circus`
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/19/02 11:01:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<<
So while I don't agree with the methods that can be used, I also am
not going to completely shut off that opportunity for learning that
was available. >>
I agree with you Tina!
And let us not forget how cruel mother nature can be.....
starvation, disease, attack by another animal etc....
They aren't always worse off with humans.
Ren
[email protected] writes:
<<
So while I don't agree with the methods that can be used, I also am
not going to completely shut off that opportunity for learning that
was available. >>
I agree with you Tina!
And let us not forget how cruel mother nature can be.....
starvation, disease, attack by another animal etc....
They aren't always worse off with humans.
Ren
inmdcrew
Ren,
That's hilarious. You just said what my husband said today when I
told about the can of worms I opened up.
He thinks they are better off with us b/c of poor life expectancy in
the wild.
I know our pets are too spoiled. Crimmy, they have the bed and shove
us out.
Tina (inmdcrew)
That's hilarious. You just said what my husband said today when I
told about the can of worms I opened up.
He thinks they are better off with us b/c of poor life expectancy in
the wild.
I know our pets are too spoiled. Crimmy, they have the bed and shove
us out.
Tina (inmdcrew)
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., starsuncloud@c... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/19/02 11:01:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
> Unschooling-dotcom@y... writes:
>
> <<
> So while I don't agree with the methods that can be used, I also
am
> not going to completely shut off that opportunity for learning
that
> was available. >>
>
> I agree with you Tina!
>
> And let us not forget how cruel mother nature can be.....
> starvation, disease, attack by another animal etc....
> They aren't always worse off with humans.
>
> Ren
marji
At 22:32 8/19/02 -0400, Ren wrote (regarding cruel methods employed when
training animals for circus acts):
I beg your pardon for this *long* soapbox rant. I just can't let this go
by without a response. It absolutely does not pertain to unschooling, and
for this I humbly apologize. But I feel passionate enough about this to
respond. The animals have no voice, and they are suffering greatly for
profit (greed) and human gratification. Please delete this if you're not
interested in this topic. Here goes:
While it is certainly true that harsh realities can be experienced by
animals living in their natural environment (and this is true for humans,
as well), animals FORCED by humans to perform in circuses are deprived of
their precious freedom, their natural behaviors (like walking great
distances and nurturing their young), their natural social settings and
families, and are forced to travel in cramped cages and boxcars up to 48
weeks per year. One may argue that the animals can live longer in
captivity than they do in their natural setting, but what kind of life? A
life of being shackled? A life of physical and psychological stress, fear
and confusion? Many elephants that are forced to perform silly, unnatural
and dangerous tricks suffer from painful arthritis and other chronic
injuries; yet, circuses are reluctant at best to retire them. All this for
greed and human gratification.
One may also argue that seeing the animals is an educational
experience. But, "Animals used in circuses, and other displays, do not
serve as accurate educational tools for children. These displays do not
educate the public on the natural habitat, life-style, or behavior, but
rather provide an erroneous perception of the animals. The circus may
portray the animals as approachable and playful, however these wild animals
are often dangerous, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Thus, children may
draw near or attempt to pet the animals under the often mistaken belief
that it is safe." (Quoted from http://www.animallaw.com/circus.cfm )
Make no mistake about it, circus trainers must use cruel beatings and fear
in order to get wild animals to perform unnatural, dangerous acts like
jumping through hoop of fire. These kinds of training techniques have been
documented on undercover video tapes which I have seen. I have seen and
heard one famous circus's head elephant trainer admonish that the hidden
beatings must be severe because the elephants cannot be hit "in front of a
thousand people." They use sharp bullhooks called an ankus, a wooden stick
with a sharp pointed hook at the end. Trainers are instructed to "sink"
the hook, making elephants scream in pain.
Even the minimum standards of the already weak and hard-to-enforce federal
Animal Welfare Act are not met, resulting in slaps on the wrist and
payments of fines to "settle" charges. But the real cost is the
imprisonment, suffering, and injury of innocent animals whose only crime is
that they are animals.
As I said earlier, while nature can certainly deal out harsh situations,
these are usually events, except in the case of severe prolonged
drought. Animal performers in circus acts are subjected to systematic,
chronic conditions that include pain, cramped living quarters, and
sometimes in poorer, smaller circuses, inadequate access to food and
water. The animals cannot walk away from these situations, either. And,
these incredibly social animals do not have the loving support of their
family groups, as they do in the wild. Young animals are snatched from
their mothers prematurely.
Many localities have outright banned animal acts. Rebellious wild animals
have caused injury and death to audience members and people in the
community. "Since 1990 these incidents have resulted in 43 human deaths,
more than 140 human injuries, and the killing of 69 big cats. These wild
animals are responding to the harsh conditions and stressful environment of
the circus. Elephants in circuses are rebelling in attempts to escape their
sad existences. In 1994, officer Blayne Doyle, who had to shoot 47 rounds
into...an elephant who charged out of the Great American Circus arena,
lamented: 'I think these elephants are trying to tell us that zoos and
circuses are not what God created them for. But we have not been
listening.'" (Quoted from http://www.animallaw.com/circus.cfm )
While the animals cannot talk to us, there is plenty of research to support
their intelligence and sentience. Animals care about their own lives and
the lives of their young, as we do, and they can suffer. Humans have a
knowledge of when they are inflicting suffering. Suffering is
suffering. What the animals are forced to endure is nothing short of slavery.
Here is an additional link to an article about the unnatural plight of
performing circus animals. What you'll read is disturbing, so please
proceed with caution. http://www.satyamag.com/sept00/stagno.html
From what I have learned about circuses, if I were an animal, I'd take my
chances with the harshness of Mother Nature any day! At least, I would
like the option!
End of long soapbox rant! Once again, my sincere apologies to everyone on
the list for straying off topic.
Best,
Marji
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
training animals for circus acts):
>And let us not forget how cruel mother nature can be.....Hi, Ren and everyone else.
>starvation, disease, attack by another animal etc....
>They aren't always worse off with humans.
>
>Ren
I beg your pardon for this *long* soapbox rant. I just can't let this go
by without a response. It absolutely does not pertain to unschooling, and
for this I humbly apologize. But I feel passionate enough about this to
respond. The animals have no voice, and they are suffering greatly for
profit (greed) and human gratification. Please delete this if you're not
interested in this topic. Here goes:
While it is certainly true that harsh realities can be experienced by
animals living in their natural environment (and this is true for humans,
as well), animals FORCED by humans to perform in circuses are deprived of
their precious freedom, their natural behaviors (like walking great
distances and nurturing their young), their natural social settings and
families, and are forced to travel in cramped cages and boxcars up to 48
weeks per year. One may argue that the animals can live longer in
captivity than they do in their natural setting, but what kind of life? A
life of being shackled? A life of physical and psychological stress, fear
and confusion? Many elephants that are forced to perform silly, unnatural
and dangerous tricks suffer from painful arthritis and other chronic
injuries; yet, circuses are reluctant at best to retire them. All this for
greed and human gratification.
One may also argue that seeing the animals is an educational
experience. But, "Animals used in circuses, and other displays, do not
serve as accurate educational tools for children. These displays do not
educate the public on the natural habitat, life-style, or behavior, but
rather provide an erroneous perception of the animals. The circus may
portray the animals as approachable and playful, however these wild animals
are often dangerous, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Thus, children may
draw near or attempt to pet the animals under the often mistaken belief
that it is safe." (Quoted from http://www.animallaw.com/circus.cfm )
Make no mistake about it, circus trainers must use cruel beatings and fear
in order to get wild animals to perform unnatural, dangerous acts like
jumping through hoop of fire. These kinds of training techniques have been
documented on undercover video tapes which I have seen. I have seen and
heard one famous circus's head elephant trainer admonish that the hidden
beatings must be severe because the elephants cannot be hit "in front of a
thousand people." They use sharp bullhooks called an ankus, a wooden stick
with a sharp pointed hook at the end. Trainers are instructed to "sink"
the hook, making elephants scream in pain.
Even the minimum standards of the already weak and hard-to-enforce federal
Animal Welfare Act are not met, resulting in slaps on the wrist and
payments of fines to "settle" charges. But the real cost is the
imprisonment, suffering, and injury of innocent animals whose only crime is
that they are animals.
As I said earlier, while nature can certainly deal out harsh situations,
these are usually events, except in the case of severe prolonged
drought. Animal performers in circus acts are subjected to systematic,
chronic conditions that include pain, cramped living quarters, and
sometimes in poorer, smaller circuses, inadequate access to food and
water. The animals cannot walk away from these situations, either. And,
these incredibly social animals do not have the loving support of their
family groups, as they do in the wild. Young animals are snatched from
their mothers prematurely.
Many localities have outright banned animal acts. Rebellious wild animals
have caused injury and death to audience members and people in the
community. "Since 1990 these incidents have resulted in 43 human deaths,
more than 140 human injuries, and the killing of 69 big cats. These wild
animals are responding to the harsh conditions and stressful environment of
the circus. Elephants in circuses are rebelling in attempts to escape their
sad existences. In 1994, officer Blayne Doyle, who had to shoot 47 rounds
into...an elephant who charged out of the Great American Circus arena,
lamented: 'I think these elephants are trying to tell us that zoos and
circuses are not what God created them for. But we have not been
listening.'" (Quoted from http://www.animallaw.com/circus.cfm )
While the animals cannot talk to us, there is plenty of research to support
their intelligence and sentience. Animals care about their own lives and
the lives of their young, as we do, and they can suffer. Humans have a
knowledge of when they are inflicting suffering. Suffering is
suffering. What the animals are forced to endure is nothing short of slavery.
Here is an additional link to an article about the unnatural plight of
performing circus animals. What you'll read is disturbing, so please
proceed with caution. http://www.satyamag.com/sept00/stagno.html
From what I have learned about circuses, if I were an animal, I'd take my
chances with the harshness of Mother Nature any day! At least, I would
like the option!
End of long soapbox rant! Once again, my sincere apologies to everyone on
the list for straying off topic.
Best,
Marji
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
I don't think anyone was claiming that keeping them as pets was an unethical
thing to do to animals!
The unethical actions were being talked about in relation to circuses.
~Elissa Cleaveland
Radical Unschoolers Unite!
thing to do to animals!
The unethical actions were being talked about in relation to circuses.
~Elissa Cleaveland
Radical Unschoolers Unite!
marji
At 10:07 8/20/02 -0400, Elissa wrote:
Just for clarification, one person did wonder if people who were concerned
about animal rights kept pets in their homes, and I have heard that there
are some folks who feel that keeping pets is unethical, but I am definitely
not one of those folks! :-)
~marji~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I don't think anyone was claiming that keeping them as pets was an unethicalHi Elissa,
>thing to do to animals!
>The unethical actions were being talked about in relation to circuses.
Just for clarification, one person did wonder if people who were concerned
about animal rights kept pets in their homes, and I have heard that there
are some folks who feel that keeping pets is unethical, but I am definitely
not one of those folks! :-)
~marji~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
<<<Just for clarification, one person did wonder if people who were
concerned
about animal rights kept pets in their homes, and I have heard that there
are some folks who feel that keeping pets is unethical, but I am definitely
not one of those folks! :-)>>>
Elissa responds: I can see that! I think that with that question, some may
have assumed that there was an argument there against pets but I didn't see
that. It seemed as though some were responding as if there was.
<<Arguing against confinement and forced caged feeding is impractical
in the city.
Should I be considered up on cruelty charges then? Asking facetously.
Ha, Ha.
Seriously, I wish we continued to live in the country but we don't.
So for their safety and our legal stability, they have to consider
our home their cage. They are our responsibility. We chose to bring
them home.>>
<<They aren't always worse off with humans>>
<<You just said what my husband said today when I
told about the can of worms I opened up.
He thinks they are better off with us b/c of poor life expectancy in
the wild.
I know our pets are too spoiled. Crimmy, they have the bed and shove
us out.>>
I have seen in the past that things can get confusing on email lists and
people may wind up debating two completely different ideas without realizing
it. It seemed to be happening again with some arguing
"Circuses are horrible places and abusive to wild animals" with the opposing
response being "But House pets are better off as house pets"
To me those could be in the same sentance.
BTW, After the last small circus came to town, my husband and I left there
feeling really sad and decided that we were not doing animal circuses
anymore. I hate to see depressed looking animals, and ALL looked terribly
sad.
I also keep pets, eat meat, support humane testing for life saving measures
(meaning not for makeup). I try to be informed and balance all animals needs
as best I can, human animals included.
~Elissa Cleaveland
Radical Unschoolers Unite!
concerned
about animal rights kept pets in their homes, and I have heard that there
are some folks who feel that keeping pets is unethical, but I am definitely
not one of those folks! :-)>>>
Elissa responds: I can see that! I think that with that question, some may
have assumed that there was an argument there against pets but I didn't see
that. It seemed as though some were responding as if there was.
<<Arguing against confinement and forced caged feeding is impractical
in the city.
Should I be considered up on cruelty charges then? Asking facetously.
Ha, Ha.
Seriously, I wish we continued to live in the country but we don't.
So for their safety and our legal stability, they have to consider
our home their cage. They are our responsibility. We chose to bring
them home.>>
<<They aren't always worse off with humans>>
<<You just said what my husband said today when I
told about the can of worms I opened up.
He thinks they are better off with us b/c of poor life expectancy in
the wild.
I know our pets are too spoiled. Crimmy, they have the bed and shove
us out.>>
I have seen in the past that things can get confusing on email lists and
people may wind up debating two completely different ideas without realizing
it. It seemed to be happening again with some arguing
"Circuses are horrible places and abusive to wild animals" with the opposing
response being "But House pets are better off as house pets"
To me those could be in the same sentance.
BTW, After the last small circus came to town, my husband and I left there
feeling really sad and decided that we were not doing animal circuses
anymore. I hate to see depressed looking animals, and ALL looked terribly
sad.
I also keep pets, eat meat, support humane testing for life saving measures
(meaning not for makeup). I try to be informed and balance all animals needs
as best I can, human animals included.
~Elissa Cleaveland
Radical Unschoolers Unite!
marji
At 10:44 8/20/02 -0400, Elissa wrote:
This message won't be so long this time ;-) Again, my humble apologies to
the list for continuing this off-topic discussion here. I do not think
this subject is enlightening about unschooling, but I am compelled as an
activist to address these things when they come up. Please do delete this
message if you are not interested in this topic. So as not to continue
taking up the list's attention and time, I would like to invite anyone
interested in further debating or discussing this topic to contact me off
list. Thanks very much for indulging me so far! Here goes:
After the reading and research I have done, I am opposed to animal
experimentation on both scientific and ethical grounds. Scientifically,
vivisection is a flawed methodology, as non-human animals are biologically
and physiologically different from humans. Research on non-human animals
all too often produces results that do not correlate to humans. For
example, " [T]he drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol, and Meritol
produced such adverse side effects in humans (including death) that they
were removed from the market, though animal experiments had predicted all
of them to be safe. In fact, the General Accounting Office (the
investigative arm of Congress) did a post-market study of drugs marketed
between 1976 - 1985 and found that 52% were found to be more dangerous than
pre-market animal studies had indicated, with adverse side effects
including permanent disability and death. Recently, the hepatitis drug
Fialuradine and the diet drug combination Phen-Phen cause serious injuries
and deaths in humans because animal tests failed to show the potential for
danger. And for the past thirty years since the announcement of the war on
cancer, our reliance on animal models has led to no advance in the life
expectancy of cancer patients in all but 2% of cases. In the last decade,
the National Cancer Institute abandoned their animal-based drug screening
program and replaced it with non-animal alternatives because the animal
methods had been such a failure." (quoted from
http://www.aavs.org/Docs/basic2.htm )
Ethically, I oppose vivisection based on the theory that animals have the
right to live free of human-imposed suffering. "People who base their
argument against animal experiments on moral grounds are generally referred
to as animal rights activists. Many people are confused by the term and
think that these people want equal rights for animals and humans. This is
not the case. Obviously, animals have different attributes and capabilities
than humans, but every sentient (having the ability to suffer) creature has
inherent value and the right to a life free of being subjected to
suffering. So, while animal rights activists feel that animals should not
be subjected to painful experiments they do not feel that they should have
the right to vote or be able to drive a car." (also quoted from
http://www.aavs.org/Docs/basic2.htm )
Okay, that's all! Again, my apologies to all for this diversion.
Best wishes,
Marji
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I also ... support humane testing for life saving measuresHi, Elissa and everyone!
>(meaning not for makeup). I try to be informed and balance all animals needs
>as best I can, human animals included.
This message won't be so long this time ;-) Again, my humble apologies to
the list for continuing this off-topic discussion here. I do not think
this subject is enlightening about unschooling, but I am compelled as an
activist to address these things when they come up. Please do delete this
message if you are not interested in this topic. So as not to continue
taking up the list's attention and time, I would like to invite anyone
interested in further debating or discussing this topic to contact me off
list. Thanks very much for indulging me so far! Here goes:
After the reading and research I have done, I am opposed to animal
experimentation on both scientific and ethical grounds. Scientifically,
vivisection is a flawed methodology, as non-human animals are biologically
and physiologically different from humans. Research on non-human animals
all too often produces results that do not correlate to humans. For
example, " [T]he drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol, and Meritol
produced such adverse side effects in humans (including death) that they
were removed from the market, though animal experiments had predicted all
of them to be safe. In fact, the General Accounting Office (the
investigative arm of Congress) did a post-market study of drugs marketed
between 1976 - 1985 and found that 52% were found to be more dangerous than
pre-market animal studies had indicated, with adverse side effects
including permanent disability and death. Recently, the hepatitis drug
Fialuradine and the diet drug combination Phen-Phen cause serious injuries
and deaths in humans because animal tests failed to show the potential for
danger. And for the past thirty years since the announcement of the war on
cancer, our reliance on animal models has led to no advance in the life
expectancy of cancer patients in all but 2% of cases. In the last decade,
the National Cancer Institute abandoned their animal-based drug screening
program and replaced it with non-animal alternatives because the animal
methods had been such a failure." (quoted from
http://www.aavs.org/Docs/basic2.htm )
Ethically, I oppose vivisection based on the theory that animals have the
right to live free of human-imposed suffering. "People who base their
argument against animal experiments on moral grounds are generally referred
to as animal rights activists. Many people are confused by the term and
think that these people want equal rights for animals and humans. This is
not the case. Obviously, animals have different attributes and capabilities
than humans, but every sentient (having the ability to suffer) creature has
inherent value and the right to a life free of being subjected to
suffering. So, while animal rights activists feel that animals should not
be subjected to painful experiments they do not feel that they should have
the right to vote or be able to drive a car." (also quoted from
http://www.aavs.org/Docs/basic2.htm )
Okay, that's all! Again, my apologies to all for this diversion.
Best wishes,
Marji
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
KT
>Nah, I was just curious how the folks against circus animals feel about
>
>Elissa responds: I can see that! I think that with that question, some may
>have assumed that there was an argument there against pets but I didn't see
>that. It seemed as though some were responding as if there was.
>
pets. That's all.
Opinions abound. I learned something from asking the question. ;)
Tuck
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/19/02 9:42:28 PM, Hatfield72@... writes:
<< You just said what my husband said today when I
told about the can of worms I opened up. >>
As to the animal-rights of worms, is it better to open the cans or not? And
then what?
<< You just said what my husband said today when I
told about the can of worms I opened up. >>
As to the animal-rights of worms, is it better to open the cans or not? And
then what?
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/20/02 8:15:05 AM, ElissaJC@... writes:
<< I don't think anyone was claiming that keeping them as pets was an
unethical
thing to do to animals!
The unethical actions were being talked about in relation to circuses. >>
I think the same arguments about the animals not having the choice of living
naturally should apply to pet owners though.
Are pets not enslaved animals?
If they are not, would a horse or monkey who was born to a circus-animal
mother not perhaps be a willing circus member?
Sandra
<< I don't think anyone was claiming that keeping them as pets was an
unethical
thing to do to animals!
The unethical actions were being talked about in relation to circuses. >>
I think the same arguments about the animals not having the choice of living
naturally should apply to pet owners though.
Are pets not enslaved animals?
If they are not, would a horse or monkey who was born to a circus-animal
mother not perhaps be a willing circus member?
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/20/02 10:11:33 AM, Tuck@... writes:
<< >Elissa responds: I can see that! I think that with that question, some may
and some of which apply to people's children.
Sandra
<< >Elissa responds: I can see that! I think that with that question, some may
>have assumed that there was an argument there against pets but I didn't seeI was responding to the philosophical points, some of which apply to pets,
>that. It seemed as though some were responding as if there was.
> >>
and some of which apply to people's children.
Sandra