Personally I think only dogs and horses, anything outside of that I would consider animal abuse. Elephants, lions, tigers, bears, hippos etc should be kept in zoos and in the wild.
General Circus Poll
- Thread starter Zambar
- Start date
I do not disagree that some species may not be suitable for a circus environment but I do have friends who have sea lions in circuses in Europe and they are far from abused - they even breed and rear young in these conditions.
The relationship is very different from even sea lions kept even in zoos and aquaria and they behave very much in the way of the family dog. One of my colleagues take his for walks on the beach when they are by the sea!
Sweeping generalisation about any animal husbandry situation is unwise. In my opinion there are good, bad and indifferent circuses with animals and this can be said as well for zoos and aquariums. The way forward is for there to be appropriate licensing and standard to be developed after bon finda research into the actual welfare of these animals.
A latin american point of view. Circuses in our countries are related to severe cases of animal abuse. Circuses do not promote conservation or enviromental education. Elephants, primates, and felines have been taken often from circuses in latin america because of severe maltreatment. Such animals remain often with bad character traits due to their past. For example, the female asian elephants in the Buenois Aires zoos and Aragon zoo in mexico city have this history. Only domestic animals like horses and dogs are really unaffected by close contact to humans. Bolivia recently outlawed ciricus acts with animals. Some will find this comparision harsh, but the case most be made with reason and understanding. I am against bullfights as a torture of animals. yet, many in spain and mexico say that bullfighting is an art and a cultural tradition. But cultures do change and adapt. We must leave thouse cultural practices which we now consider degrading to those affected by them. Female genital mutiliation, ritual infant and widow killing, slavery were once cultural traits. We must learn that objecting living beings with feelings, human or not, to extreme forms of cruelty cannot be acceptable or justified as culture or art. So in my opinion circus acts with animals that are not domestic cannot be justified as culture or art. It is time to leave them behind. Zoos should distance themselves from circuses be showing their support for enviromental education and conservation.Various legislation in different countries also recognize this difference between zoos and circuses. This a very likely outlook for the future due to growing public perceptions of many persons worldwide ( see China´s recent prohibition of circus acts with animals ).
A couple of things to consider.
Circuses are not places for the dissemination of "conservation or environmental education". That is not their role. That is not a crime.
The way that animals -both domestic and non-domestic - are kept in many Latin American zoos, circuses, commercial enterprises and private homes is appalling.
Footage that I have seen of animals in some Bolivian circuses left me in no doubt that action needed to be taken to improve their quality of life. Whether it was wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ban them all is a judgement that I am not in a position to make. A more enlightened country could have enacted legislation to ensure the welfare of it's animals.
Circus animals are protected by such legislation in many countries in the world - as are zoo animals.
To lump the circus in with bull-fighting, female genital mutilation, ritual infant and widow killing and slavery is irrelevant and serves only to emphasise the paucity of your argument.
Yes, zoos are [one of] the places for environmental education and conservation. There is a real difference between them and circuses. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
And finally, China has NOT banned animal acts in bona-fide circuses. That country has banned the awful practices carried out in some of it's zoos in the name of entertainment.
Circuses are not places for the dissemination of "conservation or environmental education". That is not their role. That is not a crime.
The way that animals -both domestic and non-domestic - are kept in many Latin American zoos, circuses, commercial enterprises and private homes is appalling.
Footage that I have seen of animals in some Bolivian circuses left me in no doubt that action needed to be taken to improve their quality of life. Whether it was wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ban them all is a judgement that I am not in a position to make. A more enlightened country could have enacted legislation to ensure the welfare of it's animals.
Circus animals are protected by such legislation in many countries in the world - as are zoo animals.
To lump the circus in with bull-fighting, female genital mutilation, ritual infant and widow killing and slavery is irrelevant and serves only to emphasise the paucity of your argument.
Yes, zoos are [one of] the places for environmental education and conservation. There is a real difference between them and circuses. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
And finally, China has NOT banned animal acts in bona-fide circuses. That country has banned the awful practices carried out in some of it's zoos in the name of entertainment.
Good post Carlos. The Oakland Zoo in Oakland CA has distanced itself from circuses. They ask patrons not to go to circuses that use wild animals and their elephant management program is very progressive although they still don't have enough space and need a new barn. Thanks for sharing your views ...
any animal just like those considered domesticated will do things on command without being beaten
all our domestic animals were once considered wild before interaction with man started
tricks that involve natural actions i don't see as being bad
there are good and bad handlers and keepers, part of the human psyche
n the future there may be no truly wild animals left
all our domestic animals were once considered wild before interaction with man started
tricks that involve natural actions i don't see as being bad
there are good and bad handlers and keepers, part of the human psyche
n the future there may be no truly wild animals left
I knew my post would be controversial, but i thought a latin american view would be interesting to be heard. In the south things are different. Yes, latin american circuses are much worse than latin american zoos. The evidence is in the condition of animals taken from those places when confiscated and sent to zoos. I cannot speak for how Ringling brothers treats its animals under US legislation, but down here circuses are terrible. Bolivia was correct in its position. Also, various brazilian states also prohibit circus animal acts with non domestic species.In Mexico city when the local congress last year tried to prohibit wild animals in circus acts after apalling cases of mistreatment appeared in press, it was actually the bullfighting advocates who voted against, since they considered that after the circuses would come the bullfights, since just last year they were outlawed by in Barcelona due to the pressure of the progressive movimiento animalista de cataluyna . In spain the bullfight advocates ( including even some intellectuals ) call bullfighting an art and culture. They use the same amazing argument in Mexico. Suffering of living creatures should not be defended as culture. Legislate to change the condition of animals in latin american circuses ? No, corruption is too widespread in our countries. Again, this is how things are here, though i suspect that this situation regarding circus animals exists in many places outside of Canada,US, western europe, and australia.
Last edited:
********!
The ankus is only an extension of the handlers arm. Just because some keepers use it wrong does not mean it is a cruel tool. It allows the keeper to tell the animal what you want without having to stand under it. My ankus is completely blunt. It is the same ankus as used by the keepers at melbourne zoo.
I used to have a ten foot ankus that was sharp in the top spike however only used it aggressively once, strking the elephant (not stabbing) and that was a on bull coming in to musth while taking part in a pera hera, surrounded by hundreds of people. Completely necessary.
In good zoos and circuses the ankus is nearly ALWAYS used in conjunction with positive reinforcement.
monkeymike
Member
Foz raises a good point re the Parrot shows, but I believe that we cannot put them in the same category as circuses. Circuses by their very nature are places of entertainment, whereas Zoos are (or should be) places of education, conservation and recreation, and in that order too. As for the circus animals travelling, and therefore getting enriched by the process, what happens when the animals don't want to board their trucks etc? All animals have off days now and then, but in Zoos the worst that would happen if an animal does not co-operate is that it's food will be delayed, or it's enclosure will not be cleaned. But with circuses they obviously have deadlines to meet to set up for the next show. What do they do if the animals play up? Do they have to use force to load them up? Is that not then inflicting un-neccesary suffering and stress? My opinion, and it is just my opinion, is that circuses should not "show" animals that are not domesticated. Cirque du Soleil is probably one of the most famous circuses in the world right now,and they have acheived it without animals.
The debate on wild animals in U.K. circuses continues in Parliament, the proposed licensing of wild animals travelling in circuses has proved to be unacceptable and a ban on wild animals is still going to be pursued. I think the use of wild animals in the circus is near to the end anyway without a ban, the present generation do not really want to see tigers jumping through hoops and after the performance return to their beast wagon on the back of a lorry, they do not want to see elephants standing on their head etc. only to be taken after their performance back to a side tent to be shackled up for most of the day. However as well as a none animal circus produces a quality show in my opinion it is not a circus, a circus performance has to include animal acts.Perhaps the use of wild animals has almost come to an end, so why not now concentrate on domestic species?, is it cruel for Yasmine Smart to ride High School around the ring on a horse? is it cruel for Norman Barrett to present his budgies? what about a dog act or a farmyard act comprising of goats, donkeys etc.? if the animals are well cared for and kept in good conditions I cannot see a problem with this, however some animal interest groups have a problem with this and want an outright ban on all circus animals, wild or domestic, I consider that to be extreme
The problem is that Cirque Soleil isn't a traditional circus by many people standards. The traditional circus was actually based around horses other animals came into the equation later on.
The current problems in the UK with the banning of wild animals isn't actually based on real science but propaganda for the best part by ADI, RSPCA, PeTA etc. Yes there have been videos of animals being abused but this appears to be few and far between and I am sure this could be applied to zoos as well and other animal keeping enterprises.
It has always been my contention that circuses with animals should have regulation of their care and handling of animals as is the case of UK zoological collections therefore I welcomed the decision of DEFRA to introduce such regulations provided that such regulations are considered and fair.
However, I have never favoured a ban of animals in circuses as from the scientific evidence and from personal observation (I know a couple of circus trainers) as this seems both unnecessary and unfair to responsible circuses that who do take there welfare obligations towards their animals seriously.
There has been two reports commission on the welfare of animals in UK circuses.
The first was undertaken by Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington and published in 1990 with the financial support of the RSPCA and The University Federation of Animal Welfare (UFAW). Dr Kiley-Worthington spent some 18 months studying all aspects of animals in circuses, including making detailed quantitative recordings of their behaviour for over 3000 animal hours Her conclusions were that circuses were by their nature not cruel and that any deficits in the husbandry of the animals within these environments could be addressed without the need of banning such enterprises.
To quote her: “..there is no reason why circus training, any more than any other animal training, of its nature causes suffering and distress to the animals, or should be considered ethically unacceptable"
A second circus animal welfare report by experts commissioned by DEFRA in 2007 and stated: “A ban on using wild animals in travelling circuses because of welfare concerns is not supported by the scientific evidence” and there was "little evidence" that the welfare of animals kept in travelling circuses was any better or worse than that of animals kept in other captive environments.
The often quote ‘scientific’ evidence use in support of banning circuses with animals “Are wild animals suited to a travelling circus life?” by Iossa, Soulsbury and Harris and published in 2009 is actually not direct research by a review of research and funded by the RSPCA. The authors do mention Kiley-Worthington research but fail to mention her prime conclusion that circuses by the nature are not cruel.
Do you know John, why the R.S.P.C.A. dropped Mart Kiley Worthington's detailed report which took up a great length of time and effort to compose and refused to publish it?. It was later published by a publishing company Aardvark.
Just another point. I am wonder how many people here have actually recently seen the way circus animals are treated particularly in mainland Europe which do have regulations? Animals are not sent into the ring and then spend the rest of the days locked in 'beast wagons' this just doesn't happen when cared for by experienced trainers.
There is a very interesting documentary series that have been filmed in Germany regarding modern circuses but it's sadly unlikely to be screen here. However there are a couple of clips on You Tube.
This is Martin Lacey Jr training some young lions. To honest the technique is the same most trainers use - basically positive reinforcement.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would suspect that they didn't like what she had to say to be honest. I know one RSPCA official who should have known better publicly slagged her off and said she was 'mad'. She isn't. I have met her and she also reviewed my dissertation for my degree. Let's face it the RSPCA would not have chosen a scientist who didn't have a good track record in accessing animal welfare. Kiley-Worthington has such a record including research on farm animals etc.
Sadly the RSPCA are a very rich lobby group that have now become political and have lost it's way IMHO. The recent farce in Parliament disturbed me greatly because it frightening how our MPs and members of the general public have been brainwashed by emotive propaganda. I doubt if any of the MPs who voted for a ban have ever been to a circus recently and were just quoting from the lobbying and glossy propaganda handed out by PeTA, the RSPCA, Born Free Foundation and ADI.
The zoo world shouldn't ignore this the circuses were a small community in the UK and a soft target - zoos will be next.
I read the Kiley Worthington report when it was published twenty years ago and a very interesting read it was,her suggestions for improvements to the animal's living conditions were welcome, i.e. exercise cages for the big cats and elephants allowed outside enclosed by electric fencing, unfortunately it could be described as too little too late as by this time most local authorities had banned animal circuses from their parks this started in the seventies in London by the G.L.C., it is well recorded in Gerry Cottle's biography, Confessions of a Showman, the attitude of the council when he attended a meeting to discuss the use of Clapham Common,the decision to ban the show had been made before he even attended the meeting to discuss matters, Since then the animal circus in this country has slowly but surely declined struggling on pitched on private grounds and suffering a relentless campaign from animal interest groups, Mr. Martin Lacey has always spoken up for his right to tour a circus with his lions and tigers and has always remained loyal to presenting a traditional animal circus, unlike others who now tour none animal shows and do not mention at all their previous connections with animals, from a business point of view you can perhaps understand why. Unfortunately when the animal circus is finished here I certainly agree that the zoos will be next in the firing line.
The use of large outside cages for big cats and electric fences for hoof stock are more of less normal in most circuses. Sea lions have for years had large filtered outdoor pools due to the development of various technologies.
Actually I discovered that councils can't ban circuses from their land as this would require primary legislation they just make a policy decision which could in theory be overturned.
The current debate of a ban may backfire away as Circus Krone is taking the Austrian government to the EU court under Section 16 of the Services Directive which is why DEFRA wanted regulation but MPs like Martin Pritchard are to stupid to understand that we are in some incidences now ruled from Brussels!
Incidentally it's ironic that Pritchard who called for the motion to ban animals in circuses was supported in his election by the Countyside Alliance he even wore their tie when he went out canvassing. Fox hunting anyone
ah yes, I guess I am somewhat hipocritical there, but I support it ( the processions/poorams not the logging) cause it is a way of life, part of the economy,ceremonies, part of religion.
The elephants are cared for very well ( although there are cases of cruel mahouts) and usually live up to 60-65 there. It is cruel in some ways but can you see where I'm coming from?
It is a misconception that Indian ceremonial elephants have a good quality of life. Outside of the ceremonial season, these elephants are chained in place for around 20 hours a day, every day, they are transported long distances in open trucks, and during ceremonies they are required to stand in the same place for long periods surrounded by a many people and a lot of noise. Just because the use of elephants, particularly adult males, is steeped in cultural tradition, it does not mean that these animals have a good life. It is true that they often live a long time, but given the climate and the diet, this is hardly surprising.
And I forgot, temple and ceremonial elephants have minimal to no contact with their own species.
Its also a misconception to bleieve ALL ceremonial elephants have a poor quality of life. Some will, some wont just the same as in circuses and zoos. this is why i would oppose the vote of the UK MP's and prefer further development of licencing.