You said "I don't understand people who don't [support circuses]." I told you why I don't and now you pretty much say that some circuses are bad. I'm getting mixed messages on what you're opinions are.
End of wild animals in circus, dolphinariums and mink breeding centers
- Thread starter Antoine
- Start date
No different than my opinions toward zoos. We all know there are some bad zoos and some good zoos, but none of us understand animal rights organisations.
I've never really heard of a "good circus," though.
A good circus with animals, or a good circus period?
My bad, I meant in terms of animals care.
There are plenty, just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Well, IMO, a good circus doesn't exist, but that's just me, I guess.
@snowleopard the three dolphinariums are :
- Planète Sauvage in Port Saint Père (see @lintworm review),
- Marineland in Antibes (the only real dolphinarium park in France), in south-east, on the mediterranean cost,
- Parc Asterix, an amusement park in the north of Paris.
@birdsandbats @Fignewton Of course they are good circus but good circus doesn't mean good animal welfare. And sorry @birdsandbats but the animals in circus spend most of their time in small cages on road, not just few weeks in a year.
- Planète Sauvage in Port Saint Père (see @lintworm review),
- Marineland in Antibes (the only real dolphinarium park in France), in south-east, on the mediterranean cost,
- Parc Asterix, an amusement park in the north of Paris.
@birdsandbats @Fignewton Of course they are good circus but good circus doesn't mean good animal welfare. And sorry @birdsandbats but the animals in circus spend most of their time in small cages on road, not just few weeks in a year.
Maybe things are different in France, I have some inside sources on animal care in American circuses.
While I'm not putting my cards on the table in this debate, I'd like to point out a significant amount of dishonesty used here. For one, you've blindly quoted Wikipedia, without doing any other verification of your claim. Secondly, I've found the paragraph (see: here) in question and there is no source given for this claim, which is typically a good sign that something written in an article was done so without a proper source existing. Thirdly, and most importantly, you have edited the quote. The whole quote is as follows:
You appear to have deleted both the beginning and end of the quote so as to hide the fact that you're quoting PETA, which I presume you know will discredit everything written in it regardless of whether or not it's factual.
~Thylo
Only in zoos and private collections - fur farms have a specific exemption allowing them to continue keeping the species. Which makes a bit of a mockery of the fact they are in the invasive species banned list in the first place, given the reason they are invasive is escapes from fur farms and *not* escapes from zoos or private collections.
Indeed - decidedly not the way to "win" an argument.
Okay. Well first off, while you assume that I haven't done any other research, I have in fact done other research and have seen much more evidence about this topic and Wikipedia was just an easy source to find and pretty much sums up all the other things I have seen. Secondly, you make another assumption, by telling me I'm trying to hide that PETA said this, while this is not true and I only included the part that I found necessary to quote. Lastly, just because PETA said something doesn't mean it's nor a valid argument and I know this because, again, I have read further evidence to support this.
I wasn't trying to "win," anything. Again, if you read my other post, you will see that I have further evidence and even if I wanted to hide that PETA said that, I would have done a better job, than just quoting Wikipedia.
What further evidence? All you did was quote a passage from a Wikipedia article that quoted PETA. PETA isn't a very reliable source, as I'm sure we both know perfectly well.
I meant that I have read other things from reliable sources before.
Could we see these?
Look, I don't have a list of sources about circuses, so I can't just pull one out of no where. Looking at Britannica, They have multiple examples of animals being hurt.
It's not exactly good for your argument for you to insist on a point, provide one proven unreliable source, then insist you have read many reliable sources, and then when asked to produce at least some of those, start saying you either can't be bothered to or would have trouble finding them....
I think I fall somewhere in between you two, where I believe (I know, actually) there are some good animal performance institutions, but the wide variety of circus and performing animal trade is ripe with animal abuses (or neglect at the very least). However, your argumentation skills here are unlikely to do anything other than push people away from your side.
~Thylo
I didn't come here to get in a debate, though. All I did was share my opinion. I know what I have seen. And I didn't have trouble finding them. Also birdsandbats gave no effort even to give sources for anything.
If you didn't have trouble finding sources, show them too us!
I've already mentioned my sources - I know people who have worked with animals in circuses. All you have done is quote an unreliable source and say that proves all circuses are bad.