[Jolly Well]

The situation is from from "believing everything I read." Many situations were point of view perspective and while reading other accounts can validate a position, it isn't the foundation on which it is built.

I hear that argument fairly often. That poor old bob was accussed of something and just give in because he couldn't stand up for himself. While it may be true occassionally, I've found it to be the exception rather than the rule. Factual background information goes a long way. and it usually is the "money making machines" who provide that data. Have you been involved in or around circus or sanctuary?

Animals aren't there to ride unicycles or stand on one leg for the pleasure of random spectators and the people who claim that the animals "love" doing it sure do lack a serious foundation when making their argument.

The tools used for training aren't positive reinforcement devices by any stretch of imagination. I comprehend that they are the tools needed for the job which is where the argument should not be, but rather on why that particular job is justified as being needed itself.

There is a sharp decline in the roving animal circus popularity, and while I certainly can appreciate the performers, I am in the growing crowd that will certainly be glad to see them reach their twilight.

I also recognize that groups like PETA and the ALF are extreme. They occassionally do as much harm as help. Extremism of any sort is generally a bad trait. My signature is likely misleading and I can see how it can be associated with some of these groups, which isn't the case. Many artists and street performers I've met in the past are deep into activism, some even in ALF and PETA - you're bound to meet members sooner or later. I lean more towards conservation that animal rights in itself, but the two often meander towards one another.