Bears playing hockey

  • Thread starter Mk
  • Start date
  • #26
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,913
3,162
I feel like we are at risk of having the thread locked down, but I feel the need to respond still. :\

I agree with your statement, but I don't see how there can be any other answer than no. You believe that the suffering and abuse of thousands of animals is worth having a few laughs at their expense when you take your family to the circus? You enjoy your circus performances when you know that you are contributing to that kind of suffering?
Appeal to emotion may work for Palin's worshippers but you'll have to do better than that here.

...the suffering and abuse of thousands of animals is worth having a few laughs at their expense...
1] It is not a given that it occurs in the majority of circuses, certainly not a given that it is occurring any the circus I might attend.
2] "A few laughs" is deliberately diminufying the experience.
3] It is only at their expense if they are being abused. Which you haven't shown.
You enjoy your circus performances when you know that you are contributing to that kind of suffering?
You have not demonstrated that I am contributing to that kind of suffering.


I do not deny that abuse is something to be targeted. I just do not agree that a unilateral ban is the answer to anything.
 
  • #27
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,788
744
Since the discussion has taken a definitive turn, I am moving this to GD.
 
  • #28
33
0
You are ignoring the main issue, which is that abuses occur (and yes, they often occur, whether you want to believe that or not). Going to see an animal act at a circus is funding that style of 'entertainment'. The 'non-abusive' circus you are going to will have better numbers to show off, which will be a sign for other circuses. "Hey, they have animal acts that sell well and make money, so we should to!" Then other circuses add more animal acts, which inherently increases the amount of animal suffering, simply because not all of those circuses are kind to their animals.

Also, another point. Do you believe it is right to keep animals in small cages for their entire lives? Most circus animals live in spaces less than a dozen square meters. In the case of bears, since their natural roaming environment is hundreds of kilometers, do you think this is a good thing?


Some Links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17169-circus-captivity-is-beastly-for-wild-animals.html"

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/circuses/" [Broken]

http://www.animalcircuses.com/experts.aspx" [Broken]


Some notes:
"In testimony in U.S. District Court in 2009, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus CEO Kenneth Feld acknowledged that circus elephants are struck behind the ears, under the chin and on their legs with metal tipped prods, called bull hooks. Feld stated that these practices are necessary to protect circus workers. Feld also acknowledged that an elephant trainer was reprimanded for using an electric shock device, known as a hot shot or electric prod, on an elephant, which Feld also stated was appropriate practice. Feld denied that any of these practices harm elephants.[24]

In 1998 in the UK, a parliamentary working group chaired by MP Roger Gale studied living conditions and treatment of animals in UK circuses. All members of this group agreed that a change in the law was needed to protect circus animals. Mr Gale told the BBC, "It's undignified and the conditions under which they are kept are woefully inadequate - the cages are too small, the environments they live in are not suitable and many of us believe the time has come for that practice to end." The group reported concerns about boredom and stress, and noted that an independent study by a member of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University "found no evidence that circuses contribute to education or conservation."

Sweden, Austria, Costa Rica, India, Finland, Singapore, Switzerland, and Denmark have already restricted the use of animals in entertainment. In response to a growing popular concern about the use of animals in entertainment, animal-free circuses are becoming more common around the world.[27] Israel has banned any animal from performing in any circus. In 2009, Bolivia passed legislation banning the use of any animals, wild or domestic, in circuses. The law states that circuses "constitute an act of cruelty."[28]"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
393
0
You are ignoring the main issue, which is that abuses occur (and yes, they often occur, whether you want to believe that or not). Going to see an animal act at a circus is funding that style of 'entertainment'. The 'non-abusive' circus you are going to will have better numbers to show off, which will be a sign for other circuses. "Hey, they have animal acts that sell well and make money, so we should to!" Then other circuses add more animal acts, which inherently increases the amount of animal suffering, simply because not all of those circuses are kind to their animals.

Also, another point. Do you believe it is right to keep animals in small cages for their entire lives? Most circus animals live in spaces less than a dozen square meters. In the case of bears, since their natural roaming environment is hundreds of kilometers, do you think this is a good thing?

You seem to have changed your point of view in this post. Dave was not saying at all that what these animals are forced to do is not viewed as cruel. He was referring to you posting that these animals in particular are abused which you have NO evidence for only your speculations and opinions. Really speculations and opinions count for nothing. Not all animals are trained through abuse and this may be a case where that's true.

Normally you can tell the difference between animals trained through abuse from animals trained through treats etc. The trainer (guy who is the ref) is constantly giving the bears treats... what does that tell about the situation? If you watch for instance Lions in the circus the trainer has a whip and the Lion is EXTREMELY aggressive and aggravated but is scared of the owner for the most part while he has the whip. What does this tell about the training of the Lion?

So you posted your opinion dave pointed out how you are wrong to make such speculations and you changed your opinion to it's 'cruel' to have animals in a circus... Sure part of the cruelty may have to do with abuses on the animals but for the most part it's because these countries view the animals as wild animals which should not be kept as pets for entertainment. Even if the circus trainer allowed the bears to live in a huge enclosure and trained them through the use of treats for a show they would still say it is cruel because it is against the animals nature. This does NOT indicate that any abuse to the animal has taken place. (mental or physical)
 
  • #31
33
0
I don't really see where you are making a point.

1. Circus abuses often occur.
2. Going to one animal show (humane or not) will economically motivate the creation of more shows, which will lead to more abuses, because not all of those new shows will have 'humane' trainers.
3. Therefore going to 'humane' circuses still supports abuse of animals.

Let me know if there is more elaboration that needs to be done here...
 
  • #32
393
0
This recent bear hockey video is just another example of humans abusing animals for so they can have their 'fun' day at the circus...

Whatever, your original point had nothing to do with 'endorsing other abuses on animals by attending circuses that use them. Your point was quite clearly about the abuses by humans on the bears so they 'can have their fun day at the circus'. Regardless, I see how you are going to try to 'win' your point by utilizing multiple fallacies for various reasons so it's cool man. You are right.
 
  • #33
33
0
Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.

If you actually have an argument against my previously stated comments, then go for it. However I think it's fine to leave the trivial sarcasm at home...
 
  • #34
393
0
Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.

If you actually have an argument against my previously stated comments, then go for it. However I think it's fine to leave the trivial sarcasm at home...

Sarcasm? I wasn't being sarcastic in my post at all. I'm glad you know what obviously 'stresses' a bear. Can you come to my place and let me know why my pet snake hasn't eaten for the last 2 weeks? I'd appreciate that, thanks. (Oh by the way, this is what is known as 'sarcasm' if hadn't the slightest clue as to what the word implied.)
 
  • #35
52
1
Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.

If you actually have an argument against my previously stated comments, then go for it. However I think it's fine to leave the trivial sarcasm at home...

Same goes for homo sapiens.
 
  • #36
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,913
3,162
Bears aren't built to play hockey. It obviously stresses them.
Lots of animals aren't built to lots of things they do when in the presence of humans. Including humans. So the bears work for a living. I don't have a problem with that.

It is not our obligation to let all animals in the world roam free on the plains and live and die by natural means.

The question is not whether this or that stresses the animal, the question is: in the big picture of their lives, are they healthy, well-fed and cared for.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,913
3,162
All that being said, my position is in flux.

I followed up on the some of the links dreiter posts, including the Humane Society's position on the matter. They point out some things that are hard to dismiss.

Wild animals used in circuses and other traveling acts are routinely subjected to months on the road confined in small, barren cages. With few exceptions, the animals are provided with limited and inconsistent veterinary care. These animals often live in filthy and dilapidated enclosures or are chained in one position for the majority of the day--with no chance to move, let alone express their full range of natural behaviors or to socialize with other members of their species. Their routine care is often entrusted to seasonal or temporary circus employees who have little or no experience caring for such animals.

While abject cruelty is arguably (by me) few and far between, I find it very plausible that the above excerpt is descriptive of most circus care. In fact, I would suppose that care in any other form is an exception.


And Now I see where the slavery aspect comes in. It's not that "the slave has no freedom" (which is what I was thinking the argument was) - it's that the slave has no one to care about its well-being beyond its ability to perform. No matter how much the handlers "care" about their animals, they can't control whether the animals have adequately-sized paddocks, get adequate exercise and stimulation, vet care, nutritious food, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
52
1
Lots of animals aren't built to lots of things they do when in the presence of humans. Including humans. So the bears work for a living. I don't have a problem with that.

It is not our obligation to let all animals in the world roam free on the plains and live and die by natural means.

The question is not whether this or that stresses the animal, the question is: in the big picture of their lives, are they healthy, well-fed and cared for.

This always bugs me for some reason, but I think you mean "non-human influenced natural means." I am always very confused by the dichotomy between "natural" and "un-natural."
 
  • #39
33
0
Same goes for homo sapiens.

Lots of animals aren't built to lots of things they do when in the presence of humans. Including humans. So the bears work for a living. I don't have a problem with that.
The problem with the above statements is that humans have a choice in 'working for a living' whereas the animals are forced to do whatever job is created for them. This is animal slavery.

And Now I see where the slavery aspect comes in. It's not that "the slave has no freedom" (which is what I was thinking the argument was) - it's that the slave has no one to care about its well-being beyond its ability to perform. No matter how much the handlers "care" about their animals, they can't control whether the animals have adequately-sized paddocks, get adequate exercise and stimulation, vet care, nutritious food, etc.
Dave, I just want to say thanks for actually reading the links I posted. In debates I think it is far too common for opposing links to go unread. And you are quite correct, circus animals are only useful to humans in that they have an inherent economic value assigned to them. Once that value is gone, they are then discarded and replaced.

Sometimes I feel like I could make a clear point if only I could type a bit faster. :)
 

Related Threads on Bears playing hockey

  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Top