@NZ Jeremy:
1. Nobody is insulting anybody's intelligence-well, roynie maybe with certain handicapped references...Anyway, I was simply surprised what has been interpreted out of my previous posts to this matter and wanted to clarify once and for all what I wrote. This is btw. also one reason why I don't "back down" from my previous statements, as so far no argument here has convinced me to do so. I usually stand to my statements and am not a shilly-shally kind of person. If anyone wants me to "back down" and change my opinion, he/she should have some really convincing arguments.
"Naivety" and "ignorance" were not directed to You personally, but to the zoo fans and pro zoo community in general. Some of the comments I have read here as well as in other zoo forums make me wonder about the starry-eyed attitude torwards zoos and the pigheaded attitude torwards circuses. "White" zoo, "black" circus? That doesn't always work in reality; usually it's all shades of grey...
2. In at least one of my previous posts I stated that "good" circus training (and that's the one I'm referring to) consists of training elements that are derived from the natural behaviour and do not harm the animal; elephants standing on their heads are therefore not included-which should have been clear to everyone right from the start.
3. "Don't be presumptuous enough to tell me what my opinions are..."-Neither should You, by accusing me of advocating pro circuses. And if You can't show me where exactly I wrote what You accused me of, I'm still not convinced that You did not misinterpret what I wrote. Anyway, accusing each other of forceful enlightment or misinterpretation isn't useful on the long run for anyone.
4. And at least one thing You did misinterpret-I'm not a native German speaker...
@snowleopard: Clashing? Oh, not at all; I'm just an albino black sheep that doesn't like to follow the herd and wants people to think rationally about a subject from many angles before falling for a deadlocked opinion about it...
"(...)even though overall I understand that you dislike circuses and that some of them are terrible in terms of animal husbandry and working conditions. Many zoo fans outright cannot stand the idea of circuses, so maybe you've struck a nerve by saying things that are even remotely supportive of such forms of entertainment. You are analyzing the situation rationally, while many others speak from a more emotional point of view." Exactly-well observed. Nevertheless, I expected from the start that not joining the circus witch-hunt might end in accusing me of being a "circus man"; too bad my expections were met. Yet nevertheless I hope some of what I wrote might have a positive effect-for both "parties"...
"Big cats, elephants, bears, etc that perform in circuses have been known to live in puny cages that don't allow for any stimulation apart from the smell of their own feces." Unfortunately, this is also still the case in some zoos-which doesn't justify bad husbandry in circuses, but should make one hestitate before drawing an (artificial) line between zoo and circus animal husbandry; too often, both have very similar flaws (see my previous posts on that matter). This is also true in regard of your last sentence-"there would be much more stimulation and enrichment in zoos rather than circuses", as (if You remember what is written in several of the books we talked about, and) judging from my own zoo experiences, only a slowly growing number of zoos actually contributes said environmental enrichment-and is often lagging "behind" the creativity of certain animals.
However, I find it not serving the purpose, i.e. the rational discussion about exotic animal shows in circuses and(!) zoos (btw.: the term "circus" doesn't have to consequently integrate animal shows-see "The New Circus"-Movement), when personal emotional attitudes are pointed out as an argument (" I don't like...") - and that even slightly contradicting opinions are prematurely assumed to be advocating the opinion of the "other" party.
I have written what I think about the subject and I'm not willing to repeat it again and again; it probably won't change many gridlocked attitudes, but might give some food for thoughts.
