Animal groups at it again

[Jolly Well]

First, the PETA kills animals website is a propoganda machine, but there is no doubt that the euthanasia rate for PETA animals is high. This isn't because they are going to pet shops and adopting every hamster just to kill them, but rather that many of the animals that finally make their way to PETA are in pretty rough shape - physically or mentally - and simply aren't salvagable or adoptable. A humane death (hence the origin of the word euthanize) is better than collecting animals that are never going to be socialized.

The ALF isn't an association that has card carrying members. If you want to count every whack job that tries to kill soneone over an animals as a member then sure - you can validate your point. That kind argument is ridiculous in that aspect as you can do that with everything:

John Wayne Gacy was an murdering pedophile, who happened to be a clown - therefor - all clowns must be the same...

That type of debating doesn't quite work out does it?

wikipedia isn't a valid source of information

[Paboberto]

<<The ALF isn't an association that has card carrying members. If you want to count every whack job that tries to kill soneone over an animals as a member then sure - you can validate your point. I find your argument is ridiculous in that aspect as you can do that with everything:

John Wayne Gacy was an murdering pedophile, who happened to be a clown - therefor - all clowns must be the same...>>

This is called a straw man argument. But in this case it works both ways. You could say the exact same thing about animal trainers. If bad animal training habits are the problem: work to get rid of them rather than the animals.

Remember that the elphants and other performing animals are the trainers life. The people who work with them are invested with money, time, and in blood sweat and tears in their health and well being. A injured or sick (or even out of shape) animal can't perform and is a pain a huge expense to take care of for the trainer and the company. Why would any trainer do something purposefully to hurt their animal when it is sooo much easier to make the animal want to do it through bribery? Also if anyone is aware of how much not a object a circus animal is, it is the people who are around them all the time: the trainers.

An animal trained with negative reinforcement is useless. Negative reinforcement is a world of "can't" and "don't." You can train a person or animal not to do things with negative reinforcement, but it is very very very very hard to teach them to do something usuing it and the results are unreliable. Positive reinforcement is much better for that because it makes them take a action to get a reward instead of not doing everything but that to avoid punishment. Circus animals and pets are trained for tricks in the exact same way: all it takes is time, and patience and food.

[Markie]

Good points are raised on both sides. Jolly Well, you have legitimate points about ALF. PETA does, I believe, kill far too many animals - there are other options. Look at the kill rate of other shelters vs PETA.

I'm not sure a clown website is the place to try and support severe restrictions on circuses. Just something to think about. Like a Ron Paul rally I was at, there was a guy going around trying to get signatures on a petition to increase funding for environmental protection... he didn't do very well, needless to say.

Finally, I think that there's an element of freedom and needless over-legislation. Animals shouldn't be more protected than children. There is a certain degree of trust and individual morals here. You can't pierce a cat's ears (a lady in NY got in trouble) but you can pierce a baby's ears... that doesn't make sense.

Also, PETA shows no concern or recognition of the care these trainers provide, of the fact that this is their love and their livelihood, and that conditions are usually better than in the wild.

[tim]

Originally Posted by Jolly Well

First, the PETA kills animals website is a propoganda machine,

Sorts like PETA, itself.

A humane death (hence the origin of the word euthanize) is better than collecting animals that are never going to be socialized.

That's telling.

Sometimes the way that animal rights groups insist upon dealing with animals may actually be more harmful than helpful. I can see why they'd think death is better than life.

The ALF isn't an association that has card carrying members. If you want to count every whack job that tries to kill soneone over an animals as a member then sure - you can validate your point.

Most groups of this sort only associate loosely for protection and plausible deniability. The reality is that the FBI has identified ALF as a terrorist organization.

wikipedia isn't a valid source of information

At last we can agree on something. Though I would say it is not a "reliable" source of information (as all too often it is weak, wanting, and rather biased) instead of invalid (usually one can find some truth and verity via the service.)

[The_Princess_of_Bozonia]

Originally Posted by Markie

I'm not sure a clown website is the place to try and support severe restrictions on circuses. Just something to think about. Like a Ron Paul rally I was at, there was a guy going around trying to get signatures on a petition to increase funding for environmental protection... he didn't do very well, needless to say.

While I don't quite agree with Jolly Well's position on animal acts, I think this is a good venue for discussion of such issues. I don't believe animal training and performance is inherently abusive; even the behavior of wild animals is subject to rules and restrictions of territory and hierarchy, not to mention the dangers of predation and scarcity of food. For many wild animals, life is brutish and short, and a life performing in the circus may well be an improvement.

But though I disagree, I acknowledge that the animal rights movement has done some good work through raising awareness. Through the animal rights movement, certain forms of animal entertainment that were indeed exploitative and abusive (e.g. dogfighting) have been banned, scientists have developed better models for in silico research, and animal research is conducted at a higher ethical standard than before. While society as a whole will probably never adopt the extreme positions advocated by some animal rights activists, we've already adopted milder versions of them; we now consider animal abuse uncivilized when it used to be perfectly normal.

And civilized debate, such as this, is a much better way of communicating such ideas than, say, the tactics of ALF or PETA. So carry on, Jolly Well.

[Jolly Well]

The reality is that the FBI has identified ALF as a terrorist organization.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) defines as “terrorism” causing any business classified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a profit loss and is punishable by a long prison sentence -- even if the company's financial decline is caused by peaceful protests, boycotts, media campaigns or leafleting.

This bill is horrible on multiple levels. Not only does it allow the tag of terrorist to be used liberally, but is also damaging to our freedom of speech and assembly.

You can read the bill in its entirety here.

Sorts like PETA, itself.

I agree.

I am not a member of PETA or the ALF (or any group for that matter). It just so happens that I agree with their stand on Elephants in Circuses. Like Princess, I recognize that some good occassionally comes from their campaigns. I also realize that they are radical is some aspects, and as stated before - extremism of any kind is generally bad.

That's telling.

Sometimes the way that animal rights groups insist upon dealing with animals may actually be more harmful than helpful. I can see why they'd think death is better than life.

Clarify please...

I live in a rural area in a part of the country where the animal population is out of control. Many people fail to spay or neuter pets so we end up with numerous strays or people who hoard pets whose health declines from starving, violence, etc...

Many of these pets become too violent to keep as pets and even rescue groups are unable to rehabilitate all of them and they end up being destroyed. It is unfortunate for sure, but I don't see many (sometimes any) realistic alternatives.

At last we can agree on something. Though I would say it is not a "reliable" source of information (as all too often it is weak, wanting, and rather biased) instead of invalid (usually one can find some truth and verity via the service.)

I agree in part, and I do occassionally use Wikipedia myself. In recent months it has become more reliable. I stand by invalid when it is used as the only source of information when making an argument.

And civilized debate, such as this, is a much better way of communicating such ideas than, say, the tactics of ALF or PETA.

Agreed. I used PETA and ALF as examples as they are virtually known by everyone. As mentioned in this thread by a few posters - their tactics can sometimes be extreme and in poor taste. In all fairness, they have on occassion brought about much needed publicity and change, which is good. Again - I am not a member of either of these groups, but sometimes our views are similar.

This is called a straw man argument. But in this case it works both ways.

That was the point of my John Wayne Gacy example...

Elephants and human beings have lived peaceably together in society for many centuries (particularly in India.) There is no reason why they can not do so in circuses and other areas of entertainment business which expose people to these exotic animals; enabling us to respect them and find them as our friends.

Home to 60 percent of Asia's elephants, India has the highest death rate from human-elephant conflict, with 200-250 people and 100 elephants killed annually.

On average, nearly 20 people are killed by elephants in Bangladesh each year.

In and around this region (Ranchi, Jharkhand), villagers on the fringes of the forests say they never saw elephants prior to the 1980’s, let alone had any conflicts with them. However, as a result of human population growth and resultant habitat pressures, human-elephant conflicts increased dramatically. As forests become more fragmented and degraded or are converted to monoculture plantations, both elephant feeding and migratory patterns are disrupted. The results are sadly predictable.

A herd of 13-18 elephants killed seven people during one five month period. Another herd of about 60 elephants killed 11 people in 1988 and another 12 in 1989.

In Balumath Range in Palamau District, one elephant has so far killed 32 people, damaged 250 houses, and 580 crop cases have been attributed to this particular elephant (til July 2001). On investigation, it was known that this was a domestic elephant that had been abandoned.

On Sumatra, elephants are occasionally poisoned by villagers angered by repeated crop-raiding and house destruction. In one instance in 1996 twelve elephants were poisoned in Riau province. In May 2002, 17 elephants were poisoned in North Sumatra. There have been several instances of additional poisonings since then.


Bist also reports on the numbers of elephants being killed annually in India as a result of human activities. He informs us that approximately 200 elephants per year die because of human-related activities. These include:

120 poaching for ivory or meat
25 poisoned
20 cattle born disease
16 electrocution
10 hit by trains
10 miscellaneous


Sources: Reuters, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
Bist, S.S. An Overview of Elephant Conservation in India, The Indian Forester Vol. 128, 2002 p127

[tim]

Originally Posted by Jolly Well

Clarify please...

I have had related to me stories from animal trainers about how some well intentioned types who get their hands on exotic animals and insist upon handling them in a certain manner which better suits their ideology actually created greater challenges and stresses on the animals, when standard accepted practices would have accomplished the necessary tasks more efficiently and without harm.

I live in a rural area in a part of the country where the animal population is out of control. Many people fail to spay or neuter pets so we end up with numerous strays or people who hoard pets whose health declines from starving, violence, etc...

Many of these pets become too violent to keep as pets and even rescue groups are unable to rehabilitate all of them and they end up being destroyed. It is unfortunate for sure, but I don't see many (sometimes any) realistic alternatives.

I concur that this sort of situation is a serious issue and people need to handle these matters more responsibly.

Home to 60 percent of Asia's elephants, India has the highest death rate from human-elephant conflict, with 200-250 people and 100 elephants killed annually.

On average, nearly 20 people are killed by elephants in Bangladesh each year.

In and around this region (Ranchi, Jharkhand), villagers on the fringes of the forests say they never saw elephants prior to the 1980’s, let alone had any conflicts with them. However, as a result of human population growth and resultant habitat pressures, human-elephant conflicts increased dramatically. As forests become more fragmented and degraded or are converted to monoculture plantations, both elephant feeding and migratory patterns are disrupted. The results are sadly predictable.

A herd of 13-18 elephants killed seven people during one five month period. Another herd of about 60 elephants killed 11 people in 1988 and another 12 in 1989.

In Balumath Range in Palamau District, one elephant has so far killed 32 people, damaged 250 houses, and 580 crop cases have been attributed to this particular elephant (til July 2001). On investigation, it was known that this was a domestic elephant that had been abandoned.

On Sumatra, elephants are occasionally poisoned by villagers angered by repeated crop-raiding and house destruction. In one instance in 1996 twelve elephants were poisoned in Riau province. In May 2002, 17 elephants were poisoned in North Sumatra. There have been several instances of additional poisonings since then.


Bist also reports on the numbers of elephants being killed annually in India as a result of human activities. He informs us that approximately 200 elephants per year die because of human-related activities. These include:

120 poaching for ivory or meat
25 poisoned
20 cattle born disease
16 electrocution
10 hit by trains
10 miscellaneous


Sources: Reuters, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
Bist, S.S. An Overview of Elephant Conservation in India, The Indian Forester Vol. 128, 2002 p127

It seems that most of these statistics are related to problems with urban expansion into forested areas, more than anything. That, indeed, is a challenge, but one which is distinct in its own right.

Of course, aside from poaching which is an obvious problem, when you have a higher population of animals there will, naturally, be a higher population of deaths.

As with anything, great care needs to be taken in order that animals and humans can peaceably co-exist. Though, when such animals as elephants are a natural part of the culture and environment, there will undoubtedly be more significant challenges and problems. On average, I think it can be asserted that much more good and peaceable interaction has occurred than anything horrific.

[Jolly Well]

I have had related to me stories from animal trainers about how some well intentioned types who get their hands on exotic animals and insist upon handling them in a certain manner which better suits their ideology actually created greater challenges and stresses on the animals, when standard accepted practices would have accomplished the necessary tasks more efficiently and without harm.

Fair enough. I've seen and/or heard of similar cases where animals end up dead from people who think they know better than others. This hasn't been just activist types but animal control officers and such as well. This is more of pride than affiliation I think, and people get the "I'll show them" mind-set and nothing happens except the animal itself suffering more.

In the end, it isn't really animals in shows (save for rodeos) that I have a problem with so much as abused animals in shows. I don't stand by the view that 100% of animals are abused in circus shows, but it does happen enough that their needs to be some sort of protection for them. I think for it to work, the standards need to be strict and the punishments severe - those who care for their beasts in an appropriate manner shouldn't have a problem complying if they are adopting this method voluntarily, while those who are falling short will come to light more evidently.

There may be instances where someone gets a bogus charge on them - it happens in criminal court all the time with people being freed from prison after X amount of years due to a faulty criminal justice system - but there has to be some sort of compromise somewhere. In the past, circus and zoo life sucked for virtually every animal and it still does in many cases today. PETA (and fanatic groups) probably have it wrong, and RBB&B could likely make improvements as well.

In a perfect world, all these groups could settle down and come to a solution but we all know it isn't going to happen that way. Until then, I'm more comfortable having strict regulations where animal handlers need to show the community that their animals are healthy, rather than the community having to go in and show that they are not.

Horse shows have federal inspectors (for walking horses that are commonly "sored") that are on sight and inspect the animals. These officials (ideally) are impartial to both horse owner and horse show and are there for the animal's well-being. They inspect the animal and hand out hefty fines and disqualifications (even banning owners from participating for extended periods of time). This is the medium I would like to see rather than a.) turning a blind eye to the problem, or b.) an all out confiscation of animals/ban on performances across the board.

[tim]

At this point, I think that we are each largely in common agreement to what you have stated in your last post.

I will only add that it seems that current USDA regulations and regular inspections which are now ongoing to ensure the care and proper keeping of animals (not to mention the many local inspections by states, counties, and municipalities) have gone a long way in accomplishing that which you express as a desire. Anyone who works in the animal exhibition industries knows this well and will readily testify to such (to the point that some even consider the extent and manner of exercising all this a bit much.) Yet, to the degree that animal activism has helped expose any problems which needed to be addressed and better monitored, it is certainly a positive thing. We should always hope for progress in animal care and that commitment needs to come from all parts. Still, I wish that more people on every side would use more reason and balance in approaching these issues than sometimes prevails.

[Paboberto]

Federal inspectors do visit the circus, just like they do zoos, Aquariums and horse shows.