more I'm arguing that circus culture teaches children that animals are simplistic anthropomorphic forms of entertainment rather than learning that they have unique and natural social structure and have complex emotions which studies are proving more and more....
PETA has it's extremists, just like Circus trainers have their extremists - both as shown by many many videos on the net - so to go back and forth with tit for tat about it is irrelevant at this point. the question has become once again, do we need animals to perform tricks for our entertainment? we both agree that the answer is no. so there you have it. end of argument.
Roadblock responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.9.09 - 9:51 am
it's soooo hard to watch. but i think it's important to see these things. like you said, it renews your conviction. with that we hopefully can incite others to make a change.
so, when is the protest ringling brothers ride?
kurtz responding to a comment by User1
07.9.09 - 11:44 am
"The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' "
Over 40 percent of the group's 2005 expenditure was paid to Rick Berman's PR company, Berman & Co. for "management services. [1] As part of its operations CCF runs a series of attack websites, including "consumerfreedom.com, activistcash.com, cspiscam.com, animal-scam.com, fishscam.com, obesitymyths.com, physiciansscam.com [and] PetaKillsAnimals.com. [2] "
and, from wiki:
"Initial funding for the original Guest Choice Network organization came from Philip Morris, with the initial donation of $600,000 followed by a $300,000 donation the following year. Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington wrote in a 1996 internal company memorandum: "As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now." [26] By December, 1996, supporters included Alliance Gaming (slot machines), Anheuser-Busch (beer), Bruss Company (steaks and chops), Cargill Processed Meat Products, Davidoff (cigars), Harrah's (casinos), Overhill Farms (frozen foods), Philip Morris, and Standard Meat Company (steaks). The group's advisory panel comprised representatives from most of these companies, plus further representatives from the restaurant industry, including former Senator George McGovern, and Carl Vogt of law firm Fulbright & Jaworski.[27]"
kurtz responding to a comment by B-b-brian
07.9.09 - 12:02 pm
I'm not saying you're wrong but you only attacked one specific source, not the information. I can list numerous other sources including PETA. Then again, PETA won't be as open as this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
PETA kills pets. They really do. Back to the original post, elephants are really cool.
Well is having animal in a circus and zoos ethically right? I'm talking about all circuses and zoos. Why have these for our crass desire for entertainment? Are we really that starved for entertainment that we need it? And I'm not calling circuses evil, just the ones that employ animals for our entertainment.
Just because you don't own pets doesn't mean animals aren't involved in your life. Even the most hardcore uber-vegan knows that animal products aren't entirely avoidable. So, yes, you too use animals.
What's the point here? I use animal products therefore having elephants and the problems associated with it is a OK for our entertainment?
You maintain that the animal doesn't know it's living in a natural setting or not. How do you know? You're trying to tell me the animal doesn't sense that it's walking and standing on concrete all day, and is not affected by this? Or that it's chained up and this doesn't affect them? Or they don't have a chance to roam, much less migrate, and they don't miss a thing? How do you know all this? Your answer so far has been, "Because they're animals." WTF??????
Your argument about having lack of experience doesn't qualify me to make a judgment doesn't hold water either. Do you have to kill someone to be against capital punishment? I'm incapable of looking at the evidence and making a judgment cause I've never been to a circus???????
So you don't mind that there really isn't a "wild" for a lot of these animals to be in anymore, and without elephants in captivity we could lose them altogether?
Bullshit!!! National Geographic in the link I posted above states that populations in captivity are declining. It gets replenished through capture of elephants in the wild. Circuses and zoos are more of a problem than a solution to increasing the population.
Uh, Asian elephants are a semi-domesticated species. Which means they've been kept in captivity and used by people for many generations.
Maybe you'd like to take a look and compare an elephant in captivity here in the states and in Asia. You'll find that their surroundings in Asia resembles their surroundings far more than that here in the states.
Furthermore, where in nature do these animals stand on their heads? Where in nature do they stand on the shoulders of the elephant in front of them in a row? Where in nature do they stand on their front legs? Where in nature do they stand on a three foot diameter stand? These animals are deprived of their ability to be creatures in the wild. They are not free to roam, they are not free to migrate, they are not free to socialize, they are not free to bathe in the river, they are basically not free to be themselves. Nothing in the circus or zoos are natural for them. You're OK with that?
User1 responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.9.09 - 12:22 pm
again, it's not very shocking that PETA would put animals out of misery.... they come across hopeless cases of animal suffering all the time and the grim reality is that sometimes an abused animal is better off dead. is that really shocking to you?
Roadblock responding to a comment by B-b-brian
07.9.09 - 12:23 pm
Sorry, I find PETA an acceptable organization. OK even I laughed when I heard about the memo sent out about the fly Obama took out, but all and all, PETA is a very valuable resource. Sure some of their position are extreme and questionable, but a hell of alot of stuff they do is right on. And any organization that's this successful is going to be a target. That goes for ALF too.
User1 responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.9.09 - 12:28 pm
the question has become once again, do we need animals to perform tricks for our entertainment? we both agree that the answer is no. so there you have it. end of argument.
He's never agreed that that's the case. His argument is that some circuses and zoos are acceptable. At least that's what I read.
User1 responding to a comment by Roadblock
07.9.09 - 12:30 pm
As said before, I am done arguing the issues (despite seeing some things I really, REALLY wanted to correct), but I'm responding to let you know that I'm a female. There are two of us that use this screen name (we're a couple that almost always rides a tandem on the rides), and I usually sign my name to clear up any gender confusion but I flaked this time.
Seriously, though, feel free to find me on a ride and talk about this, if you want. I spend 40-80 hours a week out in the field (not in an air-conditioned office) directly working to improve safety and welfare for animals - which is a hell of a lot more than your average PETA-loving vegan can say. I take animal welfare very seriously and I'm more than happy to explain why I think things are OK or not OK. Just not online, because arguing online gets really stupid after awhile.
Hey, I actually read some of this thread. Game, set, and match to Team Creanberry way before I even stepped in. I've also worked with an elephant, very briefly, and she was a super happy and awesome-to-be-around elephant. Guys, elephants are cool. Go out of your way to meet them.
B-b-brian responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.9.09 - 2:02 pm
I'm done arguing here too. Despite wanting to correct some glaring errors made. I take animal rights very seriously too, but it's like beating yourself up against the wall. Why people need to be so selfish and greedy is beyond me.
User1 responding to a comment by Team Creanberry
07.9.09 - 2:06 pm
One minor point, User1: I said I take animal welfare seriously, and you said you also take animal rights seriously. Welfare and rights are two very different philosophies. Animal rights usually means things like animal liberation, and not using animals in any way, shape, or form (of course, definitions for it vary as they do for the word "vegetarian", but in general, it means veganism and an ideal in which there are no captive animals).
I support animal welfare, which basically means that I WANT animals in our lives. I don't think we'll ever see a world where animals are not in captivity, trained for various jobs, used for food, clothing, and other materials, and kept in our homes. I believe that all of these uses of animals CAN be ethical if done right, and so rather than attempt to eliminate the millions of ways in which we include animals in our lives, I want (and work) to see them all done humanely.
Not arguing a point, just specifying the difference between animal rights and animal welfare.
You knooowww, I love animals a lot, but I don't agree that "forcing them to do tricks" is cruel or that they can fathom something like "dignity" (And therefore feel the loss of it).
We humans like to anthropomorphize and sympathize with animals more than other human beings. A dog is neither noble nor majestic...they lick their own balls, for fuck's sake. All animals care about is food, shitting, and fucking.
As for performing tricks, you ever think that some animals might find learning and obeying orders to be stimulating? Social animals enjoy leadership.
Ringling Brothers might be cruel to their animals, to which I'd object, but if they aren't, there's nothing wrong with an animal performing. The thing that infuriates me about PETA is the luxury that it takes in "defending animals" when they are other people suffering more in the world. My Latin teacher in high school, who was a WWII vet, said he didn't understand this obsession with "animal rights" because in his time, people had seen human catastrophes.
Certainly I believe animals ought to be protected and I believe that a person who engages in cruelty toward animals is someone to be worried about. But I feel like the real cruelty is people who get these goddamn puppymill dogs and never discipline, train, or socialize them, so they end up with neurotic aggressive UNHAPPY animals that bark and snap while the owner just laughs it off.
i'm a ASPCA Member, and i think that animals abuse is bad. but we cant save them all. but we could save the one we could get our hand on..... i do agree that having lab animals are bad.... but think about that your special one need an origin, and the only origin is from an animal, would you let your special one die?
after watching that video that was clearly undercover and obviously candid, how can you even begin to defend the circus and their treatment of animals. TC, you say that you have an open mind and are an open book, but seriously, it just sounds like you are standing on a pedestal of experience that we all don't have. and quite frankly, maybe you've just had too much Ringling Kool-Aide to drink.
but again, after seeing videos like that with the "trainer" using such expletives to describe forcing subservience, how can you even begin to defend any organization that remotely relates to it.
ok, fine. there may be a few circuses that treat their animals well, let them roam free in a pasture, give them rest, and don't use cattle prods to force break their natural will for freedom, but seriously, i would be willing to bet they are few and far between.
abuse of animals is wrong. ETHICALLY. MORALLY. i love my cats. i pet them, feed them, and they love me. they purr. i don't ask them, they tell me they like how i treat them by emoting love and the desire to come around for more love.
it's just a dirty fucking ironic business.... we dont need it in our lives.
I was thinking of the irony the other day of Team Creanberry telling me that by recognizing that animals have emotions and dignity means that I am commiting the mistake of treating them as anthropomorphic... yet the very act of forcing animals to do human-like behaviours - an elephant sitting on a chair, a tiger balancing on a stool a horse pretending to answer math questions and other tricks of the circus- IS anthropomorphic...
Signed the petition. Hopefully something will happen with the lawsuit in SF.
I was trying to find the video earlier in this thread on the baby elephant that drowned under Ringling Brothers care . I never could find it till now. The baby's name was Benjamin. The video is pretty freaking sad.
ahhh ahahahaha. asshole. (sarcasm) you beat me to it. i just read this today and was gonna post this. i have it on my myspace. had it for years. lol. good lookin.
Just say yes to elephants living a free life. I spent time here volunteering while in Chiang Mai for classes http://www.elephantnaturepark.org/ Search youtube for elephant nature park chiang mail and see what its like to visit an elephants world. No performing, no riding elephants...these are mainly rescued elephants.
Was that bhat or us$? It isn't cheap but they feed you (all vegetarian Thai--home cooked DELISH) and you work with the elephants--feeding, washing, walking, sometimes over nights in the jungle...amazing...you'll never look at an animal the same after. And FWIW...no one rides an elephant except its personal handler who also sleeps with the elephants. Riding elephants in those metal framed chairs is extremely cruel. Did you know the bottom of an elephants foot is like your ear drum...they FEEL every vibration in a city area...how traumatic and stressful...ugh
TheJen responding to a comment by User1
08.1.09 - 9:28 pm
That's US dollars. I've seen in documentaries that they can communicate long distances via vibrations with their feet. Never considered that they would be traumatized in the city. I would think that always walking on asphalt or cement can't be that natural or comfortable.
User1 responding to a comment by TheJen
08.1.09 - 9:34 pm
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
my wheat paste design
Also I was making the point that they are doing unnatural things for our amusement. How can that be right CT?
are you saying we should get our hands on an elephant? i like this idea. if only we had an elephant to cork intersections....we can call him 'stampy'!
