May I add a little comment to this discussion, without being bashed by both sides? Thanks in advance
1. "The" circus as it is today is a bit of a relict of the past, especially of the mid-19th and early/mid-20th century (the "golden" circus age of the 1920s)-actually a lot like "the" zoo. With the public attitude in the industrialized countries torwards animals and nature changing during the last decades, zoo and circus were forced to change to fit to these newer expectations of their audience. While zoos were able to put forward that their goals among the mere entertainment included education and scientific research (see Hedigers "Concept of a modern Zoo"), circuses had no similar "fig leaf" to hide their entertainment-based character behind and thus became somehow "politically incorrect" especially among the more intellectual parts of society. While some circuses tried and still try to put more emphasis on educating their audience ("A tiger can jump up to 10 meters/30 feet!") or get into captive breeding programmes(RB's elephant breeding farm), others went the other way, stepping away from the animal show character to focus more on artistic and special effects as well as combing circus tricks with cultural events to please intellectuals-the "Cirque nouveau" ("Cirque de Soleil", Witzigman's Palazzo etc.). The circus as such is at the moment trying to find its future identity-which means that there are at the same time old-fashioned animal shows, new purely artistic, "flashy" shows as well as combinations of them around. In Europe, circuses have quite an old tradition, though they also have in recent years more and more problems to stay alive as a business. TV shows like "Stars in the Ring" where TV stars perform for one night or public International circus collaborations/competitions are some of the ways to gain younger circus audience.
2. Keeping the situation mentioned in 1. in mind, one can understand why there are so hardened and highly emotional fronts even on this forum when it comes to the subject "circus". Some of the posts here almost remind me of a witch-hunt against circuses in general, with the usual debasing of each other being overly prominent. As far as I can judge, a less emotional and more rational and friendly discussion would be more helpful for all involved.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of bad animal husbandry in circuses. Yes, there are animals that are not suited for circuses due to several reasons. And yes, the housing of the animals might arouse aggression and harsh criticism, yet shouldn't lead to becoming unobjective.
But zoos have the very same problems when it comes to animal husbandry, too; it's sometimes just the "nicer package" around that makes the grievances less visible:
The exhibits might look large and naturalistic-but the actual "space" the animal can use for its natural behaviour quite often isn't. This is especially true for the night quarters, enclosures for surplus animals, aviaries, Great Ape exhibits or the enclosures for male specimen (take a look at some of the areas for male deer, wild donkeys, antelopes etc.). The public bareness, "nudeness" of the circus cages makes it easier even for the untrained eye to see disadvantages and mistakes-wheras the zoo exhibit with some areas not visible for the public can conceal some flaws.
This doesn't mean that all zoo exhibits are bad or comparable to circus cages-not at all; this should just be food for thoughts.
3. Stereotypical behaviour is a problem encountered in almost every animal husbandry system - including zoos and circuses. According to one theory, the output of endorphins produced by the body due to pacing, weaving, feather plugging, crip biting...seems to be a way to cope with boredom and/or stress; You can even see this in Your fellow human beings. Just look how many around You bite their nails, stim/ seesaw with their legs, scratch oneself all the time, nose-pick...I'm not sure whether the increase of pacing (seen also in zoos when the food is delivered or the zookeeper approaches) is a sign of happiness (similar to the pet dogs that can't wait to go outdoors once someone grabs the leash) or stress; what I can say is that the physical and psychological merit of a good training which does not demand unnatural and harmful activities from the animal can be very helpful for both the animal and the staff as well as entertaining for the public and thus is indeed a valuable addition to the still way too often neglected aspect of the behavioural enrichment for zoo animals. Experiences and knowledge derived from circus training has proven to be of high value when using these technicques. The "soft" animal training made popular by the Hagenbeck circus, which is and should be the standard now in modern circuses, as well as other knowledge derived from circuses (think how Hagenbeck determined the size of moans for big cat enclosures) has become common knowledge in zoos (though obviously not in the case of SF). Hagenbeck itself is a good example for the close historical bonding zoos had(have) with the circus business.
All in all, the situation of "the" circus in modern society is changing; the circus of the old days with its animal shows faces at least in the western society a destiny similar to that of many highly endangered species. But unlike these creatures, one should not try to keep the old circus scheme alive, but improve and adapt the concept of a circus to modern times-even if this might mean an animal-free circus or a circus with "just" domestic, yet neverless equally well-cared for animals. Inadequate animal husbandry in circuses should be rightfully criticised and abolished or at least improved; the same is true for all animal husbandries, may they be zoos, farms or Your very own pet.
However, one should not fall for the mindless, unobjective, often unprofessional and fanatical rant of the anti-circus lobby, as these people often cause in their ignorance more harm than good and have the tendency to enlarge their anthropomorphising point of view to Your beloved local zoo...
In a certain way, zoo and circus are both siblings from the same era and epoche where people had other attitudes torwards animals and entertainment. Instead of imitating Cain and Abel, zoo fans should rather help the circus to find its 21st century identity (maybe the "Cirque nouveau"?) by constructive criticism, by improving the momentary husbandry of circus animals and ultimately finding new accommodations for the circus animals.
In my opinion, the problem of exotic animals in circuses in western societies is going to be solved by itself anyway; the high costs for an adequate husbandry according to modern standards as well as legal restraints will make it more and more difficult for the already financially struggeling circuses to afford and maintain exotic animal shows, resulting into the animal shows gradually going out of business. This will consequently lead to the question where the last "unemployed" circus exotics will then finally end up. Hopefully not like the little bear in Klabund's short story "The Bear"...
Circus fans and people in the circus business should not be too starry-eyed when it comes to short-comings of their animal husbandry; but neither should zoo fans when it comes to zoos. Gridlocked attitudes, hostility and emotionality have never benefited a discussion-or animals.
