Do you agree with animals being used in the circus?

Wurly

I remember going to one of these as a child and not enjoying a second of it. Even as a kid, I could see that the animals weren't enjoying their 'tricks'.

Now before I post this video, I would like to point out that it's a PETA video. A lot of people have issues with PETA, myself included actually. But this video is really good. And Alec Baldwin is in it....;)

Would you go or bring your child to a circus that features animals? If so, why? I've heard the argument many times "oh, blah circus would never treat their animals in that way. They're well looked after. And do you know what, the animals enjoy it. Really they do".

So.. what's your stance?

bb1234567

Its wrong. It should be banned. Circuses are crap anyway. Hope circuses are banned

joydivision

Yeah . Im tired of people telling me I should care about all these causes .
I like watching an elephant dance .

janja

No its wrong and cruel

starbelgrade

I've never understood the appeal of circuses. Maybe 100 years ago they might have been seen as high entertainment but I think most people have moved on from seeing weird men dressed as clowns and animals being "tamed" as good family fun.

It's all a bit freaky for my liking.

Immaculate Pasta

No I think it's very dated and cruel.

girl in the striped socks

I think it's disgusting tbh. I wouldn't dream of bringing a child to a circus or going myself.
And if I'm being really honest I'm not a huge fan of zoos either. It's like a posher circus with less travelling & less tricks but its essentially the same thing: locking up a wild animal.

ShamoBuc

A circus without animals wouldn't be the same.

Max Power

Wurly wrote: »

So.. what's your stance?

Sitting down at the moment.

Scioch

Its stupid, ignorant and cruel. Same as locking them in cages for snot nosed kids to gawk at. People need to cop the fcuk on.

dvpower

starbelgrade wrote: »

I've never understood the appeal of circuses. Maybe 100 years ago they might have been seen as high entertainment but I think most people have moved on from seeing weird men dressed as clowns and animals being "tamed" as good family fun.

It's all a bit freaky for my liking.

Live acrobatics is something you don't see everyday, and kids love clowns.

The animals always seemed to be a costly logistical nightmare and didn't really pay their way.

joydivision

What would happen to all these animals if the circus had to set them free ?
Have we got the facilities to look after them ?

AnonoBoy

If they're not shooting zebras out of a canon then it's not worth going to I feel.

The best one I was ever at was one with no animals. Wouldn't ever go to one with animals now

looksee

I don't go to circuses with animals - I have no objection to horses and dogs but not wild animals. I have been to the likes of the Chinese circus, which is people - acrobats etc. I like the atmosphere but not the use of animals.

LiamMc

Do you agree with animals being used in the circus?

Yes.

9959

Brought my children to the circus a few years ago, they thought it was a bit boring.
I have to say that none of the animals showed any signs of joie de vivre, in fact most of them seemed to be suffering from a severe case of ennui, yes they were French existentialist animals but animals with feelings none the less!

Don't feel strongly enough about it to call for the banning of circuses with animals, but I agree, for the most part, with the OP.

admiralofthefleet

couldnt care less tbh

Sky King

I have never asked a circus animal its opinion on anything so I couldn't possibly say whether I agree with them or not.

Fr_Dougal

Wurly wrote: »

I remember going to one of these as a child and not enjoying a second of it. Even as a kid, I could see that the animals weren't enjoying their 'tricks'.

Now before I post this video, I would like to point out that it's a PETA video. A lot of people have issues with PETA, myself included actually. But this video is really good. And Alec Baldwin is in it....;)

Would you go or bring your child to a circus that features animals? If so, why? I've heard the argument many times "oh, blah circus would never treat their animals in that way. They're well looked after. And do you know what, the animals enjoy it. Really they do".

So.. what's your stance?

Hypocrite.

Wurly

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Hypocrite.

Agreed, not a great picture by anyone's standards. Do you have more information on the context?

To be honest, that picture isn't really in the same league as what is depicted in the video I posted.

--LOS--

For me it's the same kind of cruelty as zoos, dolphin shows etc, the likes of cirque de soleil don't rely on animals, it's a needless cruelty, but then again so is eating meat so at least I'm not a hypocrite.

Scioch

looksee wrote: »

I don't go to circuses with animals - I have no objection to horses and dogs but not wild animals. I have been to the likes of the Chinese circus, which is people - acrobats etc. I like the atmosphere but not the use of animals.

See I dont get that. Whats different about horses and dogs and Elephants born and raised in captivity ? No circus is going to use an actual wild animal in a show, they are all born and bred from other animals who were easiest to control and train.

Horses and dogs dont naturally dance, they have to be trained to do it. The fact that its easier to do it with dogs and horses shouldnt be the defining factor is the justification of doing it. You are still training an animal to do something it wouldnt otherwise do to amuse a bunch of slack jawed gawker's. Elephant, dog, horse, giraffe, mongoose its all the same isnt it ?.

the purple tin

They'd probably be better off in the zoo tbh.
Wasn't the woman from Fossetts circus caught spanking her monkeys a few years ago.

aidoh

Fúck circuses that abuse animals but Fúck PETA way, way more.

Gran Hermano

Those we can't eat can at least entertain us.

Wurly

aidoh wrote: »

Fúck circuses that abuse animals but Fúck PETA way, way more.

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement.

So you'd prefer animals to be abused over an organisation who was founded to protect them? I think PETA go too far sometimes and I too have my issues with them. But your statement is utterly idiotic.

steddyeddy

Backward acts for backward people.

joydivision

I think we dont have enough animal cruelty .

We will be educating them and letting them vote next .
Then what ? Theyll take over thats what .

MaxSteele

^^

"Shure aren't they better off with the circus and in cages so I can be entertained while I ahhte me ice cream hey ?" :rolleyes:

Completely unnecessary and miserable IMO.

I remember when Fossetts used to come here years ago, and looking at fully grown adult Lions slumped in their dreary cages. They should be living free in the Serengeti, not dancing and jumping through hoops for clueless families and they're spoiled children.

Shryke

I'm absolutely against it. There a step removed from zoos. Some zoos do well to try and retain certain animal populations and have come a long way. There's research and study in zoology and a lot of care is put in with some of the animals. It's not their natural habitat but it's not as horrible as a circus by any means.
With natural habitats being decimated daily it's at least something to have certain wildlife cared for and nurtured as best we can. I'm not referring to the circuses here.

PETA are awful though. Tawdry fickle idiots with heads up their own asses.

Scioch

Shryke wrote: »

I'm absolutely against it. There a step removed from zoos. Some zoos do well to try and retain certain animal populations and have come a long way. There's research and study in zoology and a lot of care is put in with some of the animals. It's not their natural habitat but it's not as horrible as a circus by any means.
With natural habitats being decimated daily it's at least something to have certain wildlife cared for and nurtured as best we can. I'm not referring to the circuses here.

PETA are awful though. Tawdry fickle idiots with heads up their own asses.

Breeding animals in the zoos to stop them going extinct doesnt a address the problem though. Why is it done ? Do the animals want it ? Or are people doing it for their own benefit ?

The problem is the destruction of their natural habitat. I'm all for sanctuaries and designating parks so as to avoid impacting on animals and what not. But if the black arsed baboons natural habitat is destroyed because of pure greed on the part of the ignorants who live in a certain area. Then how does that mean some zoo somewhere now has the right to lock up the last remaining baboons to try breed them ?

I see no point in it, yes its sad to see a species go extinct but this has been going on for millions of years. Is it that far removed from making a monkey dance to amuse us as keeping him in a cage trying to make him breed so people can pop round on a Sunday have a gawk ?

People think they have the animals interests at heart but they really dont at all. The only use for a zoo or such is for caring for animals who for one reason or another cannot be reintroduced to the wild. And they shouldnt be bred or sold to other zoos to breed more attractions under the guise of protecting a species.

Shryke

Scioch wrote: »

Breeding animals in the zoos to stop them going extinct doesnt a address the problem though. Why is it done ? Do the animals want it ? Or are people doing it for their own benefit ?

The problem is the destruction of their natural habitat. I'm all for sanctuaries and designating parks so as to avoid impacting on animals and what not. But if the black arsed baboons natural habitat is destroyed because of pure greed on the part of the ignorants who live in a certain area. Then how does that mean some zoo somewhere now has the right to lock up the last remaining baboons to try breed them ?

I see no point in it, yes its sad to see a species go extinct but this has been going on for millions of years. Is it that far removed from making a monkey dance to amuse us as keeping him in a cage trying to make him breed so people can pop round on a Sunday have a gawk ?

People think they have the animals interests at heart but they really dont at all. The only use for a zoo or such is for caring for animals who for one reason or another cannot be reintroduced to the wild. And they shouldnt be bred or sold to other zoos to breed more attractions under the guise of protecting a species.

I don't think you've put much thought into your post at all. For one thing it would allow for an animal to be reintroduced into a new habitat if one was found or prepared. This is something that happens already. Your attitude is "who cares?"
"The right to lock them up" is an interesting one. You could say humanity has a responsibility to do something, anything they can to try and protect and maintain species in this imperfect world, especially when humanity is the cause of their decline.
You talk about animals like they're useless and disposable and then in you next paragraph you talk about them as if they have rights and shouldn't be locked up. I'm sensing a lack of empathy/coherence on this...

Scioch

Shryke wrote: »

I don't think you've put much thought into your post at all.

Lets see how much thought you've put into yours then shall we ?

For one thing it would allow for an animal to be reintroduced into a new habitat if one was found or prepared. This is something that happens already.

And ? Who benefits from that ? The countless animals that live in confined conditions they are ill suited to ? Or the zoologists who clap themselves on the back when a handful of animals are reintroduced to a suitable environment ? The animals dont care about the future of their species, the animals just want to do their thing. So subjecting them to life in a zoo is for nothing but the benefit of humans. The animals being reintroduced only exist because of humans so they wouldnt need to be reintroduced otherwise. We should just keep our beaks out of it.

Your attitude is "who cares?"
"The right to lock them up" is an interesting one. You could say humanity has a responsibility to do something, anything they can to try and protect and maintain species in this imperfect world, especially when humanity is the cause of their decline.

My attitude is that its the same as that of the circus. Use the animals to the benefit of humans not to the benefit of the animals themselves. The cause of decline is the problem, and this "Protecting the species" is a pretty pathetic solution. Humans destroyed their habitat, so lets lock them up for years and selectively breed them so we can stick them in a park to feel better about it.

You talk about animals like they're useless and disposable and then in you next paragraph you talk about them as if they have rights and shouldn't be locked up. I'm sensing a lack of empathy/coherence on this...

No I talk about them as if they are more than the playthings of humans to do with what they want. To make them dance for our amusement, to destroy their habitat for our profit and then to cage them and breed them as if it makes it all ok. If they go extinct they go extinct its been that way for millions of years.

To be honest I dont think you put much thought into your argument at all. :rolleyes:

Micky Dolenz

I am against wild animals been kept in captivity except for treatment of sick animals and breeding programmes protecting endangered animals with a view to someday repopulating them into their natural habitat where possible.

Using wild animals for cheap entertainment is vile.

Duiske

What would a circus be without the animals ? Just a few clowns, and a few hot birds in short skirts tight rope walking. Actually, on second thoughts **** the animals. We need more tight rope walkers.

Shryke

Scioch wrote: »

Lets see how much thought you've put into yours then shall we ?

Lets.

Scioch wrote: »

And ? Who benefits from that ? The countless animals that live in confined conditions they are ill suited to ? Or the zoologists who clap themselves on the back when a handful of animals are reintroduced to a suitable environment ? The animals dont care about the future of their species, the animals just want to do their thing. So subjecting them to life in a zoo is for nothing but the benefit of humans. The animals being reintroduced only exist because of humans so they wouldnt need to be reintroduced otherwise. We should just keep our beaks out of it.

Your assertions are completely notionless. Most modern zoos don't confine animals in poor conditions. A lot have especially designed habitats and animals get a lot of care. I don't agree with caging wild animals in general but it's not in any way as evil as you make out, and there is good done too.
Your argument is that animals don't care if they go extinct so fcuk them? How old are you? Do you genuinely know anything about zoology?
By the way, this: " The animals being reintroduced only exist because of humans so they wouldnt need to be reintroduced otherwise.", wins some kind of retard award, no offense.

Scioch wrote: »

My attitude is that its the same as that of the circus. Use the animals to the benefit of humans not to the benefit of the animals themselves. The cause of decline is the problem, and this "Protecting the species" is a pretty pathetic solution. Humans destroyed their habitat, so lets lock them up for years and selectively breed them so we can stick them in a park to feel better about it.

Um. What? You're making it sound like I'm supporting the destruction of ecologies now? I'm not, fyi. So any effort at conservation is "pathetic" according to you? Tbh I think you just hate wildlife at this stage.
Lock them up meaning care for them in an environment where they would otherwise have been destroyed? Well, ya. Selectively breed them? Well, they have to breed don't they? You must have a serious bone to pick with farmers. Stick them in a park? Well, reintroducing them to a natural environment is what I was talking about. It's by no means a perfect solution but it can and does happen, and the people doing it make a real difference in the fight to save many species. Your attitude is what's pathetic.
Habitats need to be conserved, that's a serious issue, but a lot of them aren't.

Scioch wrote: »

No I talk about them as if they are more than the playthings of humans to do with what they want. To make them dance for our amusement, to destroy their habitat for our profit and then to cage them and breed them as if it makes it all ok. If they go extinct they go extinct its been that way for millions of years.

Hmmm. People like to see animal attractions, yup. I haven't seen any dancing bears in a while though.
You see no problem with extinction. Why am I wasting time on you?

Scioch wrote: »

To be honest I dont think you put much thought into your argument at all. :rolleyes:

I did, you haven't, or you're a hateful person that wants to see nothing at all done about the destruction of other species. I don't agree with zoos in general, as I've already said, but they're mostly not evil or horrible places and a lot of people working with them genuinely care for the welfare of animals.

We're the custodians of this planet and have a responsibility to it. My view is that conservation and preservation should persevere and we should retain and respect as much diversity of life as we can and that a greater respect for nature can be found than there currently is. You on the other hand seem to be in a rush to see everything murdered to extinction as if that's somehow the humane and conscientious thing!

Gummy Panda

I don't like the circus but I don't mind zoos.

Feeding time at the zoos is fun

woodoo

No i think its cruel.

roadrunner16

Now before you jump on me for having no heart and being a cruel person , I personally think the sickest thing is that charities for animals exist at all when there are people in the world who cant eat. and I think peta should re-direct their charitable efforts to PETA People Eat The Animals , and use their funds to feed starving people around the world , but hey thats just me

Scioch

Shryke wrote: »

Lets.
Your assertions are completely notionless. Most modern zoos don't confine animals in poor conditions. A lot have especially designed habitats and animals get a lot of care. I don't agree with caging wild animals in general but it's not in any way as evil as you make out, and there is good done too.
Your argument is that animals don't care if they go extinct so fcuk them? How old are you? Do you genuinely know anything about zoology?
By the way, this: " The animals being reintroduced only exist because of humans so they wouldnt need to be reintroduced otherwise.", wins some kind of retard award, no offense.

Well I never said anything about poor conditions, I said conditions they are ill suited to. Which is the case in every zoo considering the space available. Neither did I say it was evil, its needless. Is that my argument ? I dont think it is. Try again there pal. Oh and I'm a retard now, thats nice.

Um. What? You're making it sound like I'm supporting the destruction of ecologies now? I'm not, fyi. So any effort at conservation is "pathetic" according to you? Tbh I think you just hate wildlife at this stage.
Lock them up meaning care for them in an environment where they would otherwise have been destroyed? Well, ya. Selectively breed them? Well, they have to breed don't they? You must have a serious bone to pick with farmers. Stick them in a park? Well, reintroducing them to a natural environment is what I was talking about. It's by no means a perfect solution but it can and does happen, and the people doing it make a real difference in the fight to save many species. Your attitude is what's pathetic.
Habitats need to be conserved, that's a serious issue, but a lot of them aren't.

I never said anything about you supporting the destruction of ecologies. Oh my attitude is pathetic. Sorry about that.

Hmmm. People like to see animal attractions, yup. I haven't seen any dancing bears in a while though.
You see no problem with extinction. Why am I wasting time on you?

I dont know why you're wasting time on me, perhaps you have nothing better to do.

I did, you haven't, or you're a hateful person that wants to see nothing at all done about the destruction of other species. I don't agree with zoos in general, as I've already said, but they're mostly not evil or horrible places and a lot of people working with them genuinely care for the welfare of animals.

I'm a hateful person now ? I thought we were getting on so well.

We're the custodians of this planet and have a responsibility to it. My view is that conservation and preservation should persevere and we should retain and respect as much diversity of life as we can and that a greater respect for nature can be found than there currently is. You on the other hand seem to be in a rush to see everything murdered to extinction as if that's somehow the humane and conscientious thing!

We are the custodians of this planet ? Sounds like something from a sci fi movie. We are animals living on this planet same as all the rest. Oh I'm in a rush to see all the animals murdered.

So to sum up your argument here, I should receive a retard award, my argument is fcuk the aminals, my attitude is pathetic, you're wasting your time talking to me, I'm a hateful person and I want to see all animals murdered.

And you accuse me of not putting much thought into my posts.

Shryke

Scioch wrote: »

Well I never said anything about poor conditions, I said conditions they are ill suited to. Which is the case in every zoo considering the space available. Neither did I say it was evil, its needless. Is that my argument ? I dont think it is. Try again there pal. Oh and I'm a retard now, thats nice.



I never said anything about you supporting the destruction of ecologies. Oh my attitude is pathetic. Sorry about that.



I dont know why you're wasting time on me, perhaps you have nothing better to do.



I'm a hateful person now ? I thought we were getting on so well.



We are the custodians of this planet ? Sounds like something from a sci fi movie. We are animals living on this planet same as all the rest. Oh I'm in a rush to see all the animals murdered.

So to sum up your argument here, I should receive a retard award, my argument is fcuk the aminals, my attitude is pathetic, you're wasting your time talking to me, I'm a hateful person and I want to see all animals murdered.

And you accuse me of not putting much thought into my posts.

Well at least I made an effort. I made some points rather than just repeat your own post back at you in a sarky fashion, and I stand by my post. You're not countering or arguing your position, because it's ridiculous.

Scioch

Shryke wrote: »

Well at least I made an effort. I made some points rather than just repeat your own post back at you in a sarky fashion, and I stand by my post. You're not countering or arguing your position, because it's ridiculous.

I made my argument and you hurled abuse at me. I'm not gonna waste my time countering abuse with an actual argument. Why would I ?

Shryke

Scioch wrote: »

I made my argument and you hurled abuse at me. I'm not gonna waste my time countering abuse with an actual argument. Why would I ?

You can't, that's why. You're only acting bum hurt because I called you on proposing animal holocaust as the way forward. Ridiculous! Good luck.

Scioch

Shryke wrote: »

You can't, that's why. You're only acting bum hurt because I called you on proposing animal holocaust as the way forward. Ridiculous! Good luck.

You didnt call me on anything, you hurled abuse at me because I had a different opinion to you. Now you're proclaiming victory because I'm not interested in trading insults.

Well done you.

Abi

I don't think there is any need for them any more. There's plenty of other ways of entertaining ourselves nowadays, it's a bit pre-historic having them about now. Whenever a circus comes near where I live they have the animals out grazing in the morning time. They always look fúcking miserable, I do feel sorry for them.

I've never been to a circus, nor do I intend to.

Galwayguy35

roadrunner16 wrote: »

Now before you jump on me for having no heart and being a cruel person , I personally think the sickest thing is that charities for animals exist at all when there are people in the world who cant eat. and I think peta should re-direct their charitable efforts to PETA People Eat The Animals , and use their funds to feed starving people around the world , but hey thats just me

There are starving people in the world because of corrupt Governments.

Galwayguy35

I saw a programme on Discovery a while back about circus animals and how they are ofton badly mistreated and beaten to make them do the circus tricks for the audience.

There have been cases of elephants and big cats killing their trainers and I think this is because they are wild animals who finally decide to hit back at the cruelty they suffer.

Shryke

Scioch wrote: »

You didnt call me on anything, you hurled abuse at me because I had a different opinion to you. Now you're proclaiming victory because I'm not interested in trading insults.

Well done you.

You missed a lot of content then. Go read my posts again. Your position is indefensible and obscene and you're still not making any attempt to defend it. Good idea.
I don't declare victory, and some of the stuff you've said... I'll repeat myself. Retarded.

Again, good luck. We're done here.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Give it a rest lads, please.

franktheplank

Well I probably wouldn't disagree with them, especially the tigers.

/ Rolls around floor, laughing at own joke.