Forums > Social Discussion > Ethical standards for shows
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I think we should talk about some ethical standards for shows. By that, I mean if you have a troupe, there should be some standards for which troupes should be accountable.
Here are my rules:
1) I will not attend or in any way support a show that uses captive wild animals (lions, tigers, elephants, etc.). So no Barnum & Bailey or Ringling Bros. for me.
2) I will not attend or in any way support a show that does not use full appropriate safety gear for performers. Thus, trapeze and high-wire acts require a safety net. Aerial silk performances should be done with a safety harness. Fire safety should be followed. Etc.
3) Performers must not work more than 60 hours a week and no more than 12 hours at a time. Regular meal and bathroom breaks should be scheduled. Full benefits (medical, liability, disability) for full-time performers.
Now, few shows are perfect. I don't know how many of these Cirque or Moscow State Circus meets, but what other basic standards do you think shows should have to meet?
I think we should talk about some ethical standards for shows. By that, I mean if you have a troupe, there should be some standards for which troupes should be accountable.
Here are my rules:
1) I will not attend or in any way support a show that uses captive wild animals (lions, tigers, elephants, etc.). So no Barnum & Bailey or Ringling Bros. for me.
2) I will not attend or in any way support a show that does not use full appropriate safety gear for performers. Thus, trapeze and high-wire acts require a safety net. Aerial silk performances should be done with a safety harness. Fire safety should be followed. Etc.
3) Performers must not work more than 60 hours a week and no more than 12 hours at a time. Regular meal and bathroom breaks should be scheduled. Full benefits (medical, liability, disability) for full-time performers.
Now, few shows are perfect. I don't know how many of these Cirque or Moscow State Circus meets, but what other basic standards do you think shows should have to meet?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Like I say, simply having laws doesnt stop the problem.
Like I say, simply having laws doesnt stop the problem.
My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
actualy, domesticated and semi-domesticated lions have exited in europe for more than 2 millinea. I think there are still some lineages of european lions about if I am not mistakes (heard this, but have never seen any proof of it, and I am sure they are well bred in with african lions specimines now)), and it has been well over a thousand years since wild lions have lived in europe.
there is also a similar and stronger tradition of domesticated bears in europe (which is now disappearing, even now in eastern europe).
similar with tigers in India. And pretty much any tiger you see in a zoo anywhere in the world was bred in captivity, as were most of their parents and grandparents. Tigers from shows are typically bred with zoo and circus animals as well to keep the gene pool varied, though some inbreeding is done to bring out traits like white tigers for example.
Written by: Stone
However, I seriously doubt that lions and tigers have been domesticated for generations. I think there is a huge difference b/t bred in captivity and domesticated.
actualy, domesticated and semi-domesticated lions have exited in europe for more than 2 millinea. I think there are still some lineages of european lions about if I am not mistakes (heard this, but have never seen any proof of it, and I am sure they are well bred in with african lions specimines now)), and it has been well over a thousand years since wild lions have lived in europe.
there is also a similar and stronger tradition of domesticated bears in europe (which is now disappearing, even now in eastern europe).
similar with tigers in India. And pretty much any tiger you see in a zoo anywhere in the world was bred in captivity, as were most of their parents and grandparents. Tigers from shows are typically bred with zoo and circus animals as well to keep the gene pool varied, though some inbreeding is done to bring out traits like white tigers for example.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Does breeding in captivity make an animal domesticated?
Many animals have been bred in zoos for several generations, but are still considered wild animals.
Written by: vanize
similar with tigers in India. And pretty much any tiger you see in a zoo anywhere in the world was bred in captivity, as were most of their parents and grandparents. Tigers from shows are typically bred with zoo and circus animals as well to keep the gene pool varied, though some inbreeding is done to bring out traits like white tigers for example.
Does breeding in captivity make an animal domesticated?
Many animals have been bred in zoos for several generations, but are still considered wild animals.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
It certainly makes them more domesticated than your average wild animal. A wild animal breed in captivity has no idea how to feed itself and hunt. All it has ever seen is someone either hand feet it, or leave food somewhere for it to find. It has no concept of being able to hunt down another animal and kill it for its source of food. It has no notion of starvation if it can't find it's own food source because someone always makes sure it is properly fed. It's these reasons that a pet tiger can never go back into the wild. It doesn't know how to stalk something, and it never will. Yes, it can learn ruffhouse play, but it doesn't intentially know how to kill something.
Written by: Patrick the Bonsai Badger
Does breeding in captivity make an animal domesticated?
It certainly makes them more domesticated than your average wild animal. A wild animal breed in captivity has no idea how to feed itself and hunt. All it has ever seen is someone either hand feet it, or leave food somewhere for it to find. It has no concept of being able to hunt down another animal and kill it for its source of food. It has no notion of starvation if it can't find it's own food source because someone always makes sure it is properly fed. It's these reasons that a pet tiger can never go back into the wild. It doesn't know how to stalk something, and it never will. Yes, it can learn ruffhouse play, but it doesn't intentially know how to kill something.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
And that was only attempted killing!
Written by: spritieUnless your name is Roy Horn!
but it doesn't intentially know how to kill something.
And that was only attempted killing! SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
From what I understood (after watching a PBS special) the tiger accidentally killed Roy while trying to protect him. It was not the tigers intent to kill him, but rather an unfortunate accident because the tiger is a rather large animal that didn't know it's own strength.
From what I understood (after watching a PBS special) the tiger accidentally killed Roy while trying to protect him. It was not the tigers intent to kill him, but rather an unfortunate accident because the tiger is a rather large animal that didn't know it's own strength.
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Roy horn
Roy horn
My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
Sigfried and Roy. They had a regular (long running) show in Las Vegas. They performed with a trained tiger, and one night there was a very unfortunate accident during a live performance.
Sigfried and Roy. They had a regular (long running) show in Las Vegas. They performed with a trained tiger, and one night there was a very unfortunate accident during a live performance.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Of 'Siegfried and Roy!' Las Vegas magicians! Someone who probably really wished he could make a tiger disappear!
Of 'Siegfried and Roy!' Las Vegas magicians! Someone who probably really wished he could make a tiger disappear!
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
They were great. Such a loss.
Freaky, but great.
They were great. Such a loss.
Freaky, but great.
Getting to the other side 
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Ahhh, now im enlightened
Ahhh, now im enlightened
My Mummy Says Im Special
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Ok, so I've been enlightened about a few things today.
Ok, so I've been enlightened about a few things today.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Roy is not dead. The tiger *was* protecting him, handling him the same way as it would have a cub.
He suffered a stroke while in the hospital, otherwise he might have recovered better. He was on a television interview less than a month ago from a wheelchair. He still works with their tigers, though obviously not in a magic capacity. He *knows* it did not "attack" him at all.
I do not *ever* underestimate the intelligence of any animal. If they were starved they would turn on thier owners and eat them. I know this from running the rehab, and working with starved "domestic" animals. They get quite vicious, justifiably. I never underestimate anything about these animals, and for the most part that whole "survival of the fittest" instinct, does not lend itself to placation, even in beaten animals. They simply wait for an opportune moment.
And Patrick, I never said I was the only one, now did I? And since you once shared your history with me, I know whether or not you are one of the people who has worked in a circus or with the animals in question. The fact that you do not offer personal support is enough to invalidate the implications of that statemet. In fact, Spritie has commented that she has worked with animals, and I answered back. You, however, are taking an arguementative stance based on outdated ideologies with the debate that what? You are older than me? The only relevence that has is to prove that perhaps your views are outdated because you once saw something you did not like, but not recently, by your own admittance. Many people are older than me who have not been to a circus ever, or touched a real tiger, or known anyone involved in a circus. I know several people older than I with alot less research into the topics at hand. I know people younger than I who can cite animal court cases to you from the tops of their heads. Age has no relevance. I am simply engaging in the conversation. If you don't like it, then don't answer. However those who generally have worked with "exotics", circuses and truly abused animals know the absolute ludicrousness of much of these current beliefs.
I won't even start on the "Don't believe everything you read, but here, read this because I did a google search."
And for those who are still questioning the entire "captive" vs. "domestic" thing...how do you think dogs, horses, cats, rabbits, etc. became domesticated to start with? Captive breeding for generations. These animals were wild once as well.
No, I do not believe that seeing a tiger in a circus makes people want to run out and buy them. If it did, there would be alot more tigers in rehab programs, and there are not. People go to these shows to see what they feel is unbelievable, and beyond them. It is rare that you find someone so inspired that they will spend the time and the cash to follow through with a desire to follow what they have seen (be it a fire dancer, an aerialist or an animal trainer). The monkey-see-monkey-do arguement is never a strong one in my eyes. Statistics simply do not back it up.
Vanize, I did not realize that about the Eastern European bears. That is very fascinating and in some ways sad. Thanks for sharing it. I am going to have to read more on the current state of them in the Russian circuses.
AND, last one on this topic for me in this thread, obedience training is a form of "performing". If your dog learns to sit, heel, etc... it *is* performing. If your cat learns to use a litterbox, guess what...you trained it, it is performing.
I think people just have issues thinking outside the box, and have a double standard when it comes to animals. Only those things we recognise as "the norm" are what we accept.
A household pet attacks a child in the home and it was the animals problem because it is domestic, shoot it. A captive bred, "domestic" tiger hurts someone because it was protecting them and it is the persons fault.
You train your cat to pee in a box (which I might add is purely for selfish purposes). They train theirs to roll over. As I see it, there is no difference.
As for adult safety. The helmet and rope comparisons were far closer to the choice of harness in a circus. It is more specialized and less effecting of others physically. A person can, and has, flown from the back seat of a car and smashed into the front person, killing him/her. Seatbelts, therefore, can physically effect someone else. If someone is in an accident without a helmet, it effects them alone, for that moment. It is a calculated risk and we know what we are getting into everytime we mount a bike, rope or a hoop or a spanish web. And there are the choices beyond that, the styles of shows, the speeds we go, the paths we take.
I agree children should be taught carefully and regulated. Things which will directly, physically impact another (and no I do not think the audience watching an accident qualifies) should be regulated (fire comes to mind).
Beyond that and I feel it goes from safety to stifling and impeding a persons right to choose and express his/her craft. If an artist prefers with, then let them go to RB and B&B. But what gives anyone but them the right to choose how they will do their job, or their generationally handed down family careers?
I agree with Vanize, we can not live in bubblewrap. Living like that is really not living at all, and I am soooo tired of people attempting to regulate everything, especially those things that have nothing to do with them. If you do not ride a bike, why do you care if I wear a helmet? It is my choice.
Don't come to my show if you don't like my standards, fine but don't try to regulate things you do not understand and will not even experience to try to understand.
I care about people, and more about animals. I understand wanting to protect them. However taking the choice from their hands doesn't make the situation better.
I am done in this thread. As one show owner I know always says, "Pshaw! Picketers bring in more tickets. Let them come! The show *will* go on, and better because of them."
Roy is not dead. The tiger *was* protecting him, handling him the same way as it would have a cub.
He suffered a stroke while in the hospital, otherwise he might have recovered better. He was on a television interview less than a month ago from a wheelchair. He still works with their tigers, though obviously not in a magic capacity. He *knows* it did not "attack" him at all.
I do not *ever* underestimate the intelligence of any animal. If they were starved they would turn on thier owners and eat them. I know this from running the rehab, and working with starved "domestic" animals. They get quite vicious, justifiably. I never underestimate anything about these animals, and for the most part that whole "survival of the fittest" instinct, does not lend itself to placation, even in beaten animals. They simply wait for an opportune moment.
And Patrick, I never said I was the only one, now did I? And since you once shared your history with me, I know whether or not you are one of the people who has worked in a circus or with the animals in question. The fact that you do not offer personal support is enough to invalidate the implications of that statemet. In fact, Spritie has commented that she has worked with animals, and I answered back. You, however, are taking an arguementative stance based on outdated ideologies with the debate that what? You are older than me? The only relevence that has is to prove that perhaps your views are outdated because you once saw something you did not like, but not recently, by your own admittance. Many people are older than me who have not been to a circus ever, or touched a real tiger, or known anyone involved in a circus. I know several people older than I with alot less research into the topics at hand. I know people younger than I who can cite animal court cases to you from the tops of their heads. Age has no relevance. I am simply engaging in the conversation. If you don't like it, then don't answer. However those who generally have worked with "exotics", circuses and truly abused animals know the absolute ludicrousness of much of these current beliefs.
I won't even start on the "Don't believe everything you read, but here, read this because I did a google search."
And for those who are still questioning the entire "captive" vs. "domestic" thing...how do you think dogs, horses, cats, rabbits, etc. became domesticated to start with? Captive breeding for generations. These animals were wild once as well.
No, I do not believe that seeing a tiger in a circus makes people want to run out and buy them. If it did, there would be alot more tigers in rehab programs, and there are not. People go to these shows to see what they feel is unbelievable, and beyond them. It is rare that you find someone so inspired that they will spend the time and the cash to follow through with a desire to follow what they have seen (be it a fire dancer, an aerialist or an animal trainer). The monkey-see-monkey-do arguement is never a strong one in my eyes. Statistics simply do not back it up.
Vanize, I did not realize that about the Eastern European bears. That is very fascinating and in some ways sad. Thanks for sharing it. I am going to have to read more on the current state of them in the Russian circuses.
AND, last one on this topic for me in this thread, obedience training is a form of "performing". If your dog learns to sit, heel, etc... it *is* performing. If your cat learns to use a litterbox, guess what...you trained it, it is performing.
I think people just have issues thinking outside the box, and have a double standard when it comes to animals. Only those things we recognise as "the norm" are what we accept.
A household pet attacks a child in the home and it was the animals problem because it is domestic, shoot it. A captive bred, "domestic" tiger hurts someone because it was protecting them and it is the persons fault.
You train your cat to pee in a box (which I might add is purely for selfish purposes). They train theirs to roll over. As I see it, there is no difference.
As for adult safety. The helmet and rope comparisons were far closer to the choice of harness in a circus. It is more specialized and less effecting of others physically. A person can, and has, flown from the back seat of a car and smashed into the front person, killing him/her. Seatbelts, therefore, can physically effect someone else. If someone is in an accident without a helmet, it effects them alone, for that moment. It is a calculated risk and we know what we are getting into everytime we mount a bike, rope or a hoop or a spanish web. And there are the choices beyond that, the styles of shows, the speeds we go, the paths we take.
I agree children should be taught carefully and regulated. Things which will directly, physically impact another (and no I do not think the audience watching an accident qualifies) should be regulated (fire comes to mind).
Beyond that and I feel it goes from safety to stifling and impeding a persons right to choose and express his/her craft. If an artist prefers with, then let them go to RB and B&B. But what gives anyone but them the right to choose how they will do their job, or their generationally handed down family careers?
I agree with Vanize, we can not live in bubblewrap. Living like that is really not living at all, and I am soooo tired of people attempting to regulate everything, especially those things that have nothing to do with them. If you do not ride a bike, why do you care if I wear a helmet? It is my choice.
Don't come to my show if you don't like my standards, fine but don't try to regulate things you do not understand and will not even experience to try to understand.
I care about people, and more about animals. I understand wanting to protect them. However taking the choice from their hands doesn't make the situation better.
I am done in this thread. As one show owner I know always says, "Pshaw! Picketers bring in more tickets. Let them come! The show *will* go on, and better because of them."
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Pele, as you know I worked with the carnival! Campbell Amusements to be exact. I travelled throughout Eastern Canada with them. Quite a few of the fairs we played were along side small circuses. Chance to see and be around plenty of animal acts.
Anytime I raise the slightest issue with you. You call me arguementative.
And as many shows over the years have had to close, at least here in Canada, I would say that maybe the picketeers have had some small effect!
Like you I will leave this thread! And make it a point not to write in any that you have taken a stance in. As I feel you are more interested in monologue, rather than dialogue!
Just my opinion!
Cheers!
Pele, as you know I worked with the carnival! Campbell Amusements to be exact. I travelled throughout Eastern Canada with them. Quite a few of the fairs we played were along side small circuses. Chance to see and be around plenty of animal acts.
Anytime I raise the slightest issue with you. You call me arguementative.
And as many shows over the years have had to close, at least here in Canada, I would say that maybe the picketeers have had some small effect!
Like you I will leave this thread! And make it a point not to write in any that you have taken a stance in. As I feel you are more interested in monologue, rather than dialogue!
Just my opinion!
Cheers!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
For a few different slants on safety gear/helmets and the suggestion that they affect only the individual concerned and therefore are purely down to their choice.
This is something I've thought about a lot as I'm involved in off-road unicycling, a relatively new sport in which many participants choose to wear helmets and safety gear.
This is in contrast to, for example, skateboarding, in which, in the UK, most participants don't wear any safety gear. This is despite the fact that skateboarding is more dangerous than off-road unicycling.
It is my belief that this difference is not down to pure choice. In the UK their is considerable peer pressure for young skaters to not wear safety gear as it is considered to be 'wussy'; IMO this is the prime reason why young skaters (being young and especially averse to peer ridicule) don't wear helmets and pads.
Off-Road unicycling was developed by mature adults who are more inclined to think about what realistically can happen when ones head hits the ground- they have responsibilities to their family.
The heroes of the sport are people like Kris Holm, who, in most of the vids and publicity, are wearing safety gear.
Thus there is no peer pressure in the sport to not wear safety gear. There are on unicyclist.com forum debates, sometimes heated, about the helmet debate and how useful helmets are in accidents. This is OK- the important thing, IMO, is that young people getting into the sport have good role models and, if they do feel the need for protection can make a genuine free choice without fear of ridicule.
I feel it's no coincidence that young unicyclists often equip themselves with helmets, while young skaters often don't.
------------------------
Why would high wire performers want to perform without safety equipment?
I believe it was Pele who mentioned a performer who died after being bounced out of a net?
My thought here are that of course some will die in such circumstances; I find it hard to believe that the numbers who do can in any way approach those who would be saved by nets when falling (if so then some very serious thought needs to be put into rethinking the design of safety nets).
It reminds me of those who argued against making seat belt wearing compulsory on the grounds that it was possible one could find oneself in certain circumstances being killed by the belt (eg if it locks up when the crashed car is burning or has gone into a river). The simple fact is thought, that far, far more have had their lives saved by belts than been harmed by them.
In the case of someone whos died being bounced out of a net, it's probably the case that he/she would also have died if the net hadn't been there.
However, like Pele says, it's down to the professional performer to decide whether they want to perform with nets.
What I'm wondering is why anyone would choose to not use apparatus that, if things go wrong, will probably save their life?
And, as I mentioned in a previous post, isn't there a sense in which choosing to refrain from using nets does affect more than oneself; in that a circus whose high wire acts are netless sets an expectation in the minds of the public that high wire acts using nets are in some way less worthy?
For a few different slants on safety gear/helmets and the suggestion that they affect only the individual concerned and therefore are purely down to their choice.
This is something I've thought about a lot as I'm involved in off-road unicycling, a relatively new sport in which many participants choose to wear helmets and safety gear.
This is in contrast to, for example, skateboarding, in which, in the UK, most participants don't wear any safety gear. This is despite the fact that skateboarding is more dangerous than off-road unicycling.
It is my belief that this difference is not down to pure choice. In the UK their is considerable peer pressure for young skaters to not wear safety gear as it is considered to be 'wussy'; IMO this is the prime reason why young skaters (being young and especially averse to peer ridicule) don't wear helmets and pads.
Off-Road unicycling was developed by mature adults who are more inclined to think about what realistically can happen when ones head hits the ground- they have responsibilities to their family.
The heroes of the sport are people like Kris Holm, who, in most of the vids and publicity, are wearing safety gear.
Thus there is no peer pressure in the sport to not wear safety gear. There are on unicyclist.com forum debates, sometimes heated, about the helmet debate and how useful helmets are in accidents. This is OK- the important thing, IMO, is that young people getting into the sport have good role models and, if they do feel the need for protection can make a genuine free choice without fear of ridicule.
I feel it's no coincidence that young unicyclists often equip themselves with helmets, while young skaters often don't.
------------------------
Why would high wire performers want to perform without safety equipment?
I believe it was Pele who mentioned a performer who died after being bounced out of a net?
My thought here are that of course some will die in such circumstances; I find it hard to believe that the numbers who do can in any way approach those who would be saved by nets when falling (if so then some very serious thought needs to be put into rethinking the design of safety nets).
It reminds me of those who argued against making seat belt wearing compulsory on the grounds that it was possible one could find oneself in certain circumstances being killed by the belt (eg if it locks up when the crashed car is burning or has gone into a river). The simple fact is thought, that far, far more have had their lives saved by belts than been harmed by them.
In the case of someone whos died being bounced out of a net, it's probably the case that he/she would also have died if the net hadn't been there.
However, like Pele says, it's down to the professional performer to decide whether they want to perform with nets.
What I'm wondering is why anyone would choose to not use apparatus that, if things go wrong, will probably save their life?
And, as I mentioned in a previous post, isn't there a sense in which choosing to refrain from using nets does affect more than oneself; in that a circus whose high wire acts are netless sets an expectation in the minds of the public that high wire acts using nets are in some way less worthy?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
RE: Bears in europe. Berlin (city name derived from "Bär", which is german for bear) used to have a great tradition of dancing bears (they even have a walking bear on their city crest and flag). private entertainers/buskers using bears were not uncommon (at least according to a small historical picture essay of it in a german photo magazine from a few months ago that a friend of mine has). That is completely gone now - it didn't survive the rise and fall of the third reich. I have also heard of performing bears in Bern (again named for bears), Switzerland and Vienna, Austria as late as the 50s - to visit those places now, you couldn't imagine a guy in a plaza playing an accordian for a dancing bear.
Supposedly these bears were very docile - like owning a big dog. One of the pictures has kids crowded all around a bear in Berlin city center, within easy swatting distance for the animal and the trainer only has a thin leash and is perhaps 2 meteres away looking away from the bear (which does at least have a muzzle on), and no one seems too concerned about it in the picture. I think the picture was dated from the 1920s, but not positive my memory is correct (all the pictures were from between the turn of the century and the mid-1930s). Another had a bear lounging by the Spree riverside with other sunbathers.
RE: Bears in europe. Berlin (city name derived from "Bär", which is german for bear) used to have a great tradition of dancing bears (they even have a walking bear on their city crest and flag). private entertainers/buskers using bears were not uncommon (at least according to a small historical picture essay of it in a german photo magazine from a few months ago that a friend of mine has). That is completely gone now - it didn't survive the rise and fall of the third reich. I have also heard of performing bears in Bern (again named for bears), Switzerland and Vienna, Austria as late as the 50s - to visit those places now, you couldn't imagine a guy in a plaza playing an accordian for a dancing bear.
Supposedly these bears were very docile - like owning a big dog. One of the pictures has kids crowded all around a bear in Berlin city center, within easy swatting distance for the animal and the trainer only has a thin leash and is perhaps 2 meteres away looking away from the bear (which does at least have a muzzle on), and no one seems too concerned about it in the picture. I think the picture was dated from the 1920s, but not positive my memory is correct (all the pictures were from between the turn of the century and the mid-1930s). Another had a bear lounging by the Spree riverside with other sunbathers.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
Im afraid Pele that you take others opinions as 'lacking' understanding...which in itself shows a lack of understanding.
You seem to only answer half points whilst repeating the same line of 'I know best all others are ignorant', and so lay yourself open to being guilty of too much assumption - the same claim you make of others.
Your views on domestic animals are rather simplistic, and in no way relate to performing circus animals. I think domestication happened for far deeper reasons than entertainment (like aiding us in our hunting/gathering/survival)
Re the dancing bears..now...your probably gonna throw this back as propaganda..but have you seen the brain damage that ex dancing bears now suffer? The video is pretty harrowing (but then thats the point of propaganda innit )
How can you in one hand say 'i never underestimate the intellect of animals' yet on the other, refuse to see how an animal with intellect could be damaged by being kept captive and manipulated to perform.
How would you react?
If they arent really domestic, yet not allowed to be instinctly wild, no wonder animals can get mentally damaged, and as with people, a big prob with mental damage is that its hidden.
"I understand wanting to protect them. However taking the choice from their hands doesn't make the situation better"
Im sorry...what choice do the animals have while being used by a circus? As they are born in captivity and cant survive in the wild? The fact they are born in captivity should not be used as a reason to justify continuously having them in circuses to perform for us. instead it means that a definate action needs to be taken, a choice made on behalf of animals that no more will be born in captivity for the sake of perfomring in a circus.
At the moment they dont have that choice do they?
I aslo find it amusing that you say you shouldnt legislate, yet at the same time talk of how effective the legislation is. If tis effective, its being used, if its being used, it shows that not all circus's are treating their animals well, which shows there is a fair right to be concerned about the use of animals in shows. If there were no animals, there would be no abuse, if there were no animals, the circus would not die...it would just have to change its line up to feature more people, actively choosing to manipulate themselves for their excitement, and others entertainment.
As I said originally - it comes down to wether you agree with the principle f having animals in circuses at all, but I dont think you can escape the fact that allowing them leaves them open to abuse.
I think I have a soapbox permanently attached to my feet.
Im afraid Pele that you take others opinions as 'lacking' understanding...which in itself shows a lack of understanding.
You seem to only answer half points whilst repeating the same line of 'I know best all others are ignorant', and so lay yourself open to being guilty of too much assumption - the same claim you make of others.
Your views on domestic animals are rather simplistic, and in no way relate to performing circus animals. I think domestication happened for far deeper reasons than entertainment (like aiding us in our hunting/gathering/survival)
Re the dancing bears..now...your probably gonna throw this back as propaganda..but have you seen the brain damage that ex dancing bears now suffer? The video is pretty harrowing (but then thats the point of propaganda innit
)How can you in one hand say 'i never underestimate the intellect of animals' yet on the other, refuse to see how an animal with intellect could be damaged by being kept captive and manipulated to perform.
How would you react?
If they arent really domestic, yet not allowed to be instinctly wild, no wonder animals can get mentally damaged, and as with people, a big prob with mental damage is that its hidden.
"I understand wanting to protect them. However taking the choice from their hands doesn't make the situation better"
Im sorry...what choice do the animals have while being used by a circus? As they are born in captivity and cant survive in the wild? The fact they are born in captivity should not be used as a reason to justify continuously having them in circuses to perform for us. instead it means that a definate action needs to be taken, a choice made on behalf of animals that no more will be born in captivity for the sake of perfomring in a circus.
At the moment they dont have that choice do they?
I aslo find it amusing that you say you shouldnt legislate, yet at the same time talk of how effective the legislation is. If tis effective, its being used, if its being used, it shows that not all circus's are treating their animals well, which shows there is a fair right to be concerned about the use of animals in shows. If there were no animals, there would be no abuse, if there were no animals, the circus would not die...it would just have to change its line up to feature more people, actively choosing to manipulate themselves for their excitement, and others entertainment.
As I said originally - it comes down to wether you agree with the principle f having animals in circuses at all, but I dont think you can escape the fact that allowing them leaves them open to abuse.
I think I have a soapbox permanently attached to my feet.
My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
well, I'm really neither one way or the other on the ethics of dancing bears in the early 20th century and before - just pointing out that bears in europe have been domesticated for a long time.
where does one find videos of brain damamge to dancing bears?
well, I'm really neither one way or the other on the ethics of dancing bears in the early 20th century and before - just pointing out that bears in europe have been domesticated for a long time.
where does one find videos of brain damamge to dancing bears?
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
"I think I have a soapbox permanently attached to my feet."
Lol, maybe Wonder Monkey... but well said, nonetheless. Some good points there
I remember PETA and WWF used to have huge campaigns against dancing bears in east european countries (back when I was at school), but thankfully, I think that is more or less finished now.
I agree that some circuses and performers care for their animals, but many don't, and those are the people that legislation needs to be brought against. If you are not mistreating your animal - what's the problem?
I understand that some people want to hold on to the idea of performing animals for reasons of nostalgia and tradition... but as I've said before, just because something is traditional, doesn't make it right.
"I think I have a soapbox permanently attached to my feet."
Lol, maybe Wonder Monkey... but well said, nonetheless. Some good points there
I remember PETA and WWF used to have huge campaigns against dancing bears in east european countries (back when I was at school), but thankfully, I think that is more or less finished now.
I agree that some circuses and performers care for their animals, but many don't, and those are the people that legislation needs to be brought against. If you are not mistreating your animal - what's the problem?
I understand that some people want to hold on to the idea of performing animals for reasons of nostalgia and tradition... but as I've said before, just because something is traditional, doesn't make it right.
Getting to the other side
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
i hope I didnt sound accusatory Vanize, I read your post as it as intended to be
The video was from an advert saying how much has been done but much still continues. The bear was standing on a rock, foaming, rocking on his haunches. Very visibly disturbed. It was harrowing to say the least.
Do you think tho that now, in the 21st centruy, we have other ways of entertaining oursleves that makes have animals perform for us a bit of anachronism? Perhaps in the 21st century we should seek more entertainmetn from observing the animals in their natural habitat, and put energy into conserving that, rathert than maintaing their presence in circus'
(these are just general contemplative questions )
Like Fireposie (:thanks: btw) just becasue something is tradition doesnt mean we should keep it. (I realise you werent saying this vanize )
Written by: vanize
well, I'm really neither one way or the other on the ethics of dancing bears in the early 20th century and before - just pointing out that bears in europe have been domesticated for a long time.
where does one find videos of brain damamge to dancing bears?
i hope I didnt sound accusatory Vanize, I read your post as it as intended to be
The video was from an advert saying how much has been done but much still continues. The bear was standing on a rock, foaming, rocking on his haunches. Very visibly disturbed. It was harrowing to say the least.
Do you think tho that now, in the 21st centruy, we have other ways of entertaining oursleves that makes have animals perform for us a bit of anachronism? Perhaps in the 21st century we should seek more entertainmetn from observing the animals in their natural habitat, and put energy into conserving that, rathert than maintaing their presence in circus'
(these are just general contemplative questions
)Like Fireposie (:thanks: btw) just becasue something is tradition doesnt mean we should keep it. (I realise you werent saying this vanize
) My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
yeah, I'm none too eager to se a bear living in a tiny cage and only having to be a living maronete when let out. Still, I'd wager a reasonable sum of money that the very people who made this video to suposedly expose bear abuse drugged the bear rather heavily for their purposes.
I do agree that we have better forms of entertainment now - and unlike tigers, bears are not really in danger of disappearing from the face of the earth - at least not for a while yet. Besides, I think most kids would rather stay home with their game cubes and playstations (which is a rapidly expanding market in eastern europe) than go out and taunt some poor bear on a leash. I doubt, even if it isn't regulated out of existance, that the dancing bear thing will survive bankruptcy much longer in eastern europe. it has seen a rapid decline for many reasons. I think it is worthwhile for responsible performance acts to keep the tradition alive if they can treat their animals well though.
P.S. thanks for the gentle nature of your post wonder monkey.
Written by: Wonder Monkey
The bear was standing on a rock, foaming, rocking on his haunches. Very visibly disturbed. It was harrowing to say the least.
yeah, I'm none too eager to se a bear living in a tiny cage and only having to be a living maronete when let out. Still, I'd wager a reasonable sum of money that the very people who made this video to suposedly expose bear abuse drugged the bear rather heavily for their purposes.
I do agree that we have better forms of entertainment now - and unlike tigers, bears are not really in danger of disappearing from the face of the earth - at least not for a while yet. Besides, I think most kids would rather stay home with their game cubes and playstations (which is a rapidly expanding market in eastern europe) than go out and taunt some poor bear on a leash. I doubt, even if it isn't regulated out of existance, that the dancing bear thing will survive bankruptcy much longer in eastern europe. it has seen a rapid decline for many reasons. I think it is worthwhile for responsible performance acts to keep the tradition alive if they can treat their animals well though.
P.S. thanks for the gentle nature of your post wonder monkey.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
"Still, I'd wager a reasonable sum of money that the very people who made this video to suposedly expose bear abuse drugged the bear rather heavily for their purposes."
That's rather conspiracy-theorist!
While it may happen once in a blue moon, i think it is inaccurate and misleading to suggest that wildlife protection groups purposefully drug animals for better videos.
"Still, I'd wager a reasonable sum of money that the very people who made this video to suposedly expose bear abuse drugged the bear rather heavily for their purposes."
That's rather conspiracy-theorist!
While it may happen once in a blue moon, i think it is inaccurate and misleading to suggest that wildlife protection groups purposefully drug animals for better videos.
Getting to the other side
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
the problem with literature made by people who care passionately is that i never know who to trust any more.
like i used to write letters to nestle saying why i boycott them and they'd write back saying everything i was told was a complete lie - so who do you believe?
i find it pretty hard to get involved in this kind of discussion any more because i can never tell which sourses are reputable and who is just getting a bit carried away.
all i know (from my own experience) is that i am uncomfortable even with people owning pets - i know it's ironic for someone who grew up with farming all around, but i don't like the idea of animals being enclosed or tought to perform in any way.
i appreciate that domesticised animals must be cared for, but i am sad that our society has evolved in a way that makes it ok for animals to be domesticised in the first place. Did god give us animals to use, or are we just arrogant humans who try to explot everything we find??????
I HAVE NO ANSWERS...HELP!!!
the problem with literature made by people who care passionately is that i never know who to trust any more.
like i used to write letters to nestle saying why i boycott them and they'd write back saying everything i was told was a complete lie - so who do you believe?
i find it pretty hard to get involved in this kind of discussion any more because i can never tell which sourses are reputable and who is just getting a bit carried away.
all i know (from my own experience) is that i am uncomfortable even with people owning pets - i know it's ironic for someone who grew up with farming all around, but i don't like the idea of animals being enclosed or tought to perform in any way.
i appreciate that domesticised animals must be cared for, but i am sad that our society has evolved in a way that makes it ok for animals to be domesticised in the first place. Did god give us animals to use, or are we just arrogant humans who try to explot everything we find??????
I HAVE NO ANSWERS...HELP!!!
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
There doesn't have to be answers m'lovely.
You just need to ask the questions
But as for who to believe and who not to believe... you have to trust your own judgment on that.
There doesn't have to be answers m'lovely.
You just need to ask the questions
But as for who to believe and who not to believe... you have to trust your own judgment on that.
Getting to the other side
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
aarrrrrggghh, i'm a moo head & have no jusgement.
this forum is slowly driving me crazy
aarrrrrggghh, i'm a moo head & have no jusgement.
this forum is slowly
driving me crazy I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
"just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."
I seriously doubt a bear wound up in that shape by being trained to dance. And anyone who had a bear that bad off and worthless by their own hand probably would have done away with it.
It may not have been drugged by the film makers (though I'd still put money on it), But I'd bet even more money that the video is shown (perhaps completely) out of context.
Heck - even the "documentarian" Micheal Moore can't tell a story without gross over-exageration and manipulation. Do you really expect a highly emotioally charged animal activist group to behave to a stricter guildline of accurate reporting?
The bear is acting like he is on drugs - occam's razor says he probably is.
Written by: Firepoise
"Still, I'd wager a reasonable sum of money that the very people who made this video to suposedly expose bear abuse drugged the bear rather heavily for their purposes."
That's rather conspiracy-theorist!
While it may happen once in a blue moon, i think it is inaccurate and misleading to suggest that wildlife protection groups purposefully drug animals for better videos.
"just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."
I seriously doubt a bear wound up in that shape by being trained to dance. And anyone who had a bear that bad off and worthless by their own hand probably would have done away with it.
It may not have been drugged by the film makers (though I'd still put money on it), But I'd bet even more money that the video is shown (perhaps completely) out of context.
Heck - even the "documentarian" Micheal Moore can't tell a story without gross over-exageration and manipulation. Do you really expect a highly emotioally charged animal activist group to behave to a stricter guildline of accurate reporting?
The bear is acting like he is on drugs - occam's razor says he probably is.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
LMAO
Although I have no faith in a god per se, you are quite right that (certainly with regard to a christian God) that Man was put on the earth as custodians. I wish people of faith practised this more...and without wishing to appear to be nation bashing, I think the US could be a lot more constructive with the way it uses its faith in its actions. So many peole could make such a lot of difference. but then I think this applies to one and all, regardless of faith and nationality - its just the everyday, and the workings of teh world, dont make it easy to do
Ive gone all depressively deep and preachy (just to make a change )
Errrm.....Baboons..funny lil things...big bright bottoms....
Written by: Tao Star
aarrrrrggghh, i'm a moo head & have no jusgement.
this forum is slowly
LMAO
Although I have no faith in a god per se, you are quite right that (certainly with regard to a christian God) that Man was put on the earth as custodians. I wish people of faith practised this more...and without wishing to appear to be nation bashing, I think the US could be a lot more constructive with the way it uses its faith in its actions. So many peole could make such a lot of difference. but then I think this applies to one and all, regardless of faith and nationality - its just the everyday, and the workings of teh world, dont make it easy to do
Ive gone all depressively deep and preachy (just to make a change
)Errrm.....Baboons..funny lil things...big bright bottoms....
My Mummy Says Im Special
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
I actually agree with you Vanize. The tigers I've seen just come into rehab were very withdrawn acting, not raging or foaming at the mouth. Although, since he was a trained bear, he could have been trained to act like that. This is what I think may be a tad more likely than drugged. Producers will exaggerate a bunch to get the public to send someone money.
I actually agree with you Vanize. The tigers I've seen just come into rehab were very withdrawn acting, not raging or foaming at the mouth. Although, since he was a trained bear, he could have been trained to act like that. This is what I think may be a tad more likely than drugged. Producers will exaggerate a bunch to get the public to send someone money.
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
Tao, when I cant make a judgment on the basis of fact between two competing POV, I usually look to see who is profiting most from the current situation. It's almost never the social/enviro defenders. Socially and Environmentally responsible multinational corporations are extremely rare I reckon.
hehe, perhaps I could call that technique Josh's Razor?
Josh
Tao, when I cant make a judgment on the basis of fact between two competing POV, I usually look to see who is profiting most from the current situation. It's almost never the social/enviro defenders. Socially and Environmentally responsible multinational corporations are extremely rare I reckon.
hehe, perhaps I could call that technique Josh's Razor?
Josh
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
BRONZE Member
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Certainly confused
121 posts
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom
Posted:
I know i'd rather believe the organisation that pursues the stopping of the treatment that results in thiskind of damage, the universal eradication of which would see its existence made redundant - yet it strives for that end.
Comparing that to the motivations of an industry that perceives its existence is so fundementally reliant on the continued use of animals to entertain us, id say the former is acting with the less weighted agenda...but then I think talk of consipiriceis/agendas kinda dismisses the fact that people can be genuinely horrible, and genuinely altruistic.
Also, again, isnt it quite likely that an animal would be so damaged by having to perform everyday in a way most unatural to it? If I were made to hit myself in the balls on cue to make people laugh in order to continue to be fed well I reckon Id go mental...and im only slightly more intelligent than a bear
I know i'd rather believe the organisation that pursues the stopping of the treatment that results in thiskind of damage, the universal eradication of which would see its existence made redundant - yet it strives for that end.
Comparing that to the motivations of an industry that perceives its existence is so fundementally reliant on the continued use of animals to entertain us, id say the former is acting with the less weighted agenda...but then I think talk of consipiriceis/agendas kinda dismisses the fact that people can be genuinely horrible, and genuinely altruistic.
Also, again, isnt it quite likely that an animal would be so damaged by having to perform everyday in a way most unatural to it? If I were made to hit myself in the balls on cue to make people laugh in order to continue to be fed well I reckon Id go mental...and im only slightly more intelligent than a bear
My Mummy Says Im Special
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [ethical standard * show *] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Ethical standards for shows [60 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com