A person who has seen the Monte Carlo Festival for the last 15 years, and "thus knows elephant's" right, publishes pictures on their blog with comments,(these arn't his pictures), had this to say: "The elephants look content and well fed, although I have no expertise. They've got a few tree trunks to move about. I remember last year seeing one of the elephants rocking back and forth, which perhaps indicated stress. Not so, this year." The elephants he was talking about being content and well fed, are the ones above. The one's that weren't as content are the ones below!!!!!! Do you think this fruit cake even realizes they are different species? At least he was smart enough to alibi with "although I have no expertise". Boy, was he right on that account.
Second question from A2:
And on that subject:
2) Bob seems to be an expert with elephants, or at least very familiar with them. He saw Anne performing in the UK and "thought she looked poor" - he cannot be unaware of the controversy around her continued appearances in the condition she is in. As an elephant person he could well have lent the side urging her retirement a great deal of credibility and a great boost, which might have ended in Anne being able to stop traveling.. What did he do with his observation that she did not look good? Ask him. I bet the answer is : nothing at all.
A2, here's the pitch. If you can claim Bob Barker as an " celebrity expert" with validity on animal care and behavior, then I can claim Tuff Hedeman as a "celebrity expert" with more validity on animal care and behavior. My "celebrity expert" say's you can haul a bull from city to city, spur the soup out of him for 8 seconds, with no ill affects. In fact, he say's the bull likes the challenge. It play's up to his bovine machismo. My "celebrity expert" has cow shit on his boots, so that means at least he has been there done that, and doesn't depend on faxed report's/luncheon's for his "expertize."
When I and Ben Trumble point out to you that he has a bias, and is only interested in hanging paper for PAWS, you claim WRONG!!!! He is for all elephant's that how sincere he is. Here's your statement: As an elephant person he could well have lent the side urging her retirement a great deal of credibility and a great boost, which might have ended in Anne being able to stop traveling.. What did he do with his observation that she did not look good? Ask him. I bet the answer is : nothing at all. He sounds as sincere as all the elephant guys who looked at the video/picture, but only one showed his concern for all elephants, not just the one's he wanted.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
For A2--Celebrity Endorsers? What makes you think they know more then the "average joe?"
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
The Bob I was referring to wasn't Bob Barker. I was referring to the Bob who posted on that thread, just ahead of me. I don't know his last name. I really don't understand your post at all. I'm not saying Barker is an expert. I was saying that the fallout from Lota was not his fault. As to the TB issue: she had TB. Are you saying she did not? I didn't comment on conspiracy theories or on contagion. I just said she was worked while her lungs died. Are you telling me that she did not have TB, or that she only caught it after she got to the Sanctuary, or that it's fine to work them (not talking about contagion here) when they have it?
A2,
That was your mistake. I suggest you cool your jets, and listen to an answer, instead of thinking of a rebuttal. You said Bob Barker and then followed it with a story of "Bob". How did I know? It was something the Barkster would have more then likely done.
The name was Don, Pal. A knowledgeable zoo elephant man from across the mackerel pond. He was the the one sole elephant person to note what I had noted, so right there he has more validity in his little toe, then big rich, nothing to lose, and nothing better to f**k with then elephants Barker has.
Having TB was no more of an issue, then a pulled muscle, or a hay cough, and I won't let you pull that, sky is falling contagious crap. If she had been diagnosed with TB from day one, and TB was proven to be physically handicapping and to what level, then no she never should have done much of any thing. And she can do a lot of nothing in a whole lot of places, not just a sanctuary.
It was for physical shape and how she looked who should have kept her off the road. A poor bred, swaybacked, knock kneed, cow hocked, ewe necked horse also has no business in a performance or held up to the public as a performing animal. TB, Polio, cancer, limps, visual imperfections, it is all the same. Take them home, get them off the road. Give them back what they have given you. If you can't, give them to somebody who can. With all due respect to Romulis and Remus, being a featured attraction in a side show and Museum of Wonders, great, but not performing athletic wonders in any circus, demonstration, or competition.
Wade
Addendum to A2,
Did you add your signature to the one the "saving the horse" like that was posted before the elephant link? Or were you too busy jumping on the "animal 0 the day bandwagon" and misreading not only a fine individuals name, but their statement. Read it again. Four possible scenarios of what the mark might be were offered. Because of his expertize, he know 4 more things than a radical would, and he offered them without jumping to an unfounded conclusion. He didn't say anything about an "Annie"(stupid name for a magnificent animal anyway). He said many years ago he saw an elephant performing, that "looked in poor shape." If the elephant in question is withing 100 miles of where he lives he will go see her. Nobody every said she was in "poor condition." I really hope I can sic you on the rollkur people, your teeth gnashing, and rabid drool would be of some use there. Let's work on making a new animal poster child. I would suggest directing you attention to dogs, but that got screwed up when they started adopting the mutts out instead of just gassing them.
Wade
My mistake on the name, and I apologize for the confusion. But I think my "jets" are pretty "cool" and you are putting words in my mouth and attributing thoughts to me that I'm not having. And an agenda, ditto.
I am not talking about TB being contagious, and I said that. I don't believe that it is, particularly, between humans and elephants - that is to say, I think it would be very difficult to transmit and that it would take far more than casual contact. Can we be done with that angle, here? I do think that when a disease causes you to lose lung capacity, as TB does, it makes any activity all the harder. And yes, I think that she should not have been worked. And also yes, she could have been not worked somewhere other than a sanctuary. But that wasn't happening.
Don (not Bob) could only have been speaking of Anne (and I promise you, her name is not my fault). He said a few years ago, and she has been the only elephant in the UK for about 10 years. I don't understand your "nobody said she was in poor condition" - how is that different from looking in poor shape? I am sure that Don knew what he was seeing. I am curious as to what he did with that knowledge. Just curious.
I checked the mirror this morning and I am neither drooling nor gnashing my teeth, but thanks for that. You are trying to paint me as a crazy radical and I am no such thing. I'm trying to learn here.
A2,
I'll be more then glad to leave TB alone, as long as it is not referenced as an example of poor husbandry, or a cause/reason for transferal to another holding area. The degree of damage to the lungs, as the degree of damage of any injury is what constitutes whether an animal or a human can work/perform properly, not the injury/illness it's self.
Given the transient nature, as stated in the past, it is very hard to look something like the animal referenced, and make a realistic evaluation/judgment of it's condition, with many factor's involved. Unless you are a radical, and you are specifically there to find something, anything, regardless of it's validity or importance. An old animal is going to "look poor", which will not always, like the degree of TB, have anything to do with it's performance. Just because it "looks poor", doesn't mean the performing is wrong. It is it's appearance that is offensive, and justifiable so. The next one may "look poor" and also struggle physically. That is wrong, very wrong. The radical/public doesn't have the knowledge to make that distinction/decision. That is why any physical/age issue need's to be avoided at all cost's, as it may give the wrong impression adding fuel to the fire. No animal should be worked until it collapses. Again looking at it with an "untainted/unbiased" eye with constitute what kind of shape it is in.
Given we all have "human emotions" a lot of folks can't make the decision to retire/put down an animal that they have been with for many years. There are a lot of pet/lap dogs as well as performing animals that would be better off retired or deceased. That is the difficult decision for may. I have never had that difficulty, because I appreciate an animal for my reasons. What they are capable of doing, performing or propagating, not what they emotionally give me, that I can't get from another human being.
Wade
A2,
In fairness to the Anne situation, according to quotes in 2007, "Anne was born in captivity and had been with the circus since she was four years old. She said that Anne had not performed for six years and only came into the ring in the interval so people could pose for photos with her.
If she was not performing in her condition/age, while the picture taking may have been "cheezy", there should have been no reason what so ever, for removing her from her environment, as there were no abuse/ valid mistreatment charges.
Wade
Wade, I'm not really understanding your distinction here between looking "poor" and looking unwell. Lota, from all of the photos and video I have seen of her, looked distinctly unwell. Ned looked unwell. I was surprised, after seeing the pictures of Ned, to learn that he was young, but I knew immediately that - even if he was as old as I had thought from the photos - he was also seriously unwell.
I do agree that it is impossible to tell for sure from a photo or even a video - or even from a look in person. I simply suggest that if the look is enough to raise questions, then questions should be raised out loud to whoever will listen (willingly or not).
It had not occurred to me that Don saying that Anne "looked poor" meant merely that she looked old. I assumed, frankly, that someone as experienced as he seems to be with elephants would know if she was only old, and would have said so.
I would suggest that, if Anne in fact has arthritis that is bad enough that walking is painful and difficult for her, being jolted by truck travel and spending down time in parking lots would add to her discomfort.
I'd also like to remind you that "radical/public" goes both ways. Don't forget that Ned performed for the CFA convention within 2 weeks of the day the pictures were taken that led to the USDA confiscating him. No complaints were filed as a result of that Florida appearance.
A2,
You are not getting my point about looking poor because you are again too busy making something up to rebut like "looking unwell." Looking unwell is also spoken "don't look good." It is something you can see in the appearance, not in body structure. When we have a cold we look unwell/don't look good, puffy eye's, runny nose, red eyes. Some folks can have the terrible curse of cancer, and look great and function wonderfully, until the very last stages. Others it rehabilitates quicker and they show symptoms that are visual.
Don is an experienced animal person, and please, don't cast an aspersion at that. Like any animal person he knows there are some animals that are "poor keepers" Due to their metabolism they are hard to keep weight on, and at various times may look poor. When conditioning halter horses, there is a brief time, when they loose weight, look poor, and then start to bulk into muscle. That is was looking poor is, and it has nothing do do with whether the animal is sick, healthy, or old. Animals all develop a different condition with age, and some are poorer looking then the other, and may be younger, again absolutely nothing to do with an illness. That is why facts are known, before an assumption is made, and that is where the knowledge/experience plays the only part.
A CFA would know no more about what they were looking at or why then any radical in the world. That ignorance/unknowing is what makes them a fan on one side and a radical on the other.
This is probably the goofiest thing I have heard in a long time but it does define radical, not animal radical, but social radical: "I simply suggest that if the look is enough to raise questions, then questions should be raised out loud to whoever will listen"
It takes us right back to being educated about what you are concerned about. I sure wouldn't tell a pilot how to fly a plane, unless I had a like pilots license. But if I disapproved of flying for some personal reason, license or not, I am going to oppose him at every turn. Now I have become an aviation radical, raising questions out loud to whomever will listen. Helping "my"self but doing nothing for "our" world. Radical/Fan it is all about them. If you are knowledgeable you don't need to ask. Learn to recognize a look for what it is. Questions are for learning, not for verifying your thoughts. It is why some don't hear the answer they want.
Wade
You might not tell a pilot how to fly a plane, but if you saw him in the bar before the flight, or if you saw flames coming out of the wings, you would almost certainly ask some questions. I hope you would. Deference to "expertise" can only take you so far. I don't see anything radical about that, at all.
I think that if a problem is perceived, then the question isn't "is there a problem" but "what is going to be done about this?" So there's a situation in which you might be knowledgeable and still need to ask questions. When you saw Ned, you quite rightly asked how he came to still be performing, as I recall. That's what I mean by asking questions. Ned was clearly unwell.
I cast no aspersions on Don whatsoever, and please don't accuse me of doing so. I had no idea that looking poor has nothing to do with being unwell, or that it is a term of art. Can an animal look poor AND be unwell? I would think so, but as I said it is not an expression that I am familiar with. Did Anne look healthy?
A2,
Boy you will really stretch for a point. "Saw him drunk in a bar" has nothing to do whether he is a competent pilot. Maybe he was just riding to the next city as a passenger. Now stop that, it just wastes time, and accomplishes nothing.
I said Ned should have never been on the road in the condition he was in. I didn't say anything about unwell and that was not an issue. It was how the appearance would be perceived to the uneducated public, who could make up all kinds of reasons for his appearance. Better to avoid it all together. Again some animals are "easy keepers" who get fat on a handful of grain, and some are "poor keepers" always look thin on 50 lbs of grain. Trust me 90% of the time that is the reason for a poor appearance, and 10% illness. The more work an animal is doing the leaner/fitter you want them for their physical well being. The days of pinching the fat baby on the cheek and stating "what a healthy baby", are over with. We learned there was nothing healthy about fat, and nothing healthy about bulimic.
And given Anne's age she didn't look too bad. I have seen worse. But I have also seen better. Just as in people. It is about individual metabolism not a species or an environment.
Wade
Addendum to A2,
"Can an animal look poor AND be unwell?" Yes, but there are a number of other symptoms besides body mass. A fat animal can be full of worms, and a lean animal can be a conditioned performing athlete.
Wade
Oh, come on. I'm stretching for a point? LOL, Wade, you are making excuses for the pilot, already. You know exactly what I meant by that example. Did I need to spell out "the pilot was drunk in a bar and then you see him getting on to your flight to fly it"?
There is a huge difference between lean/fit and emaciated. Sure, you can be thin and have excellent conditioning. But looking at the animal it is usually not all that hard to see whether there is muscle tone or not. I'm not talking about fat vs. thin - I know fat is unhealthy! Emaciated with no muscle tone is not healthy.
But for me the bottom line is: if the only reason that you saw Ned and thought that he should not be performing in that condition was that it would LOOK bad to the unschooled masses, we are much further apart on this topic than even I would have imagined. The USDA took one look at his pictures, bolted out there to do an inspection and confiscated him, all within a few weeks' time. This was NOT an elephant who met your definition of "poor but not unwell". And please don't come back with a response that the USDA only took him because the ignorant public wanted them to. Believe me, if that was their standard there would be a lot more confiscated elephants!
A2,
The appearance should have kept him off the road, so it wasn't seen. Regular inspections would have noted an illness. So we are on the same page, just not on the same agenda. There were regular inspections, did you know that? In fact, one a little over a month before I first saw him. A couple of months later he is photographed in public, and then confiscated??? It was what it was. Do you have a number for USDA for a citizens complaint? I knew many of them well over the years and attempted to call, to clarify something and never got response's from the business cards given. With rare exception the inspections occurred the same time of year, on the same month.
If the "poor circus Dumbo" of Walt Disney fame, isn't the popular "animal 0 the day", that it is trendy to champion, I posted a newspaper story about finding a freshly skinned tiger in a milk crate beside the road, and barely got a response. No insight from you as a matter of fact. Did you put your name to the petition to save the horse? Or is that something you don't know a lot about, as elephants is your field of expertize?
Wade
The USDA had noted in January that he looked thin and needed to gain wait; there was an NCI for it. Then nothing - no inspections, nothing - until several complaints were received in October based on the photographs (which were taken and posted in April, the same month the CFA saw him). In less than a month from those complaints, he was at the TN Sanctuary.
I don't have a number for citizen complaints, but I have a computer and they accept them by email.
I don't know anything about a horse peition or a skinned tiger; I usually don't read all your posts. Sorry, but the horse stuff is usually far too detailed for my interest. No offense meant. Where is the petition, and I'll go read it.
A2,
I had suggested you had a "poor Dumbo bias". Sorry, I stand corrected. But you have a point, why make the animal issues complicated, when it is just easier to "you suck, and they don't" it into a solution.
Wade
P.S. The individuals were emailed, a number of times, at their private email address. Unless they hand out phony business cards.
Wade - I have no idea what you are talking about with the "you suck and they don't". I'm sure that will demonstrate to you, again, that I am ignorant. But honest to god, I think we just don't speak the same language. I don't think there was anything remotely complicated about Ned's situation.
A2,
Of course we speak the same language, we just interpret it from different schools of thought, based on experience or perception. As much as I objected to Ned's condition, I also object to "why" he was confiscated. They are both of equal wrong.
Wade
Post a Comment