The British actress and wildlife conservationist had spent 10 years trying to rescue Pitou and Sirius from Monaco Zoo, campaigning for them to be re-homed by Born Free, the animal welfare organisation she founded 25 years ago with her late husband, the actor Bill Travers. (Before the leopards were moved to the zoo, they were with a French travelling circus.)
McKenna went to Monaco nine times and begged courtiers to be allowed to ask the late Prince Rainier to grant these predators freedom. They wouldn't even let her see him. And then a little miracle happened.
Rainier's heir, Prince Albert, who succeeded to the throne in 2005, was told in passing by an English friend about McKenna's perseverance. Monaco has rarely been known for its philanthropy. The preservation of wealth, yes. Concern for the environment, no.
But this time the royal family listened. Maybe it was because the Prince's mother, the legendary Grace Kelly, used to be a film star, or perhaps it was his journey to the Arctic in the footsteps of his great-great grandfather, where he saw how the Lillihook glacier had lost 40 per cent of its volume and shrunk by six kilometres in a century.
Others have credited the influence of his statuesque blonde girlfriend, Charlene Wittstock, a South African Olympic swimmer who grew up near the game reserves and has a love of wild animals. Whatever the reason, the prince was impressed.
He invited McKenna to lunch, where he agreed to release the zoo's leopards to Born Free. Other animals, including a camel and a hippo, would be released later.
Is the "appropriate" releasing of 16 year old captive leopards illustrated above, Monaco's answer to the European Circus Association Code of Conduct mission statement?
That the ECA supports and encourages efforts to protect and conserve endangered species, including public education and participation in breeding programmes and scientific studies that promote the survival of these species in the wild.,The ECA has adopted this Code of Conduct to contribute to the highest possible welfare of all animals in the circus and invites all persons responsible for animals in the circus to adhere to them.
Or is it an example of getting out from under a bad situation, in the best possible light?
What agenda's are self serving, and which are committed to animal welfare?
ECA achievement:
Successful adoption of the European Parliament 2005 resolution calling for greater support of circuses as part of European culture.
Monaco's past agreement's with the European Parliament
The Principality of Monaco qualifies itself as constitutional monarchy. Head of State is a Prince.
The European Commission has no delegation in Monaco and no accredited representative. The nearest information office of the Commission is located in Marseille
Through its special relation with France, Monaco participates directly in some Community policies.
Monetary Agreement
Agreement on Pharmaceuticals, Cosmetic Products and Medical Devises
Agreement on Saving Taxation
Posts
38 comments:
Wade, I own a copy of Virginia McKenna & Bill Travers' book "On Playing with Lions", but it has been some time since I have read it. Although they are well-meaning animal -loving people, like all books it should probably be taken with a pound of salt (even if one is on a low-sodium diet). Releasing 16-year-old leopards who have lived their entire lives in a zoo, no matter how deplorable the conditions, into an environment much like "the wild" doesn't make much sense. I think it is an example of getting out from under a bad situation in the best possible light.
Mary Ann
Mary Ann,
I agree that Born Free's agenda is questionable. Because Ben had questioned that possibly the story about the zoo was suspect, given who wrote it and that the Prince had released the leopards to an organization, I ran it so we could question his agenda, and the agenda of the European Circus Association in regards to animal welfare. Their meetings are held in Monaco, and a founding member is a member of the Royal Family.
I don't think we should start patting Monte Carlo Circus Festival on the back for their "conservation effort's or concern for animal welfare", just yet. I also think if we are to call ourselves a Circus organization concerned with animal welfare, housing, well being, we should insist that the Princess set a standard, in good faith to show her "non agenda" concern, before she has a voting right to animal welfare in the circus. Rather then sucking up to her to have a place to hold a Circus Festival. No organization Peta, Born Free, Animal Liberation, OABA, ECA, is valid if they have agenda other then the mission statement.
Wade
Those of us ancients with long memories still in working order, may recall that, following the completion of the filming of the movie "Born Free", a number of lions used in that movie needed to be homed somewhere.
NONE of the actors who earned their living from those animals were prepared to contribute to the lion's upkeep.
It was a circus man, Jimmy Chipperfield, who bought the lions and shipped them to England to live in one of his safari parks.
The hypocrisy of some of these do-gooders, and their continual begging for money, still makes me cranky.
Steve Robinson
Those of us ancients with long memories still in working order, may recall that, following the completion of the filming of the movie "Born Free", a number of lions used in that movie needed to be homed somewhere.
NONE of the actors who earned their living from those animals were prepared to contribute to the lion's upkeep.
It was a circus man, Jimmy Chipperfield, who bought the lions and shipped them to England to live in one of his safari parks.
The hypocrisy of some of these do-gooders, and their continual begging for money, still makes me cranky.
Steve Robinson
Steve,
It was also "circus man" Jimmy Chipperfield who made quite a good "pound" advertising them as the "Born Free" lions. His "safari parks" shortly became, nothing short of concentration camps for animals. With all due respect, you would be hard press to find a "circus man/owner" doing something for an animal, that was connected to kindness and not for financial/press gain.
Wade
Making money the greatest motivator of them all!
Steve
Wade - the point of difference is that Chipperfield was open and up front about earning a buck [pound] from what he did with animals.
This other lot are all holier than thou but travel around the world first class, stay in 5 star accomodation and pontificate about what the rest of us should with/about animals but won't put their money where their mouths are. They beg for money on the animal's behalf and then spend a disproportianate amount of that money on themselves.
THEY are "exploiting" animals too.
Steve
Steve mate,
The point of difference is a "circus man" and I reference owners and proprietors here, not trainers/ artists, are usually used to rebut some AR statement or welfare hypocrisies, and with rare exception they are as hypocritical. Are you suggesting that the people who flew to Monaco for the forming of the World Circus Federation were any more noble because their 5 star rooms were comped?
Wade
Born Free has an enormous membership these days. Unfortunately when it comes to programs, they're big on feel good pseudo-science. Most of us know that African veldt and plains wildlife populations are tied to water holes. The whole idea of funding "sanctuaries" in Africa rather than putting money into land use/water rights programs that naturally benefit game animals is way too Hollywood or London and way too little Mombasa.
One thing I learned working in tropical conservation programs is that schemes that make a buck and ultimately pay for themselves succeed where schemes that suck off the public tit frequently don't. Who makes the best ranger? Sometimes it's the guy who used to be the best poacher.
Ben
Wade - as far as I am aware they didn't fly to Monaco on money they had "begged" from the public to "save" the animals.
Anonymous,
I am assuming you are Steve. If you click Name/URL, you can write your name and not have that problem.
Do you know that they did not go there with membership funds, that are begged/solicited from the public? Did OABA ask their membership, who "donated" their money, if they felt OABA should be linked with the Europen Circus Association? I called a die hard, OABA supporter who is a member in good standing when I was in Monaco, and asked if he knew anything about this, and he had never heard of the European Circus Association!!!
I suggest Monaco has no concern for Animal welfare, given their zoo and Ben suggests they do as the Prince has released leopards. I suggest it was to Born Free and we start whacking Born Free. Steve suggests a "circus man" was more concerned for the lions from Born Free, and I suggest his concern was dirty. He suggests it wasn't as every body wants to make a profit.
Let's start again. I suggest Monaco could care less about animal welfare, given the private zoo that had a number of "donated" circus animals. I wonder how may circus artists, who profess to love animals, upon receiving their "clown" said, "why didn't you shut down that piece of shit on the hill? But we will hook up with them as a shining example of our "worldwide concern" for animal welfare, because they provide a tent for an "Oscar/Olympic" type awards festival that gets big press. I suggest either we learned the fine are of bull shit from the AR movement, or it was so entrenched in our generational history, they learned it from us.
___________________________________
An open plea to fans:
Fans in the general vicinity should quickly respond with a positive letter to the editor of the local newspaper. The sponsor and the local authorities should get telephone calls and letters from circus fans in the area that assure such people that you are outraged with the libelous and erroneous information of animal extremists. You are eye witnesses to the fact that the circus animals are treated as if members of the family.
This crap about them being members of the family, loving them like children, etc. etc., hurts us badly. The AR want to then give them human rights, and a choice, and we start screaming.
___________________________________
Do not stage "counter protests" without first consulting with the circus management, circus venue, the sponser, and local authorities.
In no case do we ever "confront" animal protesters. We simply demonstrate that there is another side to the story and bring facts (not animal rights fiction) to light.
"fiction to light!!!" Give me a break. The fiction usually starts when you show the other side of the coin. Recall the "blocks of ice, frozen watermelon fact", from not long ago, when management was consulted.
____________________________________
The animal extremists should not be allowed to get away with this. Today it's the circus! Tomorrow will it be baseball? After all, that ball could hit someone! Public contact with flying projectiles should not be allowed! No rollercoasters! No race cars? What would the NASCAR fans say?
You know what the NASCAR fans would say! So how about it circus fans??
Gary C. Payne
CFA Animal Welfare Chairman
Here's your shining example above of extremism and BS, talk about fanning the masses with fiction.
_____________________________________
I for one refuse to counter a wrong statement with another wrong statement. Maybe the public is not believing either side. Maybe they are thinking they are both nut's.
Wade
Wade, regarding Gary Payne and his suggestion that members of the Circus Fans of America respond to anti-animal-circus letters in local newspapers or on-site protests; you're right in pointing out the futility of countering misinformation with misinformation. That doesn't mean it isn't perfectly reasonable to counter statements that are in fact misinformation, or to point out that animal liberation (animal rights) as posited originally by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer is a utopian ideology with a very real agenda that has little or nothing to do with legitimate animal welfare. Gary Payne incorrectly suggests that anyone who writes an anti-circus letter to a newspaper or carries a sign with a picture of a tiger protesting in front of the box office is an extremist. There are extremists within the animal liberation movement, and several AR groups have supported the extremist views of Animal Liberation Front financially. But other "protesters" are reasonably normal and honestly believe that that Hawthorn white tiger act (or whatever) must have been trained by a guy wielding club, because that's what they've been told. Responding to critics isn't about counter attack. Whenever possible it's about reason versus ideology, welfare versus rights, and it's about understanding which of your critics genuinely love animals and which of your critics simply hate people.
Ben
Wade, regarding Gary Payne and his suggestion that members of the Circus Fans of America respond to anti-animal-circus letters in local newspapers or on-site protests; you're right in pointing out the futility of countering misinformation with misinformation. That doesn't mean it isn't perfectly reasonable to counter statements that are in fact misinformation, or to point out that animal liberation (animal rights) as posited originally by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer is a utopian ideology with a very real agenda that has little or nothing to do with legitimate animal welfare. Gary Payne incorrectly suggests that anyone who writes an anti-circus letter to a newspaper or carries a sign with a picture of a tiger protesting in front of the box office is an extremist. There are extremists within the animal liberation movement, and several AR groups have supported the extremist views of Animal Liberation Front financially. But other "protesters" are reasonably normal and honestly believe that that Hawthorn white tiger act (or whatever) must have been trained by a guy wielding club, because that's what they've been told. Responding to critics isn't about counter attack. Whenever possible it's about reason versus ideology, welfare versus rights, and it's about understanding which of your critics genuinely love animals and which of your critics simply hate people.
Ben
Ben,
You are absolutely right. And it is all about understanding/knowing which of your associates genuinely loves animals, and which of your associates are using the Liberationists, for a pity party to continue operating as they have since the old days. You can not use misstatements to rebuttal somebody else's misstatements.
Wade
God bless the few aged fans of the circus left, but a more ignorant bunch (by choice), I've never met. They are so scared of offending even the lowliest candy butcher that they will repeat any bullshit they read in the back of the program as fact. Heaven forbid they aren't welcome to hang around the back door during the show.
I'd like to put one of those loyal fans to the acid test. Ask them if they would volunteer the family dog for a little experiment that would go like this:
The dog, preferrably a young one would need to be tied in one spot by one fore foot and one hind foot for the rest of it's life - on concrete preferrably. Twice a day it would be taken off it's tethers for a brief foray into the ring. Periodically it would be removed from the other dogs it is aqainted with and be sold to a stranger. Apon arriving at the new local, it would immediately (and before it even has a chance to get it's bearings)be knocked around a bit by the new idiot that owns it, to show it who is boss. During it's life, zero insubordination would be tolerated. Even playing with it's chains to relieve the boredom could be grounds for a sound thrashing. And, heaven forbid that year after year after year of this would turn the poor bastrd insane. Then, even stronger measures would be required to bring it back to zombie status.
There would be no consideration given to pulled muscles, hernias, dislocated joints, partial paraliysis. This lucky dog would have to do the same strenuous tricks under threat of sever punishment. But, we will feed it well so everyone will say "it looked happy to me". Then, when it is too old, or too beserk to do it's thing anymore - then we'll sell it to some shit hole south of the border, when some new asshole can beat a few more years out of it.
The main fault with the experiment that elephants live the length of five dogs, and have so much more time to enjoy the party.
But, as long as we call them "one of the family" everything is just hunky dory. Even "one of the family" can go insane from isolation.
John McCain, you have nothing on us - 5 years as a POW? HA, we laugh at your measly 5 years.
No, well meaning CFA members - I think you're better off researching usefull things like the diameters of tents from long forgotten rag bags than adding your 2 cents to the AR/AW debate.
Ben - a very valid point about the differences within the AR ranks in people terms. We have found that within the upper echelons of the hierarchy tend to be the politically active types to whom "animals" are just a cause. A subject to advance their aspirations. Beneath them though are the cannon fodder - normal, decent folk with a genuine concern for the well-being of animals. Because their leaders are very passionate about the "subject" they feel quite sure that their leaders must be right in the quite outlandish rubbish that some of them sprout.
On several occasions over the years I have singled out some normal looking people from a demonstration and invited them to come over the fence and meet my cats. Invariably they have been reluctant to do so because they just "know" that circus cats are so stressed out from their unnatural environment that they are psychotic. On the few occasions that I have succeeded in introducing such people to my cats they have got the thrill of their lives to meet well adjusted, pro-human animals and all the propaganda that they had been fed has been shown up for what it was. On one memorable occasion, the organiser of the demo abused his "demonstrators" for accepting my invitation yelling that he "...hadn't paid for them to come here to play with animals"!
Genuine people like that belong in Animal Welfare groups - not Animal Rights groups.
Wade - I also refuse to fight bullshit with bullshit - I don't have to, particularly as I believe that what I am doing with my animals is right. Right for them and right for me.
I could care less about Monaco - but not much! The European Circus Association will do nothing for me and my animals and the whole Festival thing doesn't turn me on at all. I have always regarded circus artists as much too individually worthwhile to be pitted against each other in any sort of competition. A mate of mine goes to it every year purely and simply for the socialising. The people who do work there do so for their own reasons and that's fine by me.
I'm guessing from some of the posts on here that you guys have a bigger problem with managements than we do here. I couldn't understand the heat in some of your posts because we just don't have that sort of a situation in Australia. But then again, we've hardly got any animal acts either and the cat acts that are left are just "cuddle" acts. It is very sad but it has had little to do with AR and more to do with the laziness of the younger generation and the lack of suitable trainers as mentors for the few who were a bit keen.
Wade - I clicked that Name/URL thingo and wrote my name but I'm buggered if I know what my URL is???????
Take it easy.
Steve,
If you were a paying member of an organization, like the Australian Circus Federation, and they decided without notifying you or the membership to donate funds to the European Circus Association, which as one of the full members states in an interview is for the advancement of European circus, would you care a bit more.
In his professional colleagues he also appeals to join the ECA: "Every animal member teachers should be" to continue with its membership dues to help that the ECA will continue the Circus at the European level, a strong voice.
What if you can only vote and be a member of that "strong voice", if you are "seated" in Europe.
How much of a future did the younger generation see in pursuing a career as an animal trainer, given the cost of living X salary?
I think if we "get ours", and forget the rest we do youth, ours anyway, a terrible injustice.
Wade
Steve,
Just type your name, you don't need a URL.
Regards mate,
Wade
Wade - I am just about to rejoin the Circus Federation of Australia as an associate member with my animal acts and, you can bet, I'll have a say every now and then!!!
I'm all for the advancement of ALL circus -American, European, wherever - but I believe that charity begins at home and so my emphasis [and dollars] will be directed to the advancement of Aussie circus.
Dialogue with other nations is great but I'm not aware that our Federation has had anywhere near as much dialogue with Europe as, for example, we have had just on this blog.
I'll do my voting in Australia and when it comes to "seating" - well I don't get enough time to sit here , let alone in Europe. LOL.
Is the OABA your version of our Circus Federation or is it a much more broadly based organisation?
And, apart from you and Mr Cainan, are there no other animal trainers in the States? We are certainly not hearing from any of them here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that you are not on the road [based at Hawthorn in the Chicago area?] but Casey is travelling and still manages to contribute his thoughts. Do the others not know about this or not care?
Or am I just a bloody Aussie stirring up the Yanks? LOL.
And, as for the younger generation, I guess it's a whole new world out there. When I was a young kid off the farm it wasn't about money. I shovelled crap, ate sandwiches for lunch and tea, worked for as long as it took and loved it. I listened to old blokes who couldn't read or write but would have forgotten more about animals than I will ever know. Money was the least important thing in my life - which probably explains why I've never got enough of it now!! Seriously though, I'd love to know how to motivate some of today's generation to learn as much as they can from today's old blokes before that knowledge is lost forever. I am guessing that your knowledge is getting passed on to your son so you [and he] are lucky there. My son is not an animal man [and has the sense to realise it] but his son is going to be a beaut. If only I can live long enough to pass on my little bit of knowledge to him - the little bugger is only 6 years old!
Steve Mate,
It is hard to get a handle on you at times. If /when you join the Australian Circus Federation, are you going to tell them they have no business with the ECA, as you have stated, who's sole purpose is to promote European Circus, and will they listen to you and get their/your money back.
Don't forget the birth of this blog was because of censorship on the other one. Bob Cline who contributes occasionally, is an animal trainer, and many read, one you know LAD. There are only about a half dozen wild animal acts left in America, and nobody wants to "rock the boat"
and that "with it an for it mentality" is similar to Lemmings.
I discouraged my son for many years, and the decision to perform was his and his only, and I am attempting to assure him a future. As Casey has stated, I advise him often on the phone, and I do that with pleasure and with anyone who asks. The ease of getting immigration papers for trainers of "questionable ability" has made it not financially viable then to teach from within one's own country, which I have advocated for 25 years. One of the early members of the site, The Curator who is a former elephant trainer, and now has a side show. He is a proud member supporter of OABA, as it benefits his fair/sideshow greatly has yet to contribute. He is the one I called from Monaco about the ECU, and he had never heard of it, and didn't know OABA had any intention of contibuting funds.
Casey went on buckles blog, and publicly apologized for this blog and disowned it.
I censor a lot of anonymous posts, and possibly some of those nameless drones are trainers. Who knows. A blogs impact is judged by visits not contributions, and this one is very healthy.
OABA?????
THE OABA WAS JUST A DREAM to a small group of showmen in 1964. Today it is a reality to more than 4,000 members. The story has almost reached legendary proportions. A dozen showmen, meeting in John Vivona's suite at the Sherman House in Chicago, put down $100 each to pledge their support for a novel concept ....a trade association working on behalf of the carnival industry.
OABA's Circus Section:
The Outdoor Amusement Business Association has established the OABA Circus Fund which raises funds so they are able to hire professionals to assist with challenges such as legislation that threatens our members' businesses. These funds also help combat the misinformation, prejudices and enormous money, which the opposition can and does provide. The OABA's goal of $40,000, when compared to single donations of seven figures, sounds pretty paltry. Actually it is! The funds raised are spent with great care. As odd as it may seem, the effort does make a difference and is one of very few dedicated to keeping circus animals in business.
Recent press release from their Circus Section!!!!! Yeah, let's have a Circus Day, that will really turn this thing of ours around. See what was learned from the 400 dollar contribution. Sometimes, when you have nothing better to do, it is better to do nothing, then to do something useless.
SUMMER'S JUST AROUND THE CORNER, and the American circus is still hitting its stride. And, by the way, the European circus community is holding its own as evidenced by the European Circus Association's (ECA) first European Circus Day held on Saturday, April 14 to celebrate the circus "in all its diverse forms." Circuses throughout Europe observed the day in various ways: Germany's Circus Krone held an elephant breakfast with clown face painting, kung-fu demonstrations and jugglers; the Hungarian National Circus donated a portion of the day's receipts to a Budapest children's charity; Circus Herman Renz in the Netherlands put on a special exhibition; and in Yakutsk, Russia, street circuses were held publicly for all to enjoy. Similar observances were also staged in Spain, France and Finland. If the ECA can coax circuses from different countries to set aside one day to honor the unique culture of the circus, seems like a no-brainer to launch and celebrate an American Circus Day in the United States!
I suggest Mate, that bullshit is what you perceive it to be, just as animal abuse is perceived as different things, as is training. Maybe a "bullshit standard" can be worked out, if we could ever decide on a standard for the rest of it. I suggest "our close personal ties" are our own worst enemy.
Wade
Anonymous,
I've got to suck it up, and say that you have made valid points. I would also like to say that I think the world of the CFA and think enough of them that I asked a very dear member of the organization to be my oldest son's God Father. I also think the history of the circus is rich and varied and worth the effort to save, study, and learn from. But unless you have been in the middle of the war and the firestorm associated with it, you should not be allowed to set policy or suggest what part of it is good or bad. An you should surly be discouraged from stating mis facts in a effort to save/help the cause.
Wade
I'm with Steve to the extent that I think all of those "national" circus organizations have enough to keep them busy at home and that's first and foremost before they go off to play with other organizations in Europe or wherever. I'm a cynic to the extent that I think most trade groups exist only to hold an annual meeting in a town with gambling and a wild nightlife anyway. Rather more seriously I do see such groups as potential self-regulatory agencies. That's where the whole debate and discussion becomes important. Without legitimacy no group can set standards or enforce them.
I'm at that age, in those middle years where mostly I think of such things in terms of my children. I have a 14 year old who already think he should be "home schooling" and that I should find him job helping somebody as a cat groom. Like Wade's son, or like Mr Cainan he wants to be a tiger guy. (He may think it's an avenue to meeting girls...) I tell him that crocs are cooler, and I always kind of hoped he'd aspire to be an elephant guy because of the ride money, but what I think doesn't interest him much. Now given the age in which we live the odds are that he'll end up in a town job. But it would nice if at least he had a choice. If show business, if the animals were something he tried and decided against rather than something that no longer exists.
Ben
Ben,
I don't see any of them becoming "self regulatory", and their are different motives for strength in numbers sometimes. I see them as always being "self-serving" always, with the lords deciding what it is the peasants need to know. Just statements like, "the betterment of European Circus's" from a full member of questionable "seating" is pretty proof positive for me.
While ECA is not exclusive by any means to the "we know what's best for you mentality" I suggest this statement from their site, show's that they are still more acceptable of "monarchy rule" or "member of the Golden Sperm Club" absurd notion of validity.
The classical circus is known through out the world as a variety of acts presented in a central ring involving artistic displays, acrobatics, clowns, music, animals, and mind-boggling feats of strength, beauty and daring. The modern European circus can be traced to London around 1770. Today more than 1,000 circuses thrive across Europe. Many are owned or managed by and feature talented descendants of the original great circus families.
Wade
Wade - and I can't get a handle on you either! Maybe it's the distance and the age gap and the different culture but it does seem to me that you are either playing Devil's Advocate or biting the hand that has fed you.
So you tell me if I'm guessing these right or, if I'm wrong, please tell me where.
You have been an animal trainer for 30 or so years after coming off a farm. You are now one of America's foremost tiger trainers. You have had a long association with John and Herta Cuneo [Hawthorn]. You have a very deep knowledge of the development of white tigers in the States. You also have a very deep knowledge of the history of many US zoos. You also are sensitive to the needs of our animal charges to an extent not enough seen in our industry. You are overly critical of management despite the fact that you are at "management" level yourself. You resent some of the members of the Golden Sperm Club [love that saying!] because, despite their generations of 'breeding', they don't have the knowledge or dedication that you do. You despair for the future of our very honourable profession because of cheap imported 'trainers', little respect for American trainers from management and producers, inappropriate responses by people other than trainers to AR propaganda. You are too clever for your own good. You are going through the male menopause!
How many did I get right?
My own position is simple. I love keeping and breeding animals, I love training animals, I love sharing my animal's achievments with other people [audiences] and I want my descendants to be able to do the same if they choose to.
I accept that I have responsibility for the entire welfare of my animals from birth through to death no matter what my personal circumstances are.
I, too, came off a farm and never went back. I've worked all the shit jobs, been gypped for my pay a couple of times, had the ups and the downs and now have built a little zoo where my former performing cats etc have retired to. I'm training new acts now and will go back on the road now and then for spot dates because I love the business and at 62 [past the male menopause] I haven't yet grown up enough to leave it be!
I do NOT accept, nor will I tolerate, any philosophically motivated people, no matter how good their intentions, telling me what I can or can't do with the animals that I nurture 24 hours of every day. I am not holding these animals "in trust for future generations" - I OWN them! I will listen to suggestions from genuine animal "welfare" people but I treat animal "rights" people with deep suspicion.
I have been a circus owner as well as an animal trainer - the buck has always stopped with me and I can see both sides of the coin. My son now owns the circus and I hope that he will look favourably on his Dad when he needs to book animal acts!
Hope that helps you get a handle on where I'm coming from - what about you?
PS: Why did Casey publicly disown this blog? Have I missed something?
Steve Mate,
Don't misinterpret, please. I was only asking about the joining of an organization, that you stated had no business with ECA, that you stated had the interest of only "owners", and would you be able to suggest that they leave it given those thoughts? That all.
You have been an animal trainer for 30 or so years after coming off a farm. You are now one of America's foremost tiger trainers. You have had a long association with John and Herta Cuneo [Hawthorn]. You have a very deep knowledge of the development of white tigers in the States. You also have a very deep knowledge of the history of many US zoos. You also are sensitive to the needs of our animal charges to an extent not enough seen in our industry. You are overly critical of management despite the fact that you are at "management" level yourself. You resent some of the members of the Golden Sperm Club [love that saying!] because, despite their generations of 'breeding', they don't have the knowledge or dedication that you do. You despair for the future of our very honourable profession because of cheap imported 'trainers', little respect for American trainers from management and producers, inappropriate responses by people other than trainers to AR propaganda. You are too clever for your own good. You are going through the male menopause!
It will be easier to answer your question's this way:
1. Yes.
2. That is open to speculation depending on who you are asking.
3. My association with Hawthorn has been 14 years, spread out over 32 years, as we have different "philosophies." 7 of those years were with Ringling, and 9 of those years were "taking a town job", as Ben has suggested.
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. I am not critical of management. I am critical of hypocritical ownership/association,and debate whether owning/buying something means you know anything about it, or will make decisions based on the welfare/good of that animal. I suggest if I buy an airplane, that doesn't make me a pilot.
8. I resent members of the Golden Sperm Club/royalty/monarchy because of their belief that spontaneous occurrence makes them smarter, more superior, better then they actually are, and above anything obviously meant for other people.
9. I didn't mean t insinuate, "cheap imported trainers", if I did. I said unqualified(others use cheap, I don't because nobody knows what cheap is, given the secrecy of salaries), which the AR will judge those lack of abilities, and label it to the country in which they see it, and not the nationality it came from. I have applauded American trainers in the field of Wild Animals, and Elephants, and have also applauded deserving European Trainers. I don't believe I have said anything about owner/management/producer trainers because there have been very few in America. The few were not that good, and the welfare of the animal had nothing to do with their actions. Unless you are suggesting Flavio Togni, and I spoke highly of his efforts. As well as the Knies,Krone, etc.
10. I frown on inappropriate/hypocritical statements from anybody, producer,trainer,mother, father, groom, fan, animal welfare, son, or daughter.
11. I don't understand the statement"clever?" Please elaborate. Menopause, male or female is often used as an excuse for poor behavior, like referencing a nationality 4 generations back.
12. Because you provided a service for a hand, does not mean you are bitting it, if you suggest it is flawed. That is a fear tactic, like burning in hell, that religions use to keep people in line.
13. I too want a future for my son,now that he has made the decision to pursue a career as an animal trainer, a better future then I received, because I love him that much. I don't want him to ever have to compromise his integrity/beliefs, so as not to bite whatever hand may feed him. If I should need a job from him, I would hope it would be given because I was the best available. If not he has learned nothing, and the business will be long gone before that day occurs.
It is often referenced where the birth of the Circus occurred, but it is seldom referenced where it was first, for all intents and purposes, shut down.
And I surly don't think owning something means you can do what ever you want with it. You can own a gun, but you sure can't shoot it where ever you want, or at whatever you want.
You will have to address your question to Casey, I may tell it wrong. The "public spectacle" was on Buckles Blog and partially on this blog.
Look forward to your thoughts and insights, Mate.
Wade
Steve I like your distinction between ownership and trust. Governments can regulate trade in species, disallow ownership, or create and enforce rules regarding animal welfare. But governmental authority recognizes that animals in entertainment and agriculture are PROPERTY. That's different than say, animals held in a national game park or publicly funded zoo. Animal rights activists attempt to assume a moral authority that somehow trumps property rights. To some extent animal owners play into all that when for public relations purposes we claim to be "stewards" for vaguely defined future generations, or when we call our animals "family members" and pss the relationship off as somehow an interaction between humans. Tigers or tapirs or taipans are not human, in captivity they aren't slaves, and they have no rights. The concept of animals as property has somehow become embarrassing. Foolishly so, since many of the animals in show business are removed from the wild by generations and generations of captive reproductions. Reproducing white tigers has nothing to do with conservation. None of this suggests that animal owners are any less obligated to provide for animal welfare and ownership is not a license for abuse. But the self proclaimed moral authority of activists -- so rarely debated -- ought not be shrouded in special protections nor allowed to redefine what is and isn't property.
Ben
Ben,
The whole concept of "ownership" has been redefined in the last 100 years. If you live in a gated community, and you own the property, you may by God want your grass long but the regulations say it has to be cut to a certain length. You may by God want a fence, buy regulations say no go.
I have always been more comfortable with show producer, and not show owner. The "owner" may own the equipment, but he does not own the acts, he may own the animals, but they don't have to do what he wants, and that raised the welfare/abuse issue initially. An entertainment/show/music producer can rent a building, that has regulations, but he has to give the public the show it wants or they don't buy a ticket and he is not successful. He may chose to buy his own building, making him an "owner", still having regulations, and he still has to give the public what they want, regardless of what he wants to give them. A sports team owner may want to do what he wants, but he is bound by rules.
I have always held the "pride of accomplishment" in higher esteem then "pride of ownership." I suggest people like Chuck Yeager were great pilots, long before they bought a Cessna. And they didn't become better, after they bought an airplane. A convicted criminal can buy a lottery ticket and become an instant millionaire, and buy a race car. That doesn't make him a driver. It makes him a convicted criminal who owns a race car. The king who owns the castle, but has no idea how to build one, is no better or more noble then the mason who does know how to build one, and has built many, just because of his "bloodline." That "bloodline" only guarantees pigeon toes, hemophilia, or crossed eyes, in some cases dementia. It does not guarantee accomplishment/greatness/achievement. Individuals guarantee that.
Regards,
Wade
Wade, I don't diagree with you on pride of accomplishment. Here perhaps we stray into the area of political philosophy. Property rights are an extension of the Common Law and closely tied to mitigating privacy rights. Certainly the government has the authority to regulate, and the public may vote with their feet (or pocketbook.) But so long as the "owner" of a property complies with regulation I don't believe (personally) that non-governmental interest groups can assert their own moral authority in breaching my privacy. For example, Greenpeace has every right to call for an end to whaling. I may even agree with them. However if whaling treaties allow native peoples in the Arctic to take whales, efforts by Greenpeace to stop that based solely on moral authority are illegal. Treaties recognize that some native peoples "own" whaling rights in some places. If Greenpeace wishes to lobby those native peoples and eventually convince them that whaling is unnecessary and immoral, so be it. But when they suggest that they can physically disrupt a hunt simply because they are above the law, they're as wrong as the guy who continues to beat his horse on the grounds that he personally doesn't recognize the authority of animal welfare regulations. The end does not justify the means.
Ben
Ben,
There are indeed "radicals" who think the world is there's, just as there are "radicals" who suggest grow better marijuana, plant an Animal rights radical!!!
Wade
P.S. I am not sure being there first gives you more rights then anybody else.
You can send all the "animal rights radicals" up here to Oregon, I have the perfect spot to plant them....LOL....
Margaret,
With all due respect, you can't think or talk like that, unless you want to be classed as a "radical" also. You do not, pick up shit, and throw it back. Debate them with facts. As long as the fact's are valid, they will soon go someplace else to start a beef.
Wade
Ben regarding whales i have spend just about every summer in Alaska and up in the Artic area mostly around point hope and St. Lawrence and i have spend hours talking to native americans (eskimos )and i have found out that us in the lower 48states dont have no right to infringe on there way of life for there servival . there is laws that regulate the amount of whales that can be taken in as well as walrus etc etc . all those laws are made in Washington disregarding that those people dont have super markets to go shop . in many cases because of this laws there has being cases of starvation . as recent as 1982 . Those laws regulate the kind of sub spices of whales and according to the size of the village . Point Hope is only allowed 2 whales a year . Little Diameade island only 2 as well now i do agree with the banning of whaling in the case of Norway and Japan etc etc countries that are not under the treaties of the whaling commision . but when it comes to the survival of communitys we should stand back unless we plan on providing food etc etc so the people dont have to hunt whales and put a end to a way of life that has being a way of life before the white man ever set foot on there shores . we should understand that putting a end to such way of life is like what we did to the indians with the buffalo. radicalassRaul
Radical Ass Raul,
With all due respect, What nationality are you. Mexican? Did they have any issues with the Indians and land? It wasn't "white men" pal. It was a whole lot of nationalities doing what was done down through history. Until civilized society said, no more. But occasionally an attempt will be made. Yeah that is a pretty radical statement.
Wade
If the Indfians were'n't regularly wiped out by epidemic (before the dreaded white man set foot on the continent) they would have overpopulated and wiped out the buffalo themselves.
Most Mexicans have Spanish blood - and you KNOW those old Spainards wouldn't have dreamed of taking any land they saw fit to.
o Wade i am not mexican i am chicano born and raise in the Good old U.S.now what i meant about the white man is who exploited the indians here were the white or better the caucasian race although among themselves tribe against tribe was doing itto each other including Mexicans which are consider racialy caucasian the spanirds did it to us and so on . but in the case of the eskimo who exploited them first ? wasnt the orient race or the negro it was the Russians and what race are they ?then the americans came with there idealogy about how to live a better way so they regulated there way of life and living standards. there is no perfect society . yes i am as radical when it comes to explotation of humanity and more when it comes to wildlife . havent we destroy enough wildlife and there habitant in name of the mighty dollar or peso or Euro .all for progress . no race has there hands clean or not guilty of exploting each other the yellow race the white race and yellow race now doing the most damage specialy when it comes down to Eco issues including wildlife no regard to the our future genrations . Every dog has its day as i have found out . so see wade its not a racial issue . thas my simple n humble point of view . god bless america Raul
Raul,
I was going to guess Hispanic or Chicano. Not being sure, I said Mexican as I figured that would cover a broader field. Is Caucasian not a a color like black, or brown, yellow and Red? Where did the Eskimos come from. Dropped from the sky? Immaculate conception? How are are they from the Bering Sea, and the land mass that was pretty close to Russia, that the Mongols whacked hell out of before it was an Imperial Monarchy.
Raul I don't owe anybody anything. And the resources are as much mine, equally as they are yours. You have a right to what you can earn, no more no less, nobody needs aid. Unless it is a situation like what happened in Africa during apartheid, and similar situation. Should we stop the hunting, absolutely until the situation is stabilized, if it ever will be. I never said you were racist, but if a bleeding heart statement like, "it is there birthright, and we owe it to them, slows down the hunting, so be it. What ever, as long as it is stabilized, and we get a grip on our world, and thing like global warming.
Wade
just got back from the local casino today where the injuns continue to bulldoze thousands more acres to continue the expansion. Maybe they never exploited the land before because they hadn't thought of it. But once they learned, boy did they ever catch up with a vengence.
Post a Comment