Does the presence of animals in entertainment venues
like circuses automatically entail cruelty to animals? What sort of laws should be passed
regulating their use? Is this the end
of elephants in the Ringling Brothers the end of torture or the end of
a great tradition?
To begin with, this kind of topic is being talked about very much nowadays. I have seen billboards against animals in circuses, there exist several communities and associations (e.g. Sloboda Zvierat, SAOZ – Slovak animal help alliance etc.) and also dozens of internet pages against cruelty on animals or offering/finding help for hurt and tortured foundlings. For these reasons, I find this issue very actual and being looked into so I am not surprised that many cities have so far passed “anti elephant“ ordinances as Kenneth Feld said.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, The Ringling Bros elephant show must be something wonderful as it known all around the world and has a more than a 140 year tradition. However, I would not want to see it. Animal shows just do not sound right up my street. I think circuses should include human performances and arts and I support the idea of activists that animal performances are unnecessary. The times have changed and the ability to see exotic animals is not as unique and rare as it used to be. Zoos, which preserve endangered species and breed hurt animal which would not be able to survive in the wilderness, are a better option from my point of view. Moreover, there exist television channels as National Geographic, Discovery and Animal Planet on which we are able to see wild animals in their natural habitat and learn more about their kingdom. For me, this is more valuable than watching an elephant doing a headstand in the ring. On the other hand, I adore the idea of creating the greatest resource for the preservation of the Asian elephant since Mr. Feld spends huge amount of money to care for all 43 of them and will allow scientists to study them.
Lastly, I do not see so much cruelty, abuse and torture in animal performances as Ingrid Newkirk does. This is why, I consider her opinion, that it is a horror and if the decision to end elephant acts was serious the circus needs to do it now, too extreme. Although there were cases like that, I believe the majority of trainers is behaving well towards animals – also animals are not dumb and they do remember things and can make revenge. As one saying says: “Elephants never forget.”
I was greatly pleased after having read this article, since the problem of abusing animals in circuses is alarming. Every single animal in circus must undergo the hell of abusing during trainings. They cannot tell us they do not like it. They cannot choose. And the result of the cruel daily trainings where they are beaten or shocked with electric pods? They are “allowed” to live in small cages or boxcars during constant travelling, often without access to water or food, in extreme cold as well as hot weather. Probably none of us would like it.
ReplyDeleteTherefore I can hardly understand why Feld Entertainment won $25.2 million in the battle over allegations that circus employees mistreated elephants, as was claimed in the article. Since I am really interested in this topic, I have found another article “Circuses” written by the organisation PETA, whose president Ingrid Newkrik was mentioned in Bangkok Post article. She stated her organisation also helped in the process since they spread the information about abusing elephants, a topic they paid more attention in their own article. They claimed that “In the Ringling Bros. elephants are beaten, hit, poked, prodded, and jabbed with sharp hooks, sometimes until bloody.” Moreover, the vulnerable babies are taken from their mothers, which are forced to learn tricks without rewards. These claims are proven by photos in the article “12 Things Ringling doesn’t want you to know” by PETA, where there is also other upsetting information about Ringling Bros. The most shocking piece of news mentioned in the article was the fact that Ringling had to pay $270.000 fine for violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which was not, unfortunately, mentioned in the article by Bangkok Post.
Although Kenneth Feld claimed the withdrawal of their elephant performances is not a reaction to their crisis, as I could read in both articles, people are not comfortable with them touring the elephants. Even kids are not oblivious of the abusing elephants in Feld’s circus and they were protesting against these performances too. Therefore I assume the main reason of their truly heart-warming decision was the dissatisfaction of the public and the fact that more and more cities prohibit using devices to keep control over the elephants, which was mentioned in the article. These are the only realistic reasons I can think of since they were uncaring of the terror elephants had to endure for so many years. I do not think they would have changed their mind so abruptly and created the Centre for Elephant preservation if people were interested in their performances and the company did not have problems with law as well as finances.
Even though a decision to end the performances the circus was famous for all over the world must have been hard and I am not a fan of circuses in general, I admire that the company was willing to help the society at least in this way and offer the very interesting environment for scientists. I am just curious whether the employees of the circus are not afraid that the scientists could find evidence of violence on the bodies of the elephants during their studies on them.
Sources for PETA articles:
• Circuses - http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/circuses/
• 12 Things Ringling doesn’t want you to know - http://www.peta.org/features/ringling-bros-elephant-cruelty/
For a start, I have to say that controlling the ethical treatment of animals is very important thing. If it was absent, lot of people would abuse it, and enormous amount of animals would suffer. We can see it mainly in countries, which are not so developed and thus not able to maintain order in these things. All the same, I don’t thing knocking out animals from American circus is the correct decision.
ReplyDeleteIn this article there are people who say that elephants in circuses are mistreated. Yet, they richly oversee what a worldwide support is provided to these animals this way. It is similar with the zoos. Animals are not kept here just because they are exotic and people want to see them. Wounded or ill animals are frequently brought here so they can recover from their injuries and diseases and consequently they are released to their natural habitat. Besides, the reproduction of endangered species is also involved. They do a praiseworthy work so they are actually often financially supported by the state. There is just little difference between zoos and this circus. Considering circus, we can detect that it has to earn money by itself. Hence, there are shows. Nevertheless, the positive effect of circus is ignored. As it is written in the article, Feld spends unbelievable amount of money for taking care about his elephants even though, that the majority of them is retiring. What is more, he has a special conservation of eighty hectares for them. There the pachyderms can live relatively free, plus, they are monitored and given the fact there are quite a few, Feld literally takes care about population of Asian elephants. It is also essential to say, that person who takes care about animals in circus is usually able to create a good relationship with them, especially considering a circus of this level. Moreover, what about elephants of Ringling Bros, they are said to be the soul of the company. Feld also refers that circus wouldn’t be the same without them, what only supports the tendency of taking a good care of them.
To sum it up, animals in circuses are not mistreated and their life with people is not as bad as it is thought. Ban of using elephants in performances of Ringling Bros will be end of great tradition as well as descend of life level of Asian elephants.