Open mike: Has the circus had its day?

Martin writes:

"For many of us, a circus forms a happy part of a childhood memory.

Over recent years in particular, however, both groups and individuals that are concerned about animals in captivity have continued to express their concerns about the continuing existence of circuses, arguing that they are wrong.

DNA Entertainment plans to hold shows in April entitled ‘Animal Extravaganza’, and their advertisements for the show have pictures of tigers and elephants on them.

The SPCA said they have concerns about the welfare of the animals in the circus, adding that the group feels it is inhumane to keep animals such as elephants, dogs and white tigers locked up in small cages for the majority of their lives. In addition, the SPCA chairman and veterinary surgeon said circuses serve no purpose.

There are two issues here; firstly, that keeping animals in cages is inhumane in any event and, secondly, the concern for animal welfare generally.

Is the SPCA right and should it make such “assumption” as to welfare without proof? Is it time that circuses came to an end in any event because, in the eyes of many, they are outmoded forms of entertainment?

My view on both is 'yes'."

Comments

[Bermudian on 08.03.06 at 22:24]

They should bring amusement park rides instead.

[Shark on 09.03.06 at 05:02]

Not all circuses can be painted with then same brush. Some dont even have any animal shows in them such as arobatic circuses like the chinse state circuses i saw here in the UK. Traditnial circuses have probally had there day though.

[5boro on 09.03.06 at 06:46]

im curious to your views on pet ownership and professional sports. pet ownership because some trainers care for their animals with the level, if not higher degree, of love and care that pets owners give. this is especially because most circus animals arent domesticated and need more attention than, say a cat, dog, or iguana. professional sports because there is more chance that a human being would get injured for the sake of outmoded (and sometimes barbaric) entertainment compared to animals in a circus. of course im being facetious, but its to show that animal rights groups can sometimes disregard human rights when the call for crusade is made. ive never been into the circus, i dont own any pets, and sports i can take'm or leave'm. i like to see my animals(even the human ones) in their natural habitat, but i wouldnt want to deprive a child of a day out on an "assumption" or someone's opinion.

[smith on 09.03.06 at 06:54]

Who is forcing an athlete to perform for us? That's quite a stretch.
You don't want to deprive a child of something you know nothing about and have never seen?
Are you a troll?

[Adjustah on 09.03.06 at 07:04]

"There are two issues here; firstly, that keeping animals in cages is inhumane in any event"

Devil's advocate here, but you mean like the Aquarium? Or Windreach?

I agree, though. The traditional circus sounds pretty antiquated and we'd probrably benefit by doing something else...

[Bandit on 09.03.06 at 07:38]

I agree with 5boro. Where do you draw the line? I am a pet owner and care for my 2 cats and aquarium. As Adjustah said above an aquarium is effectively a cage, does that make keeping fish cruel?

Other "cruel" sports then would be things like sheep dog trials and dog agility, forcing those poor dogs to do tricks!

Another point, in the case of the modern circus the animals are basically the owner's livelyhood. Without the animals they become virtually unemployed. Is that really an incentive to be cruel to your animals?

[Full Fullish on 09.03.06 at 07:53]

I'd prefer to see animals either in their natural enviroment, or in the closest approximation with ample room to move and get exercise. Keeping any animal in a cage for the majority of it's life is simply wrong, same thing for something as large as an elephant, which is a social creature, being enclosed in a space that even a person would feel confined chained to. Just wrong. It's like trying to fit a whale in the North Rock exhibit at BAMZ.

[Bandit on 09.03.06 at 08:05]

Full Fullish - I agree with you but the majority of the time with circus animal they are born in captivity and would die in the wild as they could not look after themselves.

Part of the problem is that all it takes is for the media to find one malnourished bear in chains somewhere in Siberia and the entire industry is branded cruel. This simply is not the case.

[smith on 09.03.06 at 08:07]

" Without the animals they become virtually unemployed. Is that really an incentive to be cruel to your animals?"

Does anyone remember the elephant who killed it's trainer...after being constantly abused?

[Tiger Bay on 09.03.06 at 08:30]

Free the tigers!

[Martin on 09.03.06 at 08:51]

Adjustah...

"There are two issues here; firstly, that keeping animals in cages is inhumane in any event.

Devil's advocate here, but you mean like the Aquarium? Or Windreach?"

Actually, that was what the SPCA said, although I do agree with there view on this one. The problem is that whilst I can't prove the animals are distressed by being caged, at its simplest it appears to be unnatural to keep an animal in this way, and that applies at the domestic level with dogs also.

[Two Cents on 09.03.06 at 09:27]

Circuses should be closely monitored on how they care for their animals, and judgement should be based on their care & welfare of the animals. If you remember the last circus that came to Bermuda, in order to boost ticket sales, they had a Lion in a cage at the 24 hour gas station in Hamilton, this majestic animal was in a cage, that albeit rather large, didn't seem big enough for the Lion to even turn around in. This is wrong, and I have no knowledge of the circus that is coming to Bermuda so I will reserve judgement, but in my opinion Circuses in general are just wrong. Elepahnts are a social animal, I have read in several articles how Elephants pine for companionship when separated from their herd, and kept in captivity, which is generally one of the reasons why circuses have many elephants.

Pets are a different story, if I had my way, you would need a license to own a pet, regardless if it's a dog, cat, gerbil or turtle. Until I became ill, my wife and I regularally spent more money on our English Bulldogs health than we did our own, and the are spoiled as hell. Granted ours are well taken care of and my wife goes waaaay overboard for Christmas and their birthdays presents, but at the end of the day they are aninals and need a great deal of care, and it pains me to see others who keep animals chained outside in Bermuda's heat, and generally not well cared for. I also feel that the penalties should be drastically increased for those people who have been found guilty of mistreating animals.

[Adjustah on 09.03.06 at 09:44]

Martin,

I agree with you, but by that rationale everytime I put our two beasts in the cat carrier to go to the vet it's cruel - and I can attest to their spoiled rotten and luxurious lifestyle. We even "saved them" from cages at the SPCA, actually. Mind you, we haven't trained them to jump through flaing hoops - can't get them to chase feral chickens or 'bring Daddy a cold one', yet either.

Again, I guess we'd need to investigate the circus and it's acts, standards and practices before making a judgement. Perhaps the SPCA have the inside track on this one? Anyone Google the circus yet, or is there a website.

[Adjustah on 09.03.06 at 09:47]

Whoops - that's "Flaming", not "flaing"... send coffee...and a cup of irony...

[Two Cents on 09.03.06 at 09:54]

I am not sure about the next circus that DNA entertainment is bringing to Bermuda, however that last circus(Tarzan Zerbini Circus) that they brought to the island have a terrible reputation see;

http://www.circuses.com/pdfs/Zerbini_fact.pdf

[Kiskadee on 09.03.06 at 10:10]

"Free the tigers!"
Tiger Bay

Just dont free them here!

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 12:26]

Just a note before I chime in.
The elephant in question, that killed its trainer, was an African elephant, if I'm not mistaken. These are much more difficult to handle and tame. These ARE wild animals. Circuses generally use the Asian or Indian elephant, as they are much more docile and are domesticated, pretty much. As far as I know, there aren't any wild Indian elephants. It just bugs me when I hear these ill-informed treehuggers talking about how these animals should be released into the wild, "where they should be". So should your dog, sweetie. That goldfish you got for your kid? Find the nearest stream and catch and release, babes. By their logic, feral chickens is how they should be, not cooped up (pardon the pun).
Forget the tigers, free 2¢'s bulldogs!
(Mainly 'cuz they're WAY too cool and I want one! *grin*)

Shutting down circuses, just because they are circuses, is wrong. Yes, if a circus is abusing their animals, shut them the hell down. But if there is no evidence of abuse, they should be supported, in my not-so-humble opinion.
The same thing happened to sideshows, back in the 20s and 30s. Some do-gooder saw freaks on display and saw abuse. Ok, I'll preface that a SMALL portion of sideshow performers were taken advantage of, but this was NOT the norm. This was NOT common practice.
What these do-gooders didn't realize... or care to even think about... was that MOST sideshows were a home to these freaks. It was family. It was a job, occasionally a VERY lucrative job and it was a chance to show people that, while they were different, they weren't THAT different from you and me. Those with physical deformities had fame, of sorts, a career they could be proud of, friends that admired and respected them, a better chance to find love, surrounded by people different from the average. Those with mental deficiencies were given a family, a home, friends that took care of them, three square meals a day and a future that they contribute to.

But they shut them down. Shut down the freakshows. Isn't it great how we're saving these people from all that abuse. Didn't we do good?
Who cares that they don't have jobs now? Who cares that they're now separated from their friends and adopted family? Who cares that the pinheads and dwarves and The Human Torso and The Half Boy and Seal Boy will be forced into some of the most depraved and inhuman institutions and asylums imaginable? Who cares that Lobster Boy, a popular and successful performer, ended up an domineering, abusive drunk living in a trailer park, murdered by his family who couldn't take it any more?
These things don't matter. We saved them from the evil sideshows.

An elephant can live for HOW many years? What happens if you shut down the circuses, even the ones that take care of their animals?

We can't be kneejerk about this.
We can't assume.
If the circus is abusing, then shut them down, I got your back.
If they aren't, don't assume they are and just go and enjoy. Take a kid. Look at their face and tell me that circuses should be shut down.

[silencedogood on 09.03.06 at 12:35]

Timmy!!!

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 12:42]

DUDE! I'm drinking coffee here! You CAN'T DO THAT! It makes the coffee shoot out of my nose when you do that!

[silencedogood on 09.03.06 at 12:59]

Sorry, once I read your ode to Lobster Boy it couldn't be helped. ;)

[Monte P on 09.03.06 at 13:10]

.....Mrs. Essence flushed hers down the loo...

Was it Ill?

No, she just didn't like it......

[al-ghorab on 09.03.06 at 13:16]

The exhibits at BAMZ are specially designed to reproduce the natural habitat of the animals they keep, as best as they can. Yes, nothing quite beats the natural habitat itself, that is not in question. Except for the fish, all the animals at BAMZ are born in captivity and are part of an international species breeding plan - the goals of which include both breeding genetically diverse animals for 1) sharing with other zoos to prevent depletion of wild stock; 2) to release back into the wild, if possible, animals to maintain a sustainable wild population back to their historical levels. Simulteonously BAMZ serves an educational role to inspire appreciation and care of nature. These are the differences between BAMZ and circuses. Circuses are purely profit based and thus entertainment based. I don't believe many circuses in the West still catch animals from wild stocks, and I don't know if they have a cooperative breeding program to gaurd against population genetic issues. Their animals are not kept in even the approximations of their natural habitat and are exploited for their entertainment value. I believe most, if not all, trainers of these animals do the best they can to care for thee animals, but they are still kept for purely entertainment. To answer Uncle Elvises' concern about what to do with these animals should we ban the circuses, there exist several reserves specifically for these animals, kind of like a retirement home for them to live in approximate natural habitat for them. They more often than not have become institutionalised to circus life and cannot easily be released into the wild - for similar reasons as the tragedies that befell many of the Circus 'freaks.' With the risk of pathogens being spread by these animals, the cramped travelling conditions involved for such a short stay here, the lack of natural habitat for them, the sheer exploitation of majestic works of nature for the profit motive, all argue against bringing a circus here. We can get better entertainment from human circus acts, watching the tv (on nature documentaries?) or reading a book.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 13:30]

It's true that there are reserves dedicated to performing animals. But they are few and far between and are, even now, turning away animals because they can't handle the load.
Just shutting down circuses isn't the answer, I'm sorry.

Oh, and al... I know you meant it to be nice, but you don't have to put the quotes around freaks. They ARE freaks. They're the very definition of freaks. It's not derogatory to call them that, any more than it is to call an achondroplagic a dwarf. (But not a midget. Never call them midgets...) If you had a physical or mental deformity and worked in a sideshow, you were a freak. That's why it's an insult to call an average person that.
(On a related subject, if you DIDN'T have a deformity and worked in a sideshow, you're a geek! It's an insult to call someone a geek in normal life, but it's a definition when they bite the head off a chicken.)

[Martin on 09.03.06 at 14:52]

Mmmmm....

And there's me thinking that Geeks were computer nerds.

Live and learn I guess.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 15:24]

that's what I'm talking about! *grin*

Geek, referring to computer nerds, is an insult, a derogatory remark.

Geek, referring to a sideshow performer, is a description.

Just like Freak, referring to someone in everyday life that acts odd or our of your comfort level, is a derogatory.

Freak, referring to a sideshow performer with a deformity, is the description. It's the very meaning of the word, thus shouldn't be in quotes. *grin*

[al-ghorab on 09.03.06 at 15:39]

Uncle Elvis - very educational. I meant no disrespect as you say. Often miscommunication and ignorance are the root problems in this world. I consider myself informed. As to thenumber of reserves for former circus animals - I have no dispute with you on whether or not the reserves are full already. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose the exploitation of these animals, it only says that we should start building more reserves to accomodate them. Of course, then we get to the question about who's going to foot the bill for these things. :)

[Coco De Clown on 09.03.06 at 15:54]

I have no objection to a circus coming to town.

Long as they gotta a "Bearded Lady".

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 16:37]

that is the problem, al.

I feel that I should say again that circuses that abuse their animals should not only be shut down, but the owners and keepers stripped naked, thrown in a pit with a chain around their necks, then let some of the animals into the pit with them. Won't that be fun?
If they survive, they should be forced to pay for the animal's care and upkeep for the rest of its life.

Having said that, there are many, many circuses and zoos that take remarkable care of their animals, keeping them happy and healthy even after they retire.
Many of them are huge supporters of animal conservation. To shut them down completely is... well, it's just wrong.

Yes, increase restrictions. Increase regulations. Increase the number of people checking up on them.
But to just shut them down?

While we're on the subject of animal exploitation...
Are you as outraged about chicken farms, where they are kept in tiny boxes, day in and day out? Are you going to be supporting a ban on veal? Will you be storming the gates of the slaughterhouse where cows are hooked through the leg and swung around the room in a production line until they are slaughtered?

How about medical use? I'm not talking animal testing for cosmetics, I'm talking real research.
A genetecist in Toronto is THIS close to curing osteoperosis. He breeds rats that are genetically inclined to it until he has a generation of, basically, hockey pucks. Then he cures them.
He's on the right track for a cancer cure, as well.
Should he be shut down for exploiting these animals?

Where do we draw the line?

[Chris Broadhurst on 09.03.06 at 16:59]

Uncle you make a good point. I was on a ski trip once and was warned not to wear any fur since the protesters were in town. They apparently race up to you and spray you (your fur)with pink paint.

At the same time however, leather shoes, jackets, handbags and whatever are merely accepted as trendy clothes - which are obviously required in a trendy place like Aspen.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 17:06]

Exactly, Chris.

I'm reminded of a bit I saw a comedian do once (as I often am), saying that it seems that only the cute animals get protection. Save the dolphins from Tuna nets, but... well... fuck the tuna.
Don't breed minks for fur, but cows for leather? Hell, that's ok.
Veal is disgusting, what they do to those animals, but eggs? Eggs are fine. Mmm.. bacon and egg sandwich? Sign me up for that, but you are a murderer if you eat veal.

Snakeskin? Alligator bags? You're killing our planet! Yeah, my Docksiders are leather... why do you ask?

[al-ghorab on 09.03.06 at 17:46]

Easy there Uncle Elvis. For the purpose of debate one often assumes extreme positions, so forgive me if there was a crossing of wires. I'll do my best now to clear the air.
a) I am not calling for the immediate closure of all circuses that make use of animals. I would support the strengthening of regulations and inspections. I am calling instead for a phasing out of such circuses. Responsible zoos are a far more appropriate institution for them. I am not opposed to such zoos, in fact I was defending them in my posts as they are both educational and useful for repopulating the wild thanks to human actions.
b) I make a division on animals based first on intelligence and secondly on artificial breeding. I am not a vegatarian but I try not to eat intelligent animals like primates, dogs, cats, horses, sharks, cetaceans, pinnepeds, rockfish, octopi, bears, crocodiles, and parrots. Most of these are also wild animals, and/or endagered. I recognise that pigs, cows and sheep have a greater degree of intelligence than chickens, but I still eat them occasionally, primarily because they have been artificially bred for that purpose - human consuption. That is theire raison d'etre. Should human civilisation collapse tomorrow natural selection would seen wipe out these domestic livestock as we know them. I don't consider the bulk of fish to be all that intelligent (but damn cunning with the hook) and consume them with gusto.
c) I oppose animal testing on primates, yes, but not on domestic livestock and things like lab rats.
d) Eggs sold for consumption are actually unfertilised - they are duds and will never hatch into little chicks.
e) As for leather, yes I would argue against snakeskin and alligator leather. But I consider that cows are artificial breeds, same as with food. Yes, there are snake farms and alligator farms, but these animals have not become domesticated by any meausre to date, and thus I do not recognise their validity.
f) I was mainly opposing Bermuda encouraging live acts circuses and not bring it over.

[5boro on 09.03.06 at 18:54]

sorry, i dont have a computer during the day. but i wanted to respond to the response i got earlier.

"Who is forcing an athlete to perform for us?
That's quite a stretch."
i did say i was being facetious.

"You don't want to deprive a child of something you know nothing about and have never seen?"
i said that i dont want to deprive a child of a day out. especially if its not my child. maybe a child wants to see an elephant. a trip to the circus may be a bit more feasible than a trip to africa or india. i dont know if youve taken this to mean that im all for the cruel treatment of animals, because im not. if a circus is abusing animals then shut it down, but the post said "assumptions". the rest was said to be opinion.

"Are you a troll?"
no.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 19:14]

al, I'm not slagging you, please don't think I am.
Fogive ME if it seemed I was *grin*.

What burns me up about this topic isn't people like PAWS that actually take in performing animals, it's people that, with the best of intentions, only work to ban circuses and the like, simply because some are inhumane. The SPCA calling for a ban on this circus without checking it out is a little too knee-jerk for me, y'know?
Trust me, I'm against things like using African Elephants in circuses, as they are wild animals, but I have no problem with using Indian Elephants as a very large population are domesticated and have been for centuries. There is a population of wild ones, but... well, there's also a population of wild chickens here in Bermuda! *grin*
Also, I do know that several circuses are involved with breeding programs, which is incredibly important. It's estimated that Indian Elephants will be extinct by 2050. That's only 44 years away. Yes, a zoo would be a better place, but, if a circus does take care of the animals,and promotes the breeding of the species, why shouldn't they be there?

To hit another point... pigs. I just found this out recently and it amazed me. Did you know it only takes about 2 or 3 generations for a domestic pig to turn into a full blown boar if it's in the wild? Apparantly, within a few months in the wild, a cute, hairless little piggie will start growing thick fur and long, sharp tusks. It's wild, innit?

About the eggs. I was referring to the conditions that the chickens live in. It's MUCH worse than most zoos. I visited a chicken farm once and it put me off eggs for a LONG time.

I totally understand where you're coming from and do agree with a lot of your points, but I honestly believe that circuses DO have a place in society and, as long as we, AS society, make sure we keep an eye on them and not allow abuse to go on, that they should be supported. I also think that people like the SPCA have a responsibility to check out something like this circus before denouncing itin the media.

[ace on 09.03.06 at 20:30]

"To hit another point... pigs. I just found this out recently and it amazed me. Did you know it only takes about 2 or 3 generations for a domestic pig to turn into a full blown boar if it's in the wild? Apparantly, within a few months in the wild, a cute, hairless little piggie will start growing thick fur and long, sharp tusks. It's wild, innit?"

I did not know that.

I wonder though, does this effect their flavour?

[SmokingGun on 09.03.06 at 21:36]

I wonder though, does this effect their flavour?

Yes it does. In a good way.

BTW - Chris: You still wearing fur? I thought that was just for the show. ;)

[Martin on 09.03.06 at 22:08]

How did we get onto pigs?

[SmokingGun on 09.03.06 at 22:13]

Well first you have to have a piece of rope. Then you make a lasso...

Actually as far as Bermuda's concerned technically weren't they the first circus in town?

[Jazz&Gang on 09.03.06 at 22:15]

Great to read everyone's thoughts. Just so that you all know, the SPCA is still trying to find out what circus is scheduled to come to Bermuda. The promoters say they are still working on finding the right group and they don't know yet who it will be. (Seems a little last minute)??

Obviously anyone would be concerned if the group in question had citations against them, but at the moment, there is no information.

While the SPCA is generally opposed to animals in captivity, they recognize that people have choices and if you provide people with information, then they can make informed decisions - the way it should be.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 22:45]

Smokes, how do you manage to have your posts come up whenever I'm drinking something?
My sinuses are never going to be the same if you keep that up!

Martin,
Pigs came up because we were talking about exploiting animals and I brought up the question of where the line is between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable exploitation.

Jazz, thanks for that.

Ace, as far as I know, boar tastes better'n pig, but that could be a factor of stress hormones in the system when they die. I do know that beef that has been slaughtered in one of the "Conveyer Belt"-type of abbatior (great word, that...) tastes nowhere near as good as beef from an animal that has been slaughtered a little more gently.

[Uncle Elvis on 09.03.06 at 22:46]

Oh, and Chris...

You do know that those fur-covered handcuffs of yours isn't real mink, right? *grin*

[human on 10.03.06 at 00:26]

Is it just me or does 'spoiling' your pet seem utterly ridiculous?! Why would anyone in their right mind spend money on an animal who cant tell the difference between good and bad? Why not be of some assistance to humans instead and donate money to the starving people throughout the world. And if you have a dog or horse PLEASE pick up its faeces when in public and keep it on a leash, not everyone is as in love with animals as you. Personally if you MUST have a pet keep it in your house, they can only do harm if outside/escaped. I know im probably gonna get bashed for saying what ive said but really, keep your pets to yourself.

[Bandit on 10.03.06 at 08:13]

I reckon if it was not for "exotic" animals in circuses and zoos that many more wild exotics would be extinct by now, things like Lions, Tigers and elephants. Zoos and circuses keep their well being and conservation in the public eye. I think that is a good thing.

[Bill Cook on 10.03.06 at 08:28]

Bandit,

Animal preserves are the prefered method of preservation not Circuses thats for damned sure.

In the south of England there is a wonderful preserve funded oddly by a wealthy gambler, which has the mountain gorillas one of my favourite animals kept in the most splendid humane enclosures.

This has created a really huge enclosure where the natural habitat is duplicated well and the animals seem happy and well adjusted and are fun to visit

There is also a terrific Tiger enclosure also huge where you can actually drive thru.

Most zoo type deals are very cruel with small cages etc.

I go to Africa frequently and also there I met a man who is believe it or not restoring an entire area many miles to its original endemic vegetation which becomes overgrown and cannot support the animal life.

A massive project but he has reported the introduction of the Cheetah with a view to breeding them as they are disapearing fast sadly.

[Bill Cook on 10.03.06 at 08:33]

Go to

www.makulumakete.com

If you love wildlife and preservation you will enjoy this website.

I went there with some Bermudian friends and it was truly wonderful.

Hope you enjoy it too.

[Shark on 10.03.06 at 08:54]

human

yes you probaly will get blasted and not just from libral animal rights hippies.

Keep them inside? most animals need to be outside such as horses and dogs though cats can be left inside as all they do is sleep.

Cant tell the difference from good and bad? you are understimating the inteligent of some animals. While the term good and bad is a humman expresion meaning it has no bearing on animals, animals can be tought to do good and bad things even if there not aware of it.

Tell me is an animal that protects its family (ie its humman family from buglers and strangers) doing a good or bad thing? How about the fact that social animals have a sixth sense that can tell when a humman is depreshed and can give them comfort? While this may be down to instincts they are good things and not bad.

Help hummans by donating your money to help starving people around the world then on your pets? First off the ammount owners spend on there pets in small compared to the needs of hummans (unless you live in America were pets can have there own houses, clothig lines ect).

If people had your mindset then they would donate all there spare money that thy dont spend on themselves. This is unlikly to happen as some people dont see the plight of starving people as there problem and are just greedy. Even if they did donate the money would just be taken by corupt goverments that have forced the people into starvation.

This may come as a shock but hummans are the most destructive species on this planet and animals and the enviroment have paid the price.

Poeple spoil the pets as they deeply care for them like they care for the humman family. As to picking up there fecies thats the fault of the owner not the animal.

And how can you not love animals? there so cute and fuzzy like rabbits and kittens. If you still dont love animals then your just a sour and bitter persion or very lonly.

[Bandit on 10.03.06 at 09:09]

Bill, I agree animal preserves are the best place in captivity for animals but you missed the point. If there had never been zoos and circuses there would be very little or no interest in exotic animals and therefore no need to give them a better environment (in captivity). They would have all been left in the wild and by now all shot dead by ivory traders, fur traders and the like. Those that escaped being shot would have had they lair bulldozed, trees cut down etc.

However, because we have zoos and circuses we have interest and we have concern.

On a similar tack it amazes me how so many people are concerned about this sort of conservation and yet relatively few are concerned about undersea conservation.

"Lets save the tigers but sod the cod"

[Bill Cook on 10.03.06 at 09:36]

Bandit,

Film is a much better form seeing and appreciating wild life than seeing Elephants standing on their hind legs performing in a circus they have their legs chained frequently etc.

As for save the tigers and sod the cod as you know Paul McCartney and his wife who are interested in animal rights went to Canada to object to the clubbing of baby seals whose soft white fur is sought after and were told by the senior politician of the area that killing off these baby seals was neccessary as they consumed a lot of cod threatening its survival.

[Martin on 10.03.06 at 09:39]

Uncle Elvis...

I was being a bit tongue in cheek. (I think)

[Bandit on 10.03.06 at 10:14]

Bill, It is true that the senior Canadian polititians said that about cod, and it is true that seals eat cod, and it is true that the very existance of cod is threatened. However, the reason the existance of cod is threatened is due to over fishing. 100 years ago the seas the world over were absolutely teaming with fish. People could pick and choose what to eat and what not to. However the seas the world over have been so over fished as to virtually wipe out entire massive spiecies like cod. It will never recover and killing a baby seals will not help when a killer whale can consume an entire school of codling in a few minutes.

The case was pretty much the same in Bermuda up until about 30 years ago. These days even locally caught Chub is virtually considered a delicacy.

[smith on 10.03.06 at 10:18]

WHy didn't paul and his wife visit any sloughter houses while they're in Canada...or any other country? Because cows aren't as cute as seals?

He's just another PETA hypocrite....get out of Canada, Paul...they don't want your crap there.