Would you go to a Circus if you knew animals were abused? (generations, extremist)

[zenjenn]

Please consider the conditions of the *wild* animals in the circus (lions, tigers, elephants, in particular.)

Would you patron a zoo that housed these large, nondomesticated animals in tiny habitats with no recreated natural environments?

For me, the answer is "no". It is pretty much universally accepted in western society that certain conditions need to be present to humanely keep large wild animals in captivity, but for some reason, people do not automatically extend this value when it comes to circuses. I know for PR reasons the treatment of animals by a big name circus like B&B have likely improved over the years, but the logistics of what needs to be done to transport the animals from town to town and the way these animals must be housed on temporary grounds for the purpose of being in shows, IMO does not adequately meet the needs of large, wild animals.

So, if you think likewise about zoos, please think a second time before attending a circus that uses wild animals. (Domesticated animals, IMO, like horses, dogs, etc, are a different matter. These animals have evolved domestically to tolerate the kind of conditions that are present in a traveling show.)

That said, I am actually kind of annoyed that PETA protests the circus so vocally. PETA is so obnoxious, and even though I think they are right about this one, I fear their presence makes people presume that concerns about the circus are not legitimate.

[Mawoods]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

Please consider the conditions of the *wild* animals in the circus (lions, tigers, elephants, in particular.)

Would you patron a zoo that housed these large, nondomesticated animals in tiny habitats with no recreated natural environments?

For me, the answer is "no". It is pretty much universally accepted in western society that certain conditions need to be present to humanely keep large wild animals in captivity, but for some reason, people do not automatically extend this value when it comes to circuses. I know for PR reasons the treatment of animals by a big name circus like B&B have likely improved over the years, but the logistics of what needs to be done to transport the animals from town to town and the way these animals must be housed on temporary grounds for the purpose of being in shows, IMO does not adequately meet the needs of large, wild animals.

So, if you think likewise about zoos, please think a second time before attending a circus that uses wild animals. (Domesticated animals, IMO, like horses, dogs, etc, are a different matter. These animals have evolved domestically to tolerate the kind of conditions that are present in a traveling show.)

That said, I am actually kind of annoyed that PETA protests the circus so vocally. PETA is so obnoxious, and even though I think they are right about this one, I fear their presence makes people presume that concerns about the circus are not legitimate.

I totally agree. The last time I went to a circus I could hardly stand watching beautiful tigers and elephants being subjected to such stupid tricks. Those wild animals should be given the dignity they deserve. And I don't believe there is humane treatment being given those animals by any circus. For that reason, I don't go anymore.

[dee 42]

www.ringlingbeatsanimals.com

[AuburnAL]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

Please consider the conditions of the *wild* animals in the circus (lions, tigers, elephants, in particular.)

Would you patron a zoo that housed these large, nondomesticated animals in tiny habitats with no recreated natural environments?

For me, the answer is "no". It is pretty much universally accepted in western society that certain conditions need to be present to humanely keep large wild animals in captivity, but for some reason, people do not automatically extend this value when it comes to circuses. I know for PR reasons the treatment of animals by a big name circus like B&B have likely improved over the years, but the logistics of what needs to be done to transport the animals from town to town and the way these animals must be housed on temporary grounds for the purpose of being in shows, IMO does not adequately meet the needs of large, wild animals.

So, if you think likewise about zoos, please think a second time before attending a circus that uses wild animals. (Domesticated animals, IMO, like horses, dogs, etc, are a different matter. These animals have evolved domestically to tolerate the kind of conditions that are present in a traveling show.)

That said, I am actually kind of annoyed that PETA protests the circus so vocally. PETA is so obnoxious, and even though I think they are right about this one, I fear their presence makes people presume that concerns about the circus are not legitimate.

Can you tell us when the naked hippy women will be protesting?

[charlesdickens]

Originally Posted by Mawoods

I totally agree. The last time I went to a circus I could hardly stand watching beautiful tigers and elephants being subjected to such stupid tricks. Those wild animals should be given the dignity they deserve. And I don't believe there is humane treatment being given those animals by any circus. For that reason, I don't go anymore.

Dogs and cats are naturally wild animals too and people seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to imprison them within their homes. A house is far from the natural habitat for a dog or cat. The elephants, tigers, etc. are born into the circus habitation just as domesticated pets and are fed and taken care of in the same manner. When someone starts with these types of objections about the circus I always have to ask what is the difference between them and what is socially accepted as pets. I don't see the difference and have yet to have anyone propose an argument valid enough to be considered legitimate.

Now as for the mistreatment and beating, that is totally unacceptable.

[zenjenn]

Animals born into the circus are *tamed*. There is a difference between a *tamed* animal and a *domesticated* animal.

Dogs and cats are not "naturally wild animals". They are domesticated animals. These animals were bred by our ancestors for generations for certain qualities that made them suitable to live with and among humans. Whether that was right, wrong, or indifferent, the resulting breeds exist and they are not wild animals. Have you ever seen a wild toy poodle or a wild dachshund? Lions and tigers are still wild and predatory - they have not been bred into domesticity.

Also there are the facts of the animal's physical needs, and these very LARGE, high intelligence animals.

This is true of breeds of dogs too and there are certain breeds of pets that should absolutely NOT be adopted by people who cannot adequately provide for the living conditions necessary for the animal to thrive. I would also say it is inappropriate for someone living in Florida to adopt a Malamute and keep it outside in tropical heat all the time, or someone living in a tiny apartment and working all the time to adopt a highly active dog breed that needs to run. There are responsible and irresponsible ways to keep animals, whether domesticated or wild.

I am not an extremist and I don't have problems with animals being kept in captivity for companionship or to be enjoyed by humans, and I don't romanticize life in the wild for animals. BUT, in the 21st century we know better than to keep something like a lion or an elephant in the conditions necessary for a circus show. I'll say it again - many people who saw the same conditions for the same animals at a zoo would correctly think it was a antiquated and inhumane zoo. Furthermore, it is utterly unnecessary to have these animals in the circus. There have been many successful circus acts that showcase amazing human abilities and/or domesticated animals only. Heck, I don't even have a problem with certain wild animals being used in shows as long as their needs are suitably met - like in a permanent exhibit with adequate space, etc. A trailer on the road and a cage propped up at the local fairgrounds just doesn't meet the needs of an animal like a lion or elephant, is all I'm sayin'.

[wls2624]

Well said, zenjenn!

[Mawoods]

Thanks zenjenn for putting into words exactly like I feel !!!! won't let me rep you again.

[charlesdickens]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

Dogs and cats are not "naturally wild animals". They are domesticated animals. These animals were bred by our ancestors for generations for certain qualities that made them suitable to live with and among humans. Whether that was right, wrong, or indifferent, the resulting breeds exist and they are not wild animals. Have you ever seen a wild toy poodle or a wild dachshund? Lions and tigers are still wild and predatory - they have not been bred into domesticity.

All animals are naturally wild animals. At one time, they lived in their natural habitat; wherever that might have been. They are only "domesticated" because people chose to capture and domesticate them.
No, I have never seen a wild dachshund but then of course they are not native to North America so I would not expect to either. I would not expect to see a pure bred dog of any kind living in the wild. I have, however, seen wild dogs of mixed breed (mutts if you will). See them quite often actually and as for cats, there are wild cats living everywhere. You see them out in the country as well as in the city at any given time. Don't believe me, go to the downtown area of your closest city and start watching. There will be cats in dumpsters, running around, they are everywhere and yes those are wild untamed cats. Don't believe they are wild, untamed cats, try to pet one. lol

As for saying they are "domesticated" not "tamed" as I had stated, here is the definition of domestication:

Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to human provision and control

As you can clearly see, domestication and taming mean the same thing. lol
Its always funny how people find it acceptable to hold particular animals in captivity but have such a problem with others that they envision as being "wild." The argument that cats and dogs have been domesticated generations so it is acceptable would carry over to the circus animals as well because they have also been "domesticated" and bred in captivity for generations. The elephants you see in many of these type shows are descendants of others that once performed in the shows.

I completely agree that it is not acceptable to confine animals in habitations which do not fit their needs. In this I include anything from the elephants being confined in small areas, all the way down to those who keep full size bull dogs and lab's inside their home. I'm not an animal lover or nut by any stretch of the imagination, I just find it interesting how some people think it is acceptable to imprison certain animals because they consider them "domesticated." This statement is exactly what I am talking about and I find it completely contradictory to everything you are saying and quite frankly laughable:

Originally Posted by zenjenn

(Domesticated animals, IMO, like horses, dogs, etc, are a different matter. These animals have evolved domestically to tolerate the kind of conditions that are present in a traveling show.)

Please help me understand how it is okay for horses but not for elephants. Horses are also large animals but since they are considered domesticated in Western society, it is acceptable to confine them in small areas (I see people with several horses on 2 acres all the time or even better, locked up in stables.....not acceptable for their native environment). They even lock them up in tiny trailers in the summer time when the heat is unbearable and haul them an hour or two to horse shows or competitions. Now how is that any different from loading an elephant in a train car and hauling it an hour or two to the next city for a circus? lol

[zenjenn]

While in common language, domesticated and tamed are used similarly, there is a difference between an animal removed from the wild and raised to tolerate humans, and animals that have been bred, over *generations*, a sort of micro-evolution if you will, to have certain domesticated characteristics.

Even an abandoned domesticated cat or dog that adapts to living without humans has, due to breeding, domesticated characteristics, and wild animals that adapt to live around humans still have wild characteristics.

Many people share your confusion about this distinction. For example, there are novelty pets that are half-breeds between domesticated cats and and wild cats such as servals, or people who think a half-wolf will make a nice pet. While I am sure there are owners with suitable living arrangements and the right expectations to have these animals, these animals - only HALF wild - do not have the same characteristics are their domesticated counterparts. They are more likely to exhibit aggressive or unpredictable behavior, be destructive, mark profusely, etc.

When our ancestors bred horses, dogs, and cats, they selected breeding stock that had unusual but desirable characteristics to get the companion animals we have today.

Your question about horses, again, these animals have been bred for domestic use. Also, a horse does not need to be confined the way a tiger or lion or even elephant does - as tigers, lions, or even elephants pose a public threat if not extremely confined. Accommodations for horses can be much more common and allow for more freedom, because there is really no concern about a rampaging horse running around attacking people if it gets free.

If you honestly can't understand the difference between animals that have been bred for hundreds and hundreds of years to have dispositions that work well with human and human environments, and large and often predatory animals that haven't been, I'm not sure what else to tell you.