People Power - Circus run out of town.

Cabaal wrote: »

Rather then creating some vigilante group

Forgive me here please as Vigilante is not a word I myself find cause to use very often and perhaps I am not up on current definitions of the term, but could you perhaps inform me how starting a campaign and implementing a petition fits the definition?

I was always under the impression that "Vigilante" means taking the law into your own hands - often while yourself breaking it. And I am not seeing any of that in the OPs posts anywhere.

Or has there been events and actions in reality that the OP has not been forthcoming about?

Cabaal wrote: »

run a business out of town

Did they? The OP was not clear on exactly what methods were used to "run them out of town" or in fact what made them leave. So it would be interesting to know what data you have that I do not - and which the OP is also witholding.

Was it just the petition - which hardly constitutes "Running out of town" - or was there pitch forks and fiery torches involved? Were any laws broken in the protest or communication of their ire to the circus itself? Any physical cajolement of - or interferences with the setup of - the business when they arrived to set up their stall?

Or were they simply presented with the petition and a few peaceful protests and they themselves decided to up shop and leave - when they were in fact perfectly capable of - and in no way _actually hampered_ from choosing to set up anyway and take what punters decided to pay up and enter?

Because I think there is a huge difference myself between "Run out of town" and "convinced it is a better idea to go elsewhere".

Cabaal wrote: »

would it not be better to lobby the government to change the law in relation to animals and circus?

Is that not what they ARE in fact doing? It sounds like the ISPCA are doing it exactly right. Producing reports for the public and government to consume. Organising petitions. Peaceful protests. Stimulating interest from the media and the public. The works.

As a lobby campaign exercise what do you feel they are doing wrong or not doing at all? It seems pretty by the book so far to me.

Cabaal wrote: »

Until the law is changed what the circus is doing is perfectly legal

As are petitions and peaceful protests and Facebook lobby groups to my knowledge, or?

goz83 wrote: »

I don't think the right approach is to force the circus out of town

Did they? I genuinely do apologise to you and Cabaal here but you both appear to have information I have missed somewhere. Can you elaborate?

All this vigilantism, force, running out of town and other stuff are things the OP has not been forthcoming about (unless I missed it) and I would genuinely like more information.

goz83 wrote: »

it does nothing but massage the ego of someone involved in "the cause".

It does more than that. It was not cheap to relocate from the country where they were banned to this country. And now they can not profit by that move as easily as they had assumed. So it makes the business they are involved in less financially viable. And if that continues they will compelled by nothing more than financial concerns to simply close up shop.

That is a lot more than ego massaging.

goz83 wrote: »

The animals are moved on more quickly, probably more stressed from more time in a cage as a result of being forced out of town.

I agree that the CURRENT animals in such circuses are going to be the ones to bear the brunt of suffering from change. I trust however the ISPCA and other people involved in "Big Stop" are looking at a broader picture than this and realise that the temporary increase in suffering of the current animals is a necessary trade off in the bigger picture of their long term well being - and that of all FUTURE animals destined to be inducted into the business model.

goz83 wrote: »

A better approach would have been to refuse to go and instead, start up one of those signature campaigns

Like a petition you mean? Which the OP and the ISPCA article both said they ARE doing?

goz83 wrote: »

and highlight the issue.

Highlight using things like.... a report maybe? Which the ISPCA article says they HAVE written and produced?

Perhaps I am missing the force of your points here somehow - but you appear to be recommending they do the very things they actually did do - while admonishing them for doing things they so far have actually not?

Again I apologise as I am clearly missing information here that others have and I have somehow missed.

kneemos wrote: »

So the animals get sold for lion food?

roverrules wrote: »

Now showing at your local meat counter.

As another user pointed out that is not the case at all. There are places ready to accept and re-home the animals in environments much more conducive to their well being.

But even if it was the case - so what?

Imagine that if the ISPCA get their way and circuses are stopped - and as a result all the animals currently in their care are to be slaughtered next month - so what?

Would that fantastical situation preclude us doing the right thing - assuming the end of circuses is the right thing I am not weighing in on that debate - by closing the circuses down and banning the practice?

I do not think so. I think it would still remain the right thing and the - sad and tragic for sure - short term suffering and loss of life in the animals would still justify the bigger picture of ensuring the suffering is not ongoing - nor that of future animals in the future to come.

So not only is the situation you envision fantastical nonsense - even if it were a reality it still would not carry a point. So as they say - Double Fail.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I wonder if the OP or the people who signed the petition are vegetarians?

I am struggling to see the relevance or connection. Almost as much as I am trying to see the relevance of the invasive fish species post on the first page of the thread. Almost.

wexandproud wrote: »

The vast majority of circus animals were born in captivity and don't know any other life so as long as they are well looked after i don't see any problem.

Hmmm wasn't there a story recently about a guy who was raping not only his daugther - but the daughter of that union - in a basement.

Given the daughter of that union was born in captivity and knew nothing else - does that somehow lessen the harm of that captivity?

Nah I would not be buying the "If they never knew freedom then you are not taking anything away from those born into captivity" argument at all to be honest were it one anyone was compelled to make. Captivity is either justified in a given situation - or it is not. The "They never knew freedom anyway" argument is pretty empty.

Jawgap wrote: »

Not at all - just trying to figure out where the water's edge is - businesses that exploit animals for entertainment seem to be out, business that exploit animals for food?.........Maybe not so much?

For many of us meat eaters it is quite the contrary. In that many of us struggle to source our meat products as ethically as possible. I have read many threads on vegetarianism and their arguments against eating meet fall into two categories.

The first category - arguments against the ethics of actually eating meet - is empty. I have seen no arguments really supporting that. And in fact I discussed this on an After Hours Thread not THAT long ago with someone promoting vegetarianism and they really had no arguments to make in this category. It was ALL second category for that person.

The second category is arguments on the ethics of how we currently grow - produce - and slaughter our meat. And _those_ arguments often have a lot of merit. They are just not relevant arguments to the morality of actually eating meat.

I myself capture - feed up and treat well - then slaughter and eat - wild rabbit. And I fish. I prefer this to buying meat. Firstly because it is free so that is great. But secondly because I prefer to capture and slaughter wild meat than farmed. Because ethically I think all the arguments from category 2 then fall apart.

But where I do purchase my meat - and I really do a lot of it especially for my house parties and summers BBQs - I put quite some effort into sourcing it as ethically as possible.

That said I REALLY enjoyed the Pod Cast from Sam Harris recently where he interviewed one of the start up companies that are working on growing meat in production rather than killing actual animals. Assuming no SUBSTANTIAL loss in quality of the meat - or increase in the cost of it - I would be one of the many many people who would happily swap over and the industry of farmed meat be damned.

We are a long way from it by the sounds of it - they can only manufacture the most basic of meat products - but every step forward counts!