For years zoos have responded to accusations of cruelty by adopting a defensive attitude. They have used a 'we know best' approach, lecturing their visitors in an attempt to persuade us all to accept their definitions of what is cruel and what is not. But, Canute-like, the tide has begun to engulf them. Public attitudes have changed faster than zoo cages. Cages that were hailed as liberating and progressive ten years ago are now seen by visitors as unacceptable. This is undoubtedly frustrating for the zoos, but if they are to survive they will have to understand that the customer is always right. They will have to learn to measure public attitudes and to keep their collections one step ahead of the moving window of public opinion. And in the end zoos ought to be prepared to accept that there may be species (like the dolphin perhaps, or the polar bear) for whom they cannot realistically recreate the fundamentals of life. If they wish to avoid accusations of cruelty then they will need to put their money where it can best be used, to help species that can best benefit with the best regard to welfare.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
I disagree with this on several points. While the condescending "We're the experts, so shut up" characterization of how some parks treat critics can't be dismissed -- I'd argue that parks, and AZA as an organization have played "Go along to get along" for twenty years and it's been a total failure. Animal Rights is a philosophical position, but I have yet to see a zoo (or a circus for that matter) engage in an actual debate of the philosophy and the ideology it has birthed. For every attack on zoos that has some merit there are a dozen attacks that have no merit at all. Critics have successfully used the same approach to gain positions of authority (electing members to park boards or zoological associations, filling docent ranks from which staff are hired, etc) that they've used successfully with Humane organizations. If AZA doesn't stop giving in when criticism is unwarrented, park will be in serious trouble. The customer isn't always right. As art museums discovered a long time ago, just because patrons don't "understand" some painters, that doesn't mean those painters aren't important.
There's nothing new in the anti-zoo movement. It's been well established in the UK for fifty years. And certainly there have been a myriad of legitimate concerns, but as an institution zoos have sought to address those issues. How bad are things? When an activist like Denise Bobol can break into the hospital at the San Francisco Zoo to video tape and get a "pass" from law enforcement and from zoo management -- who just want it all to go away -- the patients have taken control of the asylum. Let's revisit Christmas '07 at San Francisco with the now infamous tiger incident. The zoo was negligent. Period. The tiger exhibit was flawed. And like all parks the zoo was unstaffed on a holiday. At the Bronz Zoo I once found a guy with arm through the bars trying to swat a leopard with his windbreaker using it like whip one Christmas day. BUT as negligent as San Francisco may have been, there's little doubt that the "victims" climbed a fence and were sitting with their legs hanging down over the edge of the moat wall throwing stomes, pine cones, etc at the cats. It was those dangling legs that gave a cat enough purchase to get over the wall. How does any of this translate into "a zoo is no place for a big cat?" The answer is "fix the problem." It isn't "close the zoo." Likewise the notion that northern climate zoos are no place for elephants flies in the face of all the successful breeding programs in Canada. Yes, it snows in Chicago and Detroit. But it snows in Tennessee too.
It's not time for the honest debate that been lacking in the whole animal rights battle. If at the close of that long debate society chooses to live without circuses or zoos, or dairy farms, so be it. But let's not assume that upon hearing both sides that's what they'll choose.
Ben
Ben,
Very, very good points. This statement was issued by a very pro zoo organization. And the wonderful thing is that is will question and question and question. Philosophically "knowing" they are right, they will still question even their own philosophies. I suggest like the race horse industry, the rodeo industry, and the zoo industry, the AR issues are not as debilitating as they are in our industry. And I don't recall the SF Zoo pointing out that they can get close to them or they can escape in the Circus, so go pick on them. I also don't recall the SF Zoo, who wasn't aware, given the other moated exhibits in the world, patch by saying it is the way we have always done it or why don't you go look at what the Denver Zoo has. I agree, the customer is not always right, and at some point that can be scientifically, honestly validated, regardless of who's foot the shoe fits on.
I still don't agree that just because an animal is breeding, that is an example of exemplary husbandry practices. I also think, that in the long run an elephant would be better off in a more moderate climate, instead of housed during bad weather. Not that housing in bad weather is bad, but is there something better?
We have to be careful we don't name individuals like the activist who took pictures, unless we want to name the ones they may have been photographing and why they were photographing. Name an organization by not an individual.
Fix the problem is a good point Ben, don't close the industry. Does it fix, by avoiding or hoping it will go away. Or hiding the problems.
Wade
Wade, only mentioned a particular activist affiliated with In Defense of Animals because she is a public spokesperson and has grabbed her share of headlines over the years.
SF Zoo didn't nadle the tiger incident well, but neither have they tried to blame anybody else, nor claimed "this is the way ir's always been done." Closest they came to that was in misrepresenting the height of the moat wall, then pointing out that height requirements have changed and that the original exhibit was built to the standards of it's era. We can legitimately wonder why when standards changed the enclosure wasn't modified -- but that's a safety issue you could find in any industry, not an arguement against zoos per se. I might also point out that in a rael sense several of the most important "zoological collections" in the US are completely off-limits to the public and to activists alike. Both the National Zoo's Font Royal facility and NYCS's St Catherine's Island facility. In an entirely utilitarian facility the concept of enclosure design is different. It's about what the animal needs -- not what the public needs either to see the animal or to come away with a warm fuzzy feeling about animals. Same could be said for a place like White Oak. I've never seen your tiger facility, but I'm guess that it's built for what the cats really need rather than what a casual visitor might assume they want. We're rightly appalled by the tiny old fashioned barred enclosures that were one common in every cat house. But the real issue wasn't the bars, it was space. Bars are just a barrier. Rip out the bars and put in glass and the only thing that's changed is how the enclosure is viewed emotionally. Somehow bars mean confinement and glass doesn't. Successful husbandry isn't about breeding, it's meeting an animal's needs so that the animal is healthy both physically and psychologically. Reproduction may or may not be a metric for measuring that. If a barred enclosure meets those needs, we shouldn't worry too much about what the public thinks. Modernizing and keeping the public happy is all well and good, but the animal has to come first in all things.
As far as circuses go, let's look at how we talk to people. On many shows we like to say that animals are trained through reward. You've mentioned that when you first saw a cat trained to seat using restraints you knew that you wanted to do it differently. Certainly you are one of the best tiger tariners in the world. But the public at large has never seen you train. It may be that the real hope for the circus is when we are willing to take the best trainers, the ones who do it right, who are humane -- and we put the training itself on display and not just the end result of that training.
Ben
Ben,
The "satellite facilities" that some zoo's have, are probably the best type of zoo, but need the revenue for their sister institution so that they can operate. San Diego Zoo no matter how much it needs or wants to change or improve, the constraints of the area and real estate limit's them.
I applaud an institutions relocation certain animals to more efficient facilitates, much like Lincoln Park with their Gorillas. If an elephant is better in the long run in a different climate, so be it.
As for our facility, not even close. There was and isn't a standard in our industry, is is dependent on how they fit in the truck. Permanent facility's is are mostly dictated by personal preference, economics, etc. etc. Then there is the hateful ruling that is a terrible law, and should have no bearing on a living breathing thing, and that is the Grandfather Clause.
As for training demonstrations, how can the be valid or helpful if we can not decide on a standard or what is training. Thank you for the kind words, and many would echo that sentiment. But some would suggest that because I am not with it and for it, that I am not that good because of it. Where/what is the standard? Until that is addressed we will continue fighting a losing battle, based on a congeniality contest.
I suggest that there are some well know spokespersons for our industry, that maybe we wouldn't like named as an example of what's wrong.
Wade
Ben,
In 2001 I bought 4 nine moth old tigers, set up the arena in my front yard in Paris, and began training my first cat act. Two months into their training, a well known Hugo trainer stopped by for a visit, and to see what I had them doing. I ran the cubs into the arena, they did their thing, and then left. Afterwards he gave me the third degree about how you can't "go playing Clyde Beatty" rite out here in the open with your neighbors and people watching. I responded simply with "I am not doing anything like Mr. Beatty, and I refuse to hide behind my house" Needless to say, this guy thought and probably still thinks I am an idiot. I trained the three cats that you were with this spring, on the midway and advertised it as Kitty Kindergarten, they don't do much maybe, but I am not ashamed of anything I did in the training of them.
Wade,
How about creating a standard, then trying to put it in place. Who would be qualified to debate it's validity? How would the stardard be policed? I agree 100% a standard is needed, but what will set the standard?
On an unrelated note, from a different post. I have twice now seen by a commenter how this handling technique will work for Asian Elephants but probably would not for Africans. I would ask then, would the way African elephants are handled work "better" for Asians? I ask this only because after spending all but the first 8 years of my life studying them, I believe with out a doubt that 1. African elephants are smarter 2. African elephants are flightier.
I'm not sure that training demonstrations require a standard so much as perhaps they work toward setting a standard. And I'm not necessarily talking about live demonstrations so much as on-going video feeds or web cams. It would be nice to think that when Activist A tells somebody that no tiger (or horse...or muskrat) ever performed a particular behavior without getting beaten during training, somebody else could counter, "Not true. Trainer B keeps a camera on his training arena all the time. I've watched. Boring as hell, but I've never seen him club his cats when he's trying to teach them something." certainly it's a "No Spin" solution. Because sometimes some things require explaining. But if one trainer pulled it off it would be remarkable.
Ben,
Remarkable because it can't be done? I have seen a dozen tigers trained to roll over, a very "basic behavior", by a dozen different individuals. 3 methods were acceptable and didn't involve any stress to the animal, but all twelve rolled over. When you enter a horse in a show, not only do you have to ride him, but he is required to act/behave in a certain way. What is the standard and what behavior is difficult and what is "basic". I suggest we play football in the back yards, and the New England Patriots also play football. Same thing. If the presenter is not as skilled as the trainer, what happens to the animals mentally?
Wade
Wade. Remarkable because it hasn't been done. I think Casey's right. If it's out in public at worst we're defending an explaining specifics. If it can't be defended or justified it can't be done.
And certainly there are levels of competence and different methodologies and that's fine. The idea if anything is to demonstrate what ISN'T done. No torture.
Part of the appeal of standards is that among other things perhaps as an industry we can avoid sending out presenters who aren't prepared. In Florida to get a license to keep venomous snakes you need to document hundreds of hours of experience working under another licensed collector/exhibitor. In the early 80's when I got my Florida license most of my friends couldn't understand why I bothered. There was real enforcement back then. But even at the time I thought it helped to create a paper trail. And twenty years later I can demonstrate two decades of responsible behavior. Some presenters need to be trained every bit as much as cats need to be trained, and in the future that training probably needs to be documented. When a standard doesn't exist, can't it arise by example?
Ben
well Ben i agree with you and partly with Mr. Burck but through the years when i used to do the zoo circuit i found out what you 2 are disscusing is the same issue back then except when it involve circuses . now as demostrating behavouirs to the public i belive that as long as we eductate the paying customer for the bennifit of the animals not what a keeper is capable of doing . if you want to see circus tricks go to the circus but as we know this days in zoos they are not very popular so in the perfect world we would not have to beeker on this issue at expense of the animals because we have reach the point of captivity or exction . there is many ways to educate the public and let the institutions that support breeding programs to keep the spices alive and the only way possiable to raise funds to make the public aware is eduction .lets not forget the public is not as dumb or gallable as they were . we all are aware of the eco and lost of wildlife . the AR people are in strong postions because we have contribute to there power . refering to certain charcters in our industry or circuses like Gopher or like Ralph Hellfer etc etc . that made themselves a dollar on the expense of wildlife and that certainly is enough to built resentment against instituchion that are legit and at the expense we have created a society of paying customers that dont understand that the times have change . but also lets give ourselves credit for being aware of the issues that have made those resentments . we are trying to protect wildlife and the envirment more then ever not like before when bars were a common thing to see in zoo cages or trainers whacking animals in public. this are not the Roman days any more we cant afford that anymore because there is is more humane ways . coming from the horse clinic i saw the respont from the public towards Clint Anderson and i am sure because he use postive reinforment . he still use bits on the horse but not bicycle chains as bits not once did i see him whack the horses and i am sure thats why he gets the followers not because he whacks and bites and drags the animal around . i certainly would not want to pay to see some one abuse the animals although he still ties the horses for hours at a time with no water or food so they can think about it . but of course in the shade and more compassion but still is the same as before . i am guilty of all the above and more my hands are no clean but i learn there is a place and time for diffrent things in time . the times have change zookeepers and circuses performers have change they have diffrent ideas because. they realise times are diffrent . speaking for myself was the reason i step aside because new ideas and diffrent needs my ideas are old fashion as i have found out every year when i go to the E M A confrence .thats my hubble opinion . CompassionRaul . ps time to go whack and abuse my horses with tendernerness and care. pss i realise am still guilty because i have 12 horses in pens not running like born free .
Ben,
Define torture. Physical or mental? Child abuse is fairly well defined. The Arabian industry defined what abuse was, and what is expected of the animals at Industry sanctioned shows.
If you want an example of what a sham is, look at the "licensing standard" that is used to test, and become a "Certified Trainer" which is required in all of Europe. It is not much more then a basic zoo keepers test. One of the worst offenders of inconsistent handling, which I believe is far worse then too heavy, or too gentle in creating mental stress has been a "Certified Trainer" for 15 years. Physical and mental abuse have to addressed equally as well has husbandry. If we just address who has the best facilities, we need to judge along side the zoo world. How they accept the training, and what tricks are acceptable, and who is qualified to do it is the standard we need to address.
Wade
Addendum to Ben and Casey,
Granted Arabian trainers can do what ever they want in the privacy of their own barn, but when the appear in a show the industry standard expects the animals to respond to the cues in a certain way. If they have been abused trained wrong or with too much heat that is instantly apparent, and the animal is disqualified. Your livelihood is defendant on finding a way to win, and still meet the standard the industry has dictated.
Wade
Ben,
You maybe a F'n Genius....
I have a cat that in due time(yes Wade I am going to wait another couple months) I plan to seat break. I think it maybe the first initial training of a tiger to be broadcast on the web. I will put a link somewhere with the scheduled times and broadcast. I even have a deal on this new PC to record it and download it to you tube, in case someone misses an episode. I have always videoed session for myself (sometimes you don't realize how something looks while you are doing it) Then daily people could critic my progress or lack there of. This may really become something Ben, and I preemptively thank you for allowing me to steal your idea.
Casey,
Before you get to excited, we don't "break" animals, we train them. We put a horse under saddle/train, we don't "break" them. We seat/pedestal/platz train felines, we don't seat "break" them. We don't roll over "break" or jump "break". Always remember if something is "broke" it has to be fixed.
Seat training is the equivalent of house training a puppy. Done right, the adult individual is well adjusted and proper. Done wrong, and the adult will have a multitude of additional issues in it's life.
An accurate rendition of training is the day the animal arrives, how the animal is handled in the housing cages, and how he is introduced to the arena and training. Anything else is a patch. Important is the offstage back area. That's where a lot of "insanity" occurs.
Wade
Clean Raul,
You wrote a very good post, with a lot of good points, but you named two individuals, and one I don't even think you know. I can't post it with those names. Rewrite it please, and I will surely post it, as it was great.
Wade
Burck yes i do know both i would not do such thing . but if you wish feel free to scratch out the names i dont mind . Raul
Clean Raul,
I am sorry. I never met either one of them. As Buckles explained to John Herriott one time, you can not edit posts. You can delete them in their entirety, or post them in their entirety. I just didn't want you to misunderstand why I didn't post it.
Wade
Well Wade, Ben and Casey, over here we've always done our "breaking" and training in public. Because we have an 11 month season here we just set up a training cage somewhere out of the way and go for it as time permits.
About 10 years ago we were showing around the suburbs of Brisbane for a few months and we were training a new set of lions. We invited the ARs and the RSPCA people to come along every day and watch and see for themselves. The RSPCA inspectors came a couple of times [I guess it was a bit too boring for them] and declared themselves satisfied. The AR people wouldn't come near the place. We ended up advertising training times as a free attraction and sometimes got bigger attendances than the circus did that night! Wish I had thought of "Kitty Kindergarten" though!
The opposition always used to claim over here that animals were trained in "secret". They haven't used that claim since.
So Wade, where do we start with Standards? As we have discussed on another blog, a sensible set of Standards can take a lot of the sting out of the AR people's claims. So let's do it here - for a starter, what headings should we create Standards under?
Steve Robinson
Steve,
Just for starters, I would clear up what is a trick, and what is the least harsh way to achieve it? Most importantly I would start with the time requirements required for the training and what negative behaviors the animal must not display at the end of the training. Because their is a front in any performing situation, and all animals face it, I would suggest that cage animals not face the band or the back of the house.
Wade
Addendum to Steve,
Over hear there are 24 hrs. in a day, I'm not sure about over there. A lot of real training goes on in both of our countries after the "public" wildlife seminar sham finishes and the seats clear. We all have seen it at various times. With a panel of qualified non biased "judges" saying, "you are not permitted take this in public," because the animals appear scared/intimidated(as the Arabian Association dictates), or it does nothing, and will bore the public, or you had one year too train, why did you call us in 6 months, I suggest something could be produced that the public would not object to and would want to see.
Wade
Wade...LOL ...Seems a bit harsh to set a standard that eliminates all animals that "do nothing" merely holding a seat and looking damn good. Like a wife or a girlfriend or sometimes a husband, that animal may have no "skills" but it can sure "style." I'll certainly sign on to the idea that an animal plops down facing in any old direction other than the "front" can't be said to be well trained. In defining "tricks" I think it might be important to separate entirely natural behaviors dressed up with props from a combination of behaviors "trained" or "shaped" in operant terms to create a trick -- and dependent on timing and consistency. A laydown on its own for example is a bit of classical conditioning -- Pavlovian stimulus/reward. Not really shaped so much as it can be taught with luring and modeling. There's no "trick" there per se.
Ben
Ben,
I suggest if they are going to do nothing but sit and look "beautiful", then we look at them as "halter" tigers, and judge them on their conformation/breeding potential. The vast majority may not be as beautiful as we think. Sitting an animal on a mirrored ball that turns is not training by any stretch of the imagination. Teaching the animal to sit up, while it is turning is getting close to the spirit of the idea. And even that is not that difficult, but the mirrored flash impresses the public. I suggest 5 lions jumping requires much more training ability then 4 hanging on a plank and one jumping over them. And yes the public appreciates it better, then "one" being obviously forced/coerced into jumping.
I also suggest there is a large portion of the public that can tell if an animal is comfortable performing, and if it is not. Although there are still members of the Training Fraternity that believe an animal roaring is a sign of an animals "toughness", and his apprehension/slink is a sign of "sneaky/untrustworthiness.
I also wouldn't consider a lay down a trick any more. Once they were sat up, the lay down became obsolete and just a starting point for the sit up. The next step would be to stand them all on their hind legs, and the next transition some day would be to walk them all on their hind legs from there. If you have been laying them down for 50 years you have not done your homework, you are not that talented as a trainer, and the public is dead tired of seeing the same thing. Again what is training. The person who teaches the reining horse foal to lead, or the person who puts it under saddle, or the person to teaches it the maneuvers and wins the Championship futurities. I promise you, the one who teaches it to lead and yes they are skilled, is not the same one riding him to a Championship, except possibly in an extremely rare instance. If somewhere in that progression to a champion, if somebody does something wrong, that animal never becomes a champion and is often relegated to the packing plant. A standard has eliminated much of that, and it does not matter who your father is, or how "cute and charming" you are. That has no bearing on what is being done to the psyche of the animal. Unlike pornography, which some claim to know when they see it,because of a human ethic standard which has been set, I suggest the animal is a better indicator/judge of what is abuse and what is not. If you ask them, and understand what they are telling you that should clear up any misconceptions and be a major step in setting a training/presentation standard.
Wade
Standards for animal training have been discussed for the fifty years that I have been aware. Generations before me to my recall were not aware or interested in the subject as the public did not "beef" and generally the trainers got the job done without killing or maiming their charges.What constitutes abuse? If you have any brain at all you can certainly tell when an animal is hurt or suffering, whether it be by the hand of the trainer or some unavoidible accident. For some unknown reason I have been able to feel the hurt or sting of a whip on an animal in regard to my own body and believe me it hurts.
Now what qualifications would a person have to have to be accepted as a trainer.
What is accepted? Years of experience in various facilities
Not accepted, would be : beating his wife; abuse of his children;
Wade, I am amazed that you suggest the licensing in Europe is a sham, when I thought that you felt the could do no harm.
There are methods of training that are handed down, knowingly or unknowingly that are vital to the training and a novice person trying to train would have enormous frustrations, but it can be done. Note Wayne Franzen and Eloise Berchtold. They marched to their own drummer and we respect them for that. What did they do wrong? We can argue that forever. I believe that people dedicated with some foresight and knowledge can train, or educate animals if they allow common sense to be an important factor. But the old pros can be the best source of information, and unfortunately it is not written in a book. Horse training is the exception, however, there are more phonies in that field that have written books and 99% of it is crap. The real trainers do not write books. There are too many variables to make it an exact science. I applaud Casey for nhis openess in training. I nhave had people over the years ask me if they could come and watch me train. I always was accomodating and after the first thirty minutes they were anxious to get out of there as it was too boring. But it seems that from my father and others I learned the "tricks of the trade" and know I realize that they in turn had to also learn the "tricks of the trade" and I guess that is what it is all about. Wade, we are not Rhodes scholars and getting too scientific on the subject for us in the trenches is alot to absorb. Maybe some of the colleges interested in such a field of endeavor would gret interested, however there have been a lot of books written and nobody seems to refer to them. Thats old news and has no bearing on the subject at hand. What alot of crap.
Sheesh Wade - I'm not too sure when you are playing Devil's Advocate and when you are fair dinkum! Are you saying that you have public training sessions AND "private" training sessions? If so, I can tell you that it did not happen here - the whole act was trained in front of the public......not that any one individual had the patience to sit through the months of repetitive work that was involved.
Next subject - what is a trick? Different achievments for different species I guess. To help the ball to roll on this one I am listing what the Australian State of New South Wales lists in it's Standards as "acceptable" tricks[although they call them "behaviours" and, I know, that's a whole different subject!]
BIG CATS: Stationing (each animal to it's own perch), Assemblage (animals arranged together in various groups and postures), Rearing, Leaping (over obstacles, through hoops [but NOT hoops of fire], onto narrow perches etc), Vocalising, Rolling, Close contact with handler ( trainer lying against or sitting on animal, shaking hands, manual opening of jaws etc),Balancing Acts (running along narrow plank etc).
ELEPHANTS: Stationing, Assemblage, Rearing, Vocalising, Prehension (with the trunk), Wheeling, Balancing Acts (restricted to cylinders not balls), Weight Lifting, Dancing.
Other species such as dogs, ungulates, camelids, primates and birds also have their allowable "behaviours" but the above two species should get us going.
By the way, I'm not advocating that this is the way that it "should" be - I'm just submitting this information as an idea of what we have to live with in Australia and I'd be interested to know what you guys think over there.
And, yes Wade, we still only have 24 hours in a day over here - damn it!!!
Wade - I agree 100% that the animal itself is the best judge of what is abuse or not. And different animals even within the same species will have different views.
In this country, at least, the tragedy is that we have so few people left with animal savvy - people who can read an animal.
The NSW Standards can be downloaded from: www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/animal-welfare/exhibit
Steve
Steve,
Whoa!!!!Who are you calling a fair dinkum? What is it anyway. LOL
I was suggesting that the "training" process starts each at when you first go to the animal to offer it a drink, and to clean it's cage, and end's when the last animal is bedded. And yes, even that is done different at times depending on whether there are people present.
ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION. If what the Australian State of New South Wales lists in it's Standards as "acceptable" tricks is what is used, I can see why people think an animal can be trained quickly. There is something real wrong, if that can't be done as an act in 2 months. The head in the mouth, I philosophically had never done(except in practice to illustrate it "difficulty") or never liked. I don't like behaviors that make the animal a clown(except dogs, pigs,etc.), and I don't like tricks that show the trainers dominance over the animal. I prefer shoulder stands, shoulder carries, that show a friendship/bonding.
The elephant list is just nuts. I don't understand the distinction between cylinder or balls? I would suggest something like "waltzing" or "pirouette", instead of "wheeling". That tends to denote an action just before something flees. LOL Also, I think some of the "healthier" women I have seen doing mounts in the elephant acts might take offense to the wording "lifting weights."
Best regards friend,
Wade
Steve the one I don't fully undertsand for cats is "vocalizing." Not entirely sure why they define it as a trained behavior, and it if it was disallowed, how are you supposed to get a vocal cat to shut up?
As I understand some of the difficulties in OZ -- part of the problem is that the standards in NSW may not be the same as standards in Victoria, or Queensland, or Western Australia. Is there a national standard?
Ben
Ben and Steve,
I suggest that if standards for singing are set by the high school music teacher based on what is in front of him in his classroom, those standards are going to look pretty lame at Radio City Music Hall.
Wade
Wade:
Housekeeping Question: What's going to happen to this discussion when we run out of room on the main page?
Translation: Are you "fair dinkum" means are you for real.
Personal opinion: Words like "wheeling" are easier for a public servant to spell than "pirouette".
Ben: No national Standards. We tried but the State egos got in the way. Right down to something as basic as - the NSW government said that monkeys were social animals so circuses must keep at least 2 of them together. The Victorian government worded that clause exactly the same but changed the 2 to 4!
Casey: As an act owner on the road, what do you see as a starting point for standards?
Steve Robinson
Steve,
This thread surely won't evaporate like on some of the "others" if that is what you are suggesting.
I don't think there can be two sets of standards dependent on the situation, if the standards are going to be beneficial for the animals.
Man, I'll bet you got Ben going with all those reptile names.
Best wishes,
Wade
Steve,
I think it would have to first be broken down into a standard of "husbandry", then a standard of "training". Obviously husbandry is a huge part of training, but it is possible to keep an animal safe and healthy in captivity, and not have a clue about training behaviors.(exception given for elephants, and probably several other species)
Then it would have to be decided to "uphold" these standards, regardless of whose friends or relatives were falling short of the standard. (I don't know about OZ Steve, but in the US, this is a tough problem) I myself am guilty of this many times in my life.
I think those things would have to be addressed first, before the thought of a what the standard should be can be discussed.
Steve,
You mention training on the road in Australia. I am assuming the arena is set up inside the tent usually. Are there not times when the trainers needed to practice in the evening, or between shows, if necessary? I have yet to practice on the road and not have at least the building crew there cleaning the seats, or other members of the public from the offices there. I can recall doing "training" sessions for the press as far back as 1984. It wasn't really training as they were only interested in pictures, and a story. The number of public who have witnessed the start and finish of a behavior is very, very, very small.
Wade
Johnny,
I don't think "beating your wife" or "abuse of your children" has any relevance to animal training. It is a deplorable practice, plain and simple. A good start for who is qualified, may be to require every applicant to under go a psychological evaluation/profile. I suggest that would eliminate a lot of "who is qualified."
That is silly to state that 99% of the books written on horse training are crap.
Yes the standard for certification as a "Trainer" in Europe is a sham. And I never at anytime said that the European fraternity could do no harm or was perfect. I have stated, seen, and believe with rare exception that our elephant have always been superior, and our cage act's have been superior in the last 50 years, but they are far superior in the equine acts particularly in the last 50 years, and are light years ahead of us in the offering of phony awards festival's.
Wade
Casey,
Good thoughts. In regards to husbandry if you were referencing the zoo field, I think the Elephant Manager's Association has done an admirable job of setting a standard, and addressing it. How a tiger is prepared to enter the cage for the first time, will have a bearing on how he accepts it and training for the rest of his life.
I think there can be a standard set, and then eliminate those that don't/won't accept the standard. I think deciding who can practice it, and then setting a standard, is the cart before the horse, and their input may not be beneficial and may be more self serving, which is of no benefit to the animal of elimination of "abuse".
Wade
The horse before the cart is probably correct. Just out of curiosity, who set the standard for Arabian horse training? It would seem to me, letting any trainer set the standard will result in the standard being self-serving in one way or another, regardless how un-biased the trainers seem at the time of debate. For example, of the 15 big cats I have trained in my short career, only 4 were started under the age of 1 yr, and 8 were over 2 yrs old. I would however be lying to say it isn't easier on the animal to start it at least dealing with humans at an age under 9 months. Taking a cat that has spent the first 2 years of it's life in a very controlled environment and putting it in a rolling cage that changes environments daily, without desensitizing it over a long period of time, could be considered harsh. It is obviously not self serving to me to point that out. So should the trainers really be the ones to set the standard.
Generally standards go hand in hand with some form of licensing or accreditation. Non-governmental groups don't license, so I imagine what Casey is getting at is some form of tiered accreditation. First you must meet a husbandry standard to be accredited. (Something more than simple Animal Welfare Act compliance here in the US.) Then you move into Training Standards and Training accreditation.
I may be wrong about this, but I believe when AAZA (now AZA) started out first there was membership, then standards, then accreditation . Don't know if that was ideal since any animal park could be a member even if they weren't an accredited member. But I imagine the pressure to meet standards and earn the "seal" was significant.
What makes the idea appealing is this. If a "circus" is accredited it wouldn't be just their in-house standards involved. Clearly any act booked onto the show would also have to meet the standard, even if the owner/trainer of that act had for whatever reason decided not to seek membership or accreditation individually. That would certainly create a financial incentive for compliance. There's always some compromise in setting standards. Balancing the ideal with the utilitarian. That's what keeps them fair. Standards evolve and the bar is raised. (By no means am I suggesting they should be artificially low to begin with.) The trailer that meets a passive ventilation standard for husbandry today might require mechanical climate control under a standard ten years from now, for example.
Casey,
The standard was set by the association made up of 100's of members. Owners, judges, trainers, private individuals, and an elected board made up of the same types, including some who have only the love of the breed as a motivation, not a trainer/judge/owner. All suggestions were considered based on qualifications, agendas, etc., and public perception. Back in the day there were a multitude of things that could be done to make a halter horses veins pop, eyes roll, nostril flair, and "show". Stallions were brought to their knees at the suggestion of a whip. Now halter horses are required to be brought to a holding area, and inspected by a steward for whip marks and signs of stress and stood calmly for 15 minutes before they enter for their class. Believe me an animal who's skin is so thin the veins are prominent will "welt up" if you blow on him hard. That is just the halter class. All classes were reevaluated to a standard, the sole purpose being the safety and welfare of the animal. Why? Because they went from the largest registry to the 3rd largest in a few short years due to their own greed and protecting of bandits, and the public quite buying/wanting their product. Sound familiar? The registry is slowly rebuilding, and it's strength will be in policing it's standards, and improving/changing them when necessary for the health and financial stability of the breed.
Wade
Ben,
I believe the best example of the need for "qualification" is thus. A trainer, from lets say England, can not perform or work in France unless they have been qualified. The low standards set as to what is "qualified" makes it suspect. I don't believe you have to let everybody do something. Upshot. The trainer from England, who must be certified in France, can work in the United States whether they are certified or not.
Wade
Ben,
Harder yet to understand. Try to find out what is required to be a "certified trainer" in Europe. Everybody has the card, buy nobody will tell you how they got it, or where they got it, or what was required to get it. See if you can find information online about the certification process. I have never been able to. Maybe ECU can offer suggestions to their "new" American partners.
Wade
Wade
Wade, the legitimacy of the European certification would depend on what governing body or agency sets the standard. If it's a standard set by the European Union as a meta-governmental body, that's one thing. If it's an apprenticeship administered by individual circuses, that's another thing. Certainly the EU is striving for a "single standard" in most things and I know that increasingly that's the case with training apprentice zookeepers. If there isn't a single standard for certifying animal trainers right now, I'd wager there will be down the road. And good or bad those standards will be published.
Ben
Ben,
There is some type of "certification" because you have to go to Paris to get it. Apparently an extensive 2 day ordeal. Everybody in France, regardless of nationality has a card, but nobody will tell you how to get one, or what is required to become "certified".
Wade
Post a Comment