http://www.wimp.com/wilddog
I guess the longer you are around the more you see. Axel Gautier had an elephant Targa and a dog, Smokey that were inseparable until the day Targa died. Smokey slept in the stable between Targa's feet, on a "hay bed" that Targa would make a couple of times a day. If Smokey tried to leave to go to the bathroom, Targa would hold his tail and not let him leave, unless Axel told her to. It sure looks like a great place for the elephants to roam, and I have to wonder how their dog got the "spinal cord" injury in the first place. I would assume not by getting it's belly scratched by an elephant.
Courtesy of Josip Marcan
Saturday, January 17, 2009
What a "feel good/Run Bambi Run" bunch of "let's do a fluff piece" this is!!!!
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
I assume, although it's not on here, that you are referring to the CBS piece on Tarra and Bella. Of course it's a fluff piece; what's wrong with that? When the news does stories on the circus coming to town, is that not equally fluffy? I agree that the news should be restricted to the news, but fluff pieces have been with us since the dawn of journalism. Are they inherently bad? This one isn't being used to prove that all elephants in all circuses (or sanctuaries) lead wonderful lives, unlike the Run Bambi Run one.
According to the sanctuary website, the xrays showed the dog's injury to be a torsion injury, which would not likely have been caused by the elephant. But so what if it was? Would that make this somehow a bad place? Accidents happen sometimes, really, and no one is to blame and no one is "proven" wrong by them. Sometimes.
A2
A2,
There is "no" Run Bambi Run video. All of them that are fluff, are Run Bambi Run. This made it seen like this is such an unusual, unusual thing. It isn't. It is as common as a cold. Note the one above this that I posted as a circus Run Bambi Run. The elephants running playing isn't unusual. It's as common as a cold. Just as a dog will when it is let out to run. When you give two sides as I do, and let folks make up their mind based on facts, you will be more valid. Their web site can say anything they want it to. It could say the dog hurt it's back flying to the next county and flapped it's leg's to hard.
Wade
A2,
Click on the www.wimp.com link. I couldn't make it any bigger.
One more thing. Yes, accidents do happen. I was involved in a bad one with Scott that was nobody's fault. But if it was an elephant kicking the soup out of Lassie, it would change the view of the Felix Unger/Oscar Madison Odd Couple story a bit, and make it more like OJ and Nicole. LOL
Wade
Wow. A true fluffer-nutter if ever. A2 asks what's wrong with fluff? Nothing per se, but a fluff piece like this one or even "The Circus Comes To Town" isn't just a feel good, it's a sales pitch. And in this case it's a really bad sales pitch because it promotes this whole waky notion of the Peaceful Kingdom where elephants and dogs share equality time.
I'm sure there have been any number of attachments between s particular dog and a particular elephant. But there have also been a whole lot of elephants that didn't like dogs and a whole lot of dead dogs unwise enough to get too close. I suspect most of us can cite examples if required. As a result, from an animals management point-of-view, mixing dogs and elephants isn't the brighest idea. So what this fluff piece does is to sell the sanctuary by telling you a story predicated on bad elephant management.
Sorry - my poor old eyes really did not pick up that link. And yes, I agree - this kind of thing (dog and elephant, or x and y animal) goes on all the time. It's all common. I guess the big difference is that the CBS one isn't drawing any broader conclusions about the world it describes - like, if you love animals you HAVE to love the sanctuary. A watcher might feel that way, just as a watcher of the circus elephants running might feel that way. But the sanctuary story is just a nice story; the circus one is I believe what you might call a patch.
Since there's no evidence either way - your speculation against their possible lies - about how the dog was hurt, no one can really make up their minds "based on facts" on this one. A2
A2,
Not a "patch", a "threat" or "insinuation" is what I took the above one as. Kind of like, if you don't believe in God, you are going to burn in hell that used to scared me to death as a child. Or the insinuation that if you eat carrots, but not peas you aren't a "normal" human being.
But the insinuation that if the world was more like these two, the holocaust would not have happened, and Gaza would be shared equally is as much of a goofy insinuation.
Wade
LOL very fair point, about peace reigning everywhere. Undoubtedly goofy. BUT that would be the reporter, not the sanctuary - I'm sure they had some but not total control over how the story went out.
Mr. Trumble, also an interesting point. But in all fairness, can you imagine a story "selling" that sanctuary that you wouldn't find an objection to? Is the story about Smokey and Targa less objectionable - and, if so, is that only because they (I presume) didn't use the story to sell the circus? A2
A2,
Aw come on, boy are you waffling. What story has come out of there that they did not have full and complete control over????
The Smokey story wasn't a suck up story, it was just one to illustrate the dog deal was no big deal. Smokey and Targa were friends long before Tara and Lassie, and Mozambique still happened and I assume unfortunately the current war is going to continue for a while longer.
I do agree with you about Ben. I think if they cut the grass in the pastures, Ben would say they were obviously trying to starve the elephants into submission, and if they let it grow too tall we can assume they are using it to hide from the elephants, until they learn what to do with them. LOL
Wade
I can think of several stories about the sanctuary I could live with. Since "Sanctuary Closes" probably isn't in the cards, I'd be happy to settle for a story on say how they might use protected contact in the management of some elephants. Or perhaps given the size and age of herd -- a story on working with researchers to look at aspects of aging and diet in management. For what it's worth, I don't "like" the fluff pieces on circus either -- but I don't pretend they aren't sales pitches. The whole dog elephant bonding thing is just plan wrong because nobody mentions how problematic such interactions really are. Moreover, in a fluff story the source is where the cute comes from, not the media outlet. We've all sold plenty of cute.
I'm not going to get into my issues with the sanctuary except to say that it a lot less to do with circus and lot more to do with what I would describe as their failure to meet management standards found in zoos. Done right maybe it could be a great place for older elephants to retire.
But for the purpose of this discussion I'll point out the number one beef... There is no real evidence that TB in elephants is dangerous to humans who come in casual contact. Decades of looking at TB in primates has taught us the same thing. Work with primates, someday you may test positive for TB... But it's unlikely that you'll ever develop TB. the sanctuary, like PETA has used TB in elephants to create fear where it's both exaggerated and counter-productive. Should elephants be tested for TB? Of course. Should infected animals be isolated and treated? Yep. But suggesting that a TB positive elephant created a "risk" for a family sitting in the bleachers at the circus, or even for somebody who rode on that elephant is just inciting needless fear for an ideological purpose.
Yes, but neither are most of the people who protest circuses going to make any effort to make sure that people can't have pets anymore. There is fear spread for ideological purposes on both sides, and frankly it's a time-honored political tradition.
And I think that's far less a Sanctuary position than an AR position, isn't it? I'm not positive, but I can't think of any time that Ms. Buckley talked about getting TB through casual contact, though activists do it all the time. A2
A2,
I think if you look extensively you will find that they have rode the casual contact TB horse hard. In the 2 weeks I spent in a fire fight with Scott and his fine staff, twenty four hours a day they wore surgical masks the moment they came in the barn. There was a moment when neither Scott or I had slept for 3 going on 4 days, and their masks were never off until they stepped out of the barn. By about the 12th day of the most incredibly taxing experience any human can imagine, the masks hung around their necks. But by that time myself and my fine staff and Scott and his fine staff were functioning on instinct and will, and just didn't care about ourselves any more. There were priorities. But yes, they do use it.
Wade
A2, I would agree with you that most people who send a donation to an AR group aren't in the business of "outlawing pets."
That said, PETA does state, "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed." They go on to tell us, "This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to."
Not exactly a pro-pet position, and the rhetoric is a bit over the top.
In the US canine owners spend about 15 billion dollars a year just on dog food. I'm no fan of puppy mills, nor irresponsible pet owners, but I don't think that most pets lead quiet lives of desperation. The idea that the lady down the road producing one litter of Irish Wolfhounds every year is a money grubbing oppressor is a bit hard to swallow. There are still monkey meat markets in Malaysia, and places in Seoul selling butchered canines. To me that's a bit more pressing an issue than PETA's further contention that , "dogs often have to drink water that has sat around for days, are hurried along on their walks, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet."
LOL. Please, let me trade places with my dog!
Ben,
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! No way is eating monkey meat, canines or any other thing in another country/culture our business. Unless those monkeys are endangered. Peta has no business telling anybody anything about nothing. Any more then us sitting an elephant up on a tub is the business of the mahout in the lumber camp. Legitimate animal welfare organizations have more then enough to do here in the good old U S of A. They don't need to be sicked any place else.
Wade
Wade - PETA is not a "legitimate animal welfare organisation".
Ben - Animal Liberation in Australia openly, verbally states that it's aim is to outlaw all human/animal interaction ...... pets, horse riding, the lot. Circus is high on the priority list because it is a "soft" target.
Ben, Point absolutely taken about PETA but my point was about fear being spread for ideological purposes, and the "industry" (by which I mean many spokespeople for both circuses and zoos who are being challenged by animal protection groups on either general or very specific grounds) position is very frequently to point out, in a nutshell, that if you listen to "them" you'll end up having your puppy taken away, too. Whereas the truth is that most of the people who protest circuses, for example, ignore the over-the-top PETA rhetoric that you quoted, or don't even know about it.
Wade, that is a really interesting recounting of those days with Scott - I had no idea. I do see photos of them with the masks, sometimes, but assumed that might have been TN requirements - the state is very strict on the TB issue. But even if the moments are photographed (and yours were not, as far as I know) they are still relatively private statements, and in fact they are in close contact with the elephants, every day, so they would be entitled to consider the possibility of contamination, as does the USDA. Do they make statements about risks from casual contact?
A2,
I have never read their site, no need to, nothing of interest for me. I do go quite often to look at and check the elephants that were a part of my life, just to see how they are doing. The wearing of masks speaks volumes. There were no need for myself and my staff to take pictures, we were not on a publicity campaign. As my staff was paid, and not volunteer, I could not provide a couple of "extra" ones for photographing and documenting. It wasn't the issue. My son Eric, was probably the greatest asset in the whole ordeal.
Wade
Steve,
I didn't say Peta was legitimate. That's why they have no business telling anybody anything. They are as valid as anonymous posts.
Wade
Addendum to Steve,
I also suggest "soft target" is the most self serving, pity party there is. The AZA report of which I quoted on another thread, suggesting zoo set the standard for sanctuaries, also referenced a new word "soft money." One of the reasons they suggest sanctuaries are not legitimate is that they operate on "soft money", donations that can dry up at any time leaving them with no operating capitol. This report was written by two of the biggest guns from the Bronx Zoo, who have just had their funding slashed drastically. Do they not operate on "soft money" local, state, and federal funding?
We need to address how we became a "soft target", and why we still are, and not use the cute term similar to "power lunch" as an alibi and the other goofy new terms in the vocabulary.
Wade
Wade, You may have misunderstood my aside about moments being photographed. All i meant was that I don't see a lot of public statements from TES about casual contact/TB, and that as there were no photos from the time you describe that would be a private statement rather than a public one. I think that all parties have remained pretty quiet about what took place in those days and while I'm interested in hearing, I don't feel that I have a 'right" to know.
Anonymous,
You do have a right to know, as we all do, based on facts and not "self serving paper" There is a thing called a gag order, that prevents any paper, self serving or or otherwise. Policing that privately is difficult, but it negates public proclamations. There may be nothing noble about what hasn't been said.
Wade
Post a Comment