@NZ Jeremy: Believe it or not-one can have a position between two extremes...And sorry to disappoint You, but You seemed to have misinterpreted something; I do not advocate the keeping of wild animals in circuses-but I'm not giving in to a general circus-bashing either. In the past and still today, there hasn't been a clear seperation of zoo and circus animals in several species; offspring of a zoo animal could end in a circus and also vice versa. So quite a few of today's zoo animals come from a line of animals of "poor condition" and still appear to be remarkably healthy. I can even name a healthy ex-circus animal without having to dig deeper in my memory: "Stinky" the male lion at Salzburg Zoo. He's just a normal, lazy male lion with a stupid name.
I don't believe I've misinterpreted anything... You've stated that animals in some circuses are fulfilling more of their natural behaviours by exercising in front of thousands of people and the small cages they are kept in don't greatly affect them adversly... IMO that is advocating...
OK, slowly and easily comprehensible: 1. Did I write that animals in circuses are generally fulfilling more of their natural behaviours? No. What I wrote was that a "good" circus training based on the natural behaviour of the animal can benefit to the health of an animal-and that at least some zoo exhibits are not designed to fulfill said purpose fully if at all. Did I write that small cages don't affect them? No; I said that the situation isn't always better in zoos. Ultimately, I stated that You shouldn't be naive in terms of zoos and narrow-minded in terms of circuses. If You can quote one line in which I advocate pro circuses like in the way You mentioned above, please do so; otherwise I have to guess You DID misinterpret what I wrote. 2. Judging from Your last post, I assume that You criticise animals exercising in front of thousands of people (that's one hell of a circus tent..) in a circus. Ok, that's Your opinion. Yet tell me: Do You consequently also criticise animals exercising in front of thousands of people in a zoo?
Check out my post under the Zoocheck Canada thread. I've written briefly on Chinese zoos and their animal olympics that they have, and it pertains to the information that we've been discussing here. Nothing like having asian black bears forcibly muzzled, strapped with cumbersome gloves, and then forced to "box" each other in tiny rings. If they don't do what they are asked then they are smacked with metal hooks and straps. Unbelievable, and yet nothing that I haven't heard before.
Firstly don't insult my intelligence because I disagree with you... You have great knowledge of zoological institutions around the world, moreover the species and individual animals contained in them... I assume your a native German speaker (from previous posts) so I also find your excellent use of English impressive (that is meant as a compliment), however you are in the "delightful" habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with your "enlightened" posts an ignorant or naive person or that they simply don't understand you... In what way..? I stated that your ruminations about the "benefits" of keeping animals in circuses stuck me as advocating... Don't be presumptuous enough to tell me what my opinions are... You ask me to read your posts more carefully, then extend me the same courtesy..! The point of that sentence was the "natural behaviours" being exercised (because I've heard Elephant regularly stand on their heads and get into Congo lines in the wild)... Animals that exercise in zoos more often than not do so because it is simply they choose to or through BE, unlike circuses... Although I have never out rightly criticised them, I am not a big fan of Seal/Bird shows etc...
@Sun Wukong: you have been clashing a little with Yassa, Patrick, NZ Jeremy and myself on this Zoobeat website, even though you have made many excellent points on various threads. I praised you for your animal knowledge and admitted that you are very well-read, but your staunch defence of your statements makes it seem that you don't like backing down once you've laid out your thoughts. I think that what you have said comes across as a defence of circus animals, even though overall I understand that you dislike circuses and that some of them are terrible in terms of animal husbandry and working conditions. Many zoo fans outright cannot stand the idea of circuses, so maybe you've struck a nerve by saying things that are even remotely supportive of such forms of entertainment. You are analyzing the situation rationally, while many others speak from a more emotional point of view. Performing seals and sealions in zoos can be stimulated in front of crowds, and then carry on swimming or lounging around in their exhibit. Big cats, elephants, bears, etc that perform in circuses have been known to live in puny cages that don't allow for any stimulation apart from the smell of their own feces. I think that NZ Jeremy brings up some strong points in his threads, particularly to filling a tad uncomfortable with trained animal shows in zoos. But without humanizing the animals in question, it appears that there would be much more stimulation and enrichment in zoos rather than circuses.
@NZ Jeremy: 1. Nobody is insulting anybody's intelligence-well, roynie maybe with certain handicapped references...Anyway, I was simply surprised what has been interpreted out of my previous posts to this matter and wanted to clarify once and for all what I wrote. This is btw. also one reason why I don't "back down" from my previous statements, as so far no argument here has convinced me to do so. I usually stand to my statements and am not a shilly-shally kind of person. If anyone wants me to "back down" and change my opinion, he/she should have some really convincing arguments. "Naivety" and "ignorance" were not directed to You personally, but to the zoo fans and pro zoo community in general. Some of the comments I have read here as well as in other zoo forums make me wonder about the starry-eyed attitude torwards zoos and the pigheaded attitude torwards circuses. "White" zoo, "black" circus? That doesn't always work in reality; usually it's all shades of grey... 2. In at least one of my previous posts I stated that "good" circus training (and that's the one I'm referring to) consists of training elements that are derived from the natural behaviour and do not harm the animal; elephants standing on their heads are therefore not included-which should have been clear to everyone right from the start. 3. "Don't be presumptuous enough to tell me what my opinions are..."-Neither should You, by accusing me of advocating pro circuses. And if You can't show me where exactly I wrote what You accused me of, I'm still not convinced that You did not misinterpret what I wrote. Anyway, accusing each other of forceful enlightment or misinterpretation isn't useful on the long run for anyone. 4. And at least one thing You did misinterpret-I'm not a native German speaker... @snowleopard: Clashing? Oh, not at all; I'm just an albino black sheep that doesn't like to follow the herd and wants people to think rationally about a subject from many angles before falling for a deadlocked opinion about it... "(...)even though overall I understand that you dislike circuses and that some of them are terrible in terms of animal husbandry and working conditions. Many zoo fans outright cannot stand the idea of circuses, so maybe you've struck a nerve by saying things that are even remotely supportive of such forms of entertainment. You are analyzing the situation rationally, while many others speak from a more emotional point of view." Exactly-well observed. Nevertheless, I expected from the start that not joining the circus witch-hunt might end in accusing me of being a "circus man"; too bad my expections were met. Yet nevertheless I hope some of what I wrote might have a positive effect-for both "parties"... "Big cats, elephants, bears, etc that perform in circuses have been known to live in puny cages that don't allow for any stimulation apart from the smell of their own feces." Unfortunately, this is also still the case in some zoos-which doesn't justify bad husbandry in circuses, but should make one hestitate before drawing an (artificial) line between zoo and circus animal husbandry; too often, both have very similar flaws (see my previous posts on that matter). This is also true in regard of your last sentence-"there would be much more stimulation and enrichment in zoos rather than circuses", as (if You remember what is written in several of the books we talked about, and) judging from my own zoo experiences, only a slowly growing number of zoos actually contributes said environmental enrichment-and is often lagging "behind" the creativity of certain animals. However, I find it not serving the purpose, i.e. the rational discussion about exotic animal shows in circuses and(!) zoos (btw.: the term "circus" doesn't have to consequently integrate animal shows-see "The New Circus"-Movement), when personal emotional attitudes are pointed out as an argument (" I don't like...") - and that even slightly contradicting opinions are prematurely assumed to be advocating the opinion of the "other" party. I have written what I think about the subject and I'm not willing to repeat it again and again; it probably won't change many gridlocked attitudes, but might give some food for thoughts.
NZ Jeremy: Australia and NSW in particular has some of the toughest laws regarding captive wild animals in the world. WorkCover (body in charge of OH&S issues has investigated and issued an improvemnet order as the circus was not following safe handling procedures at the time. NSW laws are much tougher than those of of any other state ni Australia and what I've seen of New Zealand there to. There are still investigations going on by Workcover NSW Police and I'm sure DPI will have it's own investigations as well.
@ Jarkari: Thank you for that... I was surprised to read about three deaths via one animal... Some of my workmates who investigate Sudden Deaths, Suicides and Homicides hate it when they happen at worksites as OSH makes sure all the i and t's are crossed (which is probably a good thing)... @ Sun: What an excellent, well thought out reply... Just a few things though... Is this truly your opinion..? If so then I MUST have misinterpreted you, however you stated in your last post that you thought your opinions would get a reaction (as being pro-circus) before even starting to post in this thread... Why not make the above statement in your first post..? Also I hate to keep harping on about something so trivial but I feel I wasn't making myself clear. I do not think I was telling you that you did in fact believe you supported circuses but rather your comments and the venom with which gave them meant that maybe you did with out realising it... It was a throwaway comment and I'm quite chagrined that it has generated *wall of texts* but apparently it stuck Snow Leopard in a similar way... That being said your last post has changed my mind... Lions are definitely the exception to the rule... I've seen photo's from Boyd's Zoo which was in Onehunga, Auckland from 1912 - 1916 of lions jammed into cages barely bigger than they are but apparently still breeding quite successfully... Lions don't care as long they can sleep and eat, but animals as intelligent as Elephants and Primates, come on... You seem to not differentiate between Western Zoos and Third world zoos as regards comparing them to circuses..? If this is correct then I must retort... Many of the citizens in Western countries are at a higher level in the Hierarchy of needs: Self esteem... We should strive to keep animals with the utmost respect, but in a country were many are still striving for basic food and shelter it is understandable that worse condition appear... This thread started with an Australia circus and I believe only Western Zoos should be taken into account... Starting statements with "I think" is something you don't like..? For some people (like me) it is appropriate... Why..? Because I wouldn't like to give my opinions as facts partly because I have only been a "zoo freak" for 2 years and many on this site, (I suspect) have been fans for a decade or more, quite simply they know much more than me... If you are rational and non-emotional person then why are you fan of zoo's..? I'm a fan because after a day at work hearing over the radio of some drunk that killed his wife for the last chicken drumstick I need something to care about, get emotional and idealistic about... Being stoic and calculating about zoo's..? To quote the great John Cleese, "Where's the fun in that..?"
@NZ Jimmy: 1. Actually that was the very first thing I wrote in the first post to the other circus thread; go on, take a look. 2. "Venom"? Not at all; just an attempt to make You see with "eyes unclouded by hate" as it was so nicely phrased in "Princess Mononoke" (sorry, I'm an old movie buff), i.e. to lead to a more objective and rational handling of the subject "circuses" and "animal shows" in particular. 3. So Non-First Worlders have no self-esteem? I have to contradict here: You can easily find fine men and women in non-western countries showing this virtue-also in regard of animals, just like You can find a lot of people in Western countries that give a dam about the well-being of animals-or don't practice what they preach. With the world community becoming more and more globally alike, the idea of animal welfare according to the western model becomes more and more adapted, though it's still quite a way to go till also the western communities live up to their very own ideals. The comparison of Western zoos as well as "Second/Third World" zoos to circuses might seem not correct to You; yet I have seen and personally witnessed husbandries in western modern "top" zoos that don't differ a lot if at all from said circuses/non-western zoos-just like I have seen great animal husbandry in latter countries. I'm not going to give any names as I'm not sure who's reading this, but I can only mention that one of the modern zoos was one of the major zoos in the Midwest of the USA. 4. If You want to lead a discussion about animal husbandry soley based on Your personal feelings and emotions, then You're actually not much better than the fanatic animal right activists who boast about their "freeing" of minks, zoo and labratory animals without a) actually knowing much about those animals and b) not caring about their future destiny-or morals/benefit for all involved. It doesn't matter how long someone has been a "zoo fan"; what matters is that one realizes that emotions alone are not the best guide when it comes to zoos and the animals within, that You have to bring actual knowledge and facts into the discussion and accept truths and other opinions even if they contradict Your emotions. Starting with "I think" is OK, if the thinking really means giving the subject a deeper thought and consequently informing oneself about the matter; it's the "I (don't) like" that's given me a headache, as talking on an emotional level isn't usually very productive and futile (especially in the case of animals), even if certain pair therapy specialists and women magazines dare to differ... Or to paraphrase it with the words of the late Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker: "Everyone can swagger about metaphysics, yet learning physics is too difficult to many". Equally, judging the husbandry of animals from a personal, rather emotional point of view, is easy; supporting this opinion with rational and scientifically sound reasons based on a concrete knowledge of the subject is much harder-and often the reason why most anti-zoo activists actually fail to convince me so far. 5. Now we're becoming personal: why am I a "zoo-fan"? The reasons are multiple, and though I can admit that during childhood the reasons might have been mainly emotional, they have gradually shifted to a more scientific and rational point of view, especially in regard to the flaws of zoos and ways to improve or even abolish them. And after working in zoos and due to my current occupation, this has only deepened, as I realized that zoos aren't always the "heavenly refuge from reality", as You envisioned them above (funny enough, a slogan circuses love to use ), even if they often appear so to be. But even great John Cleese certainly knows that life isn't always fun, and that You can't close Your eyes to grievances or other options (like practicable zoo animal training derived from circus training knowledge) just because You don't want to see them.
That may be so but I am posting in this thread and had not read the other one till well after initially posting... If you expect people to be aware of all your statements in all threads I say good luck… NZ Jimmy..? Are you giving me a nickname..? Fair enough I wouldn’t say my eyes are clouded by hate, but if simply thinking wild animals should be removed from circuses makes that true then so be it… That is not even close to being the point of my Hierarchy of needs statement… Again that was not what I’m trying to say, I meant for me I’ll start a sentence, “I believe†or similar if something is my opinion, I think passing my opinions off as facts is egotistical… If someone starts a thread, “Who has seen so and so enclosure and what did you think?â€Â, I’m going to start my sentence, “I thinkâ€Â… Again I don’t believe zoo’s are, "heavenly refuge from reality" (good phrase), but my point was hoping they are one day gives me, well, hope… I’m not closing my eyes to your point of view but disagreeing with it… Well fingered..? LOL
@NZ Jeremy(!): Sorry, just addressed a post to CZ Jimmy before... 1. Thanks for the "good luck" wish; can always use that... Yet as You seemed to participate in BOTH threads, I expected You as well as others interested to read the other comments there, too. 2. Once again-Your personal opinion. I won't say anything more about that... 3. About the "think" issue: read what I wrote... 4. About "hope"-insert quote of Will Durant here...
Police say a 54-year-old man who died at a circus site on the New South Wales North Coast on Boxing Day was definitely crushed by an elephant. The Stardust Circus animal handler was tending to two elephants in an exercise enclosure at the Yamba showground when he was killed. Nobody witnessed the incident but a post-mortem examination in Lismore yesterday showed the man died as a result of a broken back and a ruptured aorta after a severe blunt trauma. The man's name has not been released because police have been unable to find any next of kin.
They're saying the Elephant killed him you reckon..? This man's death is a tradegy but they can't find any kin because 54 is a carney life expectancy miracle..!
hah... typically true, but he joined the circus after he retired. only been on full time for two years and working on and off for about six.... It seems that they think Arna killed him. From memory and I'm happy to be corrected, the circus doesn't use a ramp to get the animals on and off, rather the have to step off. and from a truck, it may not be surprising if she slipped. or just got the shits and killed the poor bugger
Whhaaaattt..? They are (I guess were) using a retiree in the most dangerous job in the world..? I've read that 1 in 560 Elephant keepers die per annum, when considered with 1 in 10,000 miners thats a lot..! What was he before, an accountant..? As a Police member I can tell you unless he had a significant history in animal handling including Elephants thats pretty close to criminal negligence...
Not really. in NSW it only requires a thirty day handover period of trainers, as he was only an assistant even this was not necessary. Hmm point, my best mate is a miner, works full time about 4 k's undergournd and it seems pretty safe down there. Mines are also more predictable than elephants. They don't have brains... But it is quite easy to run away and join the circus as an animal trainer, here and everywhere in the world
does it annoy anyone else that circus is spelt wrong in the name of this thread? sorry i know that really has nothing to do with anything but it was annoying me
