I was channel surfing last night and came across a bad US show called: ‘When pets go bad’. The bit that got me crying was filmed on hidden cameras, showing elephants being treated so badly by their trainers - apparently they can reach the end of their ability to put up with it, then lose it and go on a rampage.
So why do we still do this to wild animals? My mother never took us to the circus because she hated what they did with animals - and now I have the same values
(that, and I don’t understand why clowns are funny).
I know some circuses won’t use animals anymore.
I think it is teaching the masses the wrong idea about animals anyway; that they are here for our pleasure alone. Pets (deomesticated animals) may well be so, but not wild animals.
People who own exotic pets help perpetuate this way of thinking.
How can we preserve animals in the wild, if people don’t think they belong there?
Domesticated animals didn’t start that way–were the people who first started using them acting immorally when they did so?
Were those animals threatened in the wild?
What were their training methods?
Our stone-age ancestors noticed that a certain species of wolf was nearing extinction, and benvolently cared for the remaing specimens. Given the prevalence of stone training crates and crude leather Martingale collars at archeological dig sites, once can only assume that they used modern methods based entirely on positive reinforcement.
Not exactly cruel methods.
What are you argueing here? That it’s okay to encourage people to treat animals badly, have pet Orangutans or cuddle koalas?
Conversely, do you think that we should adopt a system of morals identical to that of our forebears? Or do you believe in the human capacity for moral development, the notion that just because those who went before believed something was right does not mean that we must adopt their moral worldview?
Yes, that’s exactly the point I was making.
Now if you’ll excuse me, one of my servants was insolent to me this morning and I’m off to observe his beating.
I believe that animals and people can have a good working relationship. Animals who are well treated and trained with kindness can have pretty happy lives.
In the past, animals were trained with cruel methods, but I think on a whole, our conciousness level has been raised, and training methods have evolved. Animals which are well treated are easier to work with and tend to live longer, which makes plain economic sense.
I don’t have any problem with circuses or trained animals in general-- as long as they are treated well. From what I have heard, that is not always the case with animal shows, and some aquariums, so I don’t tend to patronize them.
I remember seeing a documentary some time back about a guy in India who worked with an elephant who carried logs. The man and elephant were very affectionate, and he talked about all of the elaborate care that he gave the animal, not only because he loved it, but because the elephant was his livelihood. Do I think he’s wrong for working the elephant? No. From what I saw, the elephant seemed pretty happy and healthy. Its whole family worked as log carriers, and it would be able to breed later. It ate well and got lots of baths. What more could an elephant want?
I don’t have any problem, either with, exotic pets (man, I’d love to have a koala!) as long as the owner understands those creatures and isn’t just getting it for the cuteness factor. The average person isn’t equipped to deal with them. (Which is why I don’t have a koala-- I heard the little suckers can be mean.)
Exotic pets are just wrong - we are teaching people to ignore deforrestation and loss of habitat etc. It’s all okay because we can raise animals in our homes??
Not to mention the problems with illegal animal trade, killing mother apes so their babies can be sold at markets to rich foreigners etc etc.
People can’t even treat dogs and cats well enough, let alone exotic pets that need more specialised care.
Well, if it wasn’t, then why is the morality (or otherwise) of what people did thousands of years ago pertinent to the question posed by the OP?
Because if the OP thought that their actions were moral it would lead to an interesting discussion.
Note that her answer didn’t dismiss the question as irrelevant–on the contrary, she asked questions to try and discern if it was moral. So perhaps she does think it’s relevant for some reason?
How does one tell if an elephant is “pretty happy”? :dubious:
Elephants are pretty expressive, actually. An unhappy elephant droops, shuffles aimlessly, and, well, looks sad. Just compare images of elephants captive in bad surroundings to elephants who playfully greet one another in the wild. There’s a big difference.
The elephant I saw on the show was playfully caressing his owner with his trunk, had bright eyes and perky ears. He came eagerly when his owner called to him. He looked much like one of those elephants in the wild who greeted a cousin in another herd.
Actually I hadn’t thought as far back as when humans first domesticated animals, especially not as to the methods employed to do this.
On the show that sparked my initial OP, there was an elephant who run amok (actually there was more than one) who had been ‘happy’ apparently for 30 years, then snapped.
Perhaps then what you object to isn’t circus animals in general, or even using animals for our own ends (food, shoe leather, etc.) but treating them inhumanely?
Agreed - but also treating non-domesticated animals as domesticated and making them perform for humans. This encourages people to not realise what they are like in the wild and to think that they could have a pet monkey if they wanted one.
I went to a circus when quite young. I didn’t enjoy it at all. Have no desire to go again. Zoos also. Though when I went when young, all the cats were in small cages and looked really mad.
I don’t know about you, but round here we don’t go up to “Bubba” and say we are going to take his dogs from him because we don’t think they look happy.
YMMV
You got documented proof that some one is mistreating an animal, go get them. Same with people hurting people. Hmmmmmm seems most states have those kinds of laws now. Could it be that they are not enforced? Shirley not.
I like zoos, the circus, wild animal ranches, wild life in the wild, eating Bambie and moo cows.
I don’t think we need anymore laws and it is a noble thing to try to educate the masses because that is the ONLY thing that will work in the long run.
Pick your battles carefully, It only takes one misstep to set you back years in what people will abide by.
Never put animals above kids. You’ll lose your audience almost every time.
You got to be sneaky and talk like a lawyer.
Do not start your crusade with “Bubba”.
I for one, think it is disgusting that circuses still are allowed to have animals.
These animals are kept in small cages most of the time which can never be good.
I think it is just ridiculous that this is still legal in the civilised world.
What is the alternative to keeping the animals with the circuses?
Most of these animals have been around humans enough that they no longer have any instinctual fear of humans. As such, especially for predatory species like the great cats, returning them to the wild is completely unreasonable. They’d seek out human habitations, and hunt when food wasn’t provided for them. (The US Forestry Service has a saying about wild bears: “A fed bear is a dead bear.” Because when the bear stops fearing people it becomes a hazard, and has to be put down.) So returning these animals to the wild is not possible.
Wildlife sanctuaries are a wonderful idea, but most are already at capacity. And not a few of them are run by people who don’t have the specialized training they really need to care for exotic animals. Certainly the case of the tiger in Florida this year where it attacked the owner showed some of the differences between various wildlife sanctuaries.
What’s left, then?
Keeping the animals in the circus. Or, putting them to sleep. Destroying them. Killing them. Choose the term you prefer. The end result is the same.
If you want to make restrictions to prevent circuses from getting new animals, that I’d support. But banning animals from circus performances will result in killing the current stock of these animals.
Also, I don’t know the situation or circus you’re talking about, and can’t without more information. Having said that - most of the circuses here in the states are already pretty closely regulated. And even without regulation, I wonder why any animal trainer would abuse an animal with that kind of power available. And representing that kind of financial investment. I don’t doubt it happens, but I do suspect that it’s not quite as common as the documentary you saw suggested.
I’d also like to remind you of a recent flap here in the US with a PETA undercover video taken in a vet’s office. The vet was working with a Dalmatian dog which had a history of snapping at caretakers. During the tape that was released he hit the dog several times. At first there was a firestorm of protest for how could he be that cruel. Then some dog trainers spoke up and pointed to the dog’s body language, showing that each time the vet hit the dog it had been gathering itself to make a lunge. I’m not sure that I’d want him treating my dog - but it wasn’t a case of unprovoked aggression, either.
The point is that it’s very easy to demonize a trainer’s actions without understanding an animal’s body language. Or its responses. Of course the recent attack on Sigfried shows that even skilled trainers can mistake their charges.