is it ok to use wild animals for entertainment?

i just wanted to say all the best to Roy out of that magic show he and his partner, ( Siegfried , is it? ) ,had in las vegas. I haven't looked at the news for a while so hope he's doing ok. But what are your opinions about using animals such as tigers for our entertainment?
 
If they're trained it's better...as long as the animals aren't treated cruelly.
 
Being a dog and cat owner, I'm don't support animal cruelty, but just for the sake of argument: We already kill animals of all sorts for a number of purposes, food only being one. What's the rationale behind protecting some types of animals against certain types of behavior when the most basic protection isn't even granted to the animals that end up under cellophane at the supermarket?

Here's a good example. In certain asian countries, they eat dogs. This sort of behavior is deeply frowned upon in the western world, where we keep them as companions. However, it is perfectly acceptable to us to raise a chicken in a cage not much bigger than its physical body, breed them so they are fat and immobile for its brief, sad life, stuff them with steriods and hormones, and then drop them on a conveyor belt where they are butchered in the most clinical, mechanical, mass-production sort of way.

It strikes me as wildly inconsistent.


///M-Spec
 
Yeah. It is wildly inconsistent. But compartmentalization is key to living with a clean conscience. When I eat a steak I do not sit and think about cows grazing on the range, or cows crammed in pens awaiting slaughter, or the actual slaughtering of cows. I enjoy the food. To do anything but is like eating while you take a crap, or thinking about paying bills while you have sex. All are part of life, all are incompatible and should be mentally separated. Honesty is not the issue. Everything gets its time. And if things like that become too bethersome, there is always vegetarianism or Veganism for those who lack the intellectual flexibility and wherewithal to deal with life and death.

Using animals for entertainment can be good or bad. Most mammals like being around humans as long as we treat them well. They lead much better lives kept by us than they would in the wild. By better I mean comfortable and stimulating. Think of your dog sleeping in the bitter cold and snow, not having eaten in a week, and getting his ass kicked by a bigger stronger dog, after having lost a fight for food to a bear. Then picture him sleeping in his spot in the house, a few steps from his food, which he probably doesn't want because he's full of the table scraps he got after dinner, just before the Milk Bone and head massage. Yeah. I think they like it.

And not only that... mammals enjoy interacting with humans, to varying degrees of course. Not all animals are as predictable as dogs, like cats. Most animal performances are simply an example of humans triggering the instincts of the animal in a controlled way. This is especially true of cats. The problem with cats is that they are not social animals (except lions) and depend much less on approval as a reward. I feel terrible for Roy. He obviously loves tigers more than they love him. But even his partner readily acknowledges that the tiger cannot be blamed. Roy lost controll and the tiger was triggered into a behavior which hurt him. He always knew this was a risk.

The only time using animals for entertainment is bad is when the animals are abused. We use different standards for what constitutes good treatment of an animal and it varies with different animals. There is no point in detailing them here. Abusing animals is unconscionable and barbarous. When humans take the responsibilty and burden for another animal I believe we are obliged to treat that animal as well as we would treat ourselves, qualitatively and relatively. If we don't want to do this we should leave them where we found them. Beasts of burden, animals born in captivity, and other types of working animals are no exception to this, nor are food animals.
 
But it still doesn't make sense to me.

Kill an animal, then eat it = okay
Kill or otherwise mistreat an animal for no particular reason = not okay

Why?

If you're going to make a case that it is immoral to mistreat an animal, then I submit that the worst sort of mistreatment is ending its life.

Animals either have a right to be free from human influence or they do not. I don't feel we can classify one form of mistreatment as justifiable simply on the grounds you plan to eat it afterwards.

Or can we?


///M-Spec
Loves both his dogs
Had 2 rare, tasty steaks last week
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec


Animals either have a right to be free from human influence or they do not.

Animals don't have rights. What they do have is what we give them. You can't give rights. The complexity with which we analyze ourselves isn't justified in the case of animals. For those who think it is, as I said above, there are existential remedies for their consciences, but they are just kinds of religion, the validity of which can't be argued effectively either way.

There is no such state as "free from human influence".
 
Originally posted by milefile
Animals don't have rights. What they do have is what we give them. You can't give rights. The complexity with which we analyze ourselves isn't justified in the case of animals. For those who think it is, as I said above, there are existential remedies for their consciences, but they are just kinds of religion, the validity of which can't be argued effectively either way.

If animals don't have rights, then why would I refrain from doing as I please with them and not feel the slightest bit guilty about it? In order for me to feel bad about mistreating an animal, I would have to realize that they have a right not to be mistreated in the first place.

From a practical aspect why does legislation exist to protect them on numerous levels, ranging from animal cruelty laws to federal endangered species protection?


Originally posted by milefile
There is no such state as "free from human influence".

Well, perhaps that can be worded better. "Free from humans eating or mistreating you"... or something more eloquent.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
If animals don't have rights, then why would I refrain from doing as I please with them and not feel the slightest bit guilty about it?
Your morality.

In order for me to feel bad about mistreating an animal, I would have to realize that they have a right not to be mistreated in the first place.
You mean eaten?

From a practical aspect why does legislation exist to protect them on numerous levels, ranging from animal cruelty laws to federal endangered species protection?
Again, because of legislators morals. There is nothing in the constitution about animals.
 
Originally posted by milefile
You mean eaten?

No, mistreated. In order for my morality to say "hey, you shouldn't tie up Rover and beat him senseless with a shovel" means that I have to respect his right not to be treated in such a manner. I have to understand, that being tied up and physically abused is a state that he should be free from and I have no right to put him there.


Originally posted by milefile
Your morality.

Originally posted by milefile
Again, because of legislators morals. There is nothing in the constitution about animals.

My morality or my state/country/social systems'? If we take this to a conclusion... Would it be accurate to say that your position is that how people treat animals is a personal choice and outside the jurisdiction of their society and government?

Therefore, if I decided I wanted to race my greyhounds until they die of exhaustion or train pitbulls to tear each other apart in a dog-fight, thats not something my government can hold me accountable for?

(Not saying I agree or disagree, just verifying your position)



///M-Spec
 
No I'm not saying that. I am saying that the US Constitution says humans have rights, not dogs, not cats or parrots. And because most every animal we know, under normal circumstances, is treated well doesn't necessarily mean they all are. It is our choice to treat animals well or not. We eat them. We hunt them. Some people beat them or neglect them. It's dispicable.

In most places I know of animal cruelty is illegal. There's even a program on Animal Planet about animal cops who go around busting people who mistreat animals. But if you lock up a dog in a cage with no fresh air, food, or water, you might get a ticket and the dog taken away. If you do this to a person you are in much more trouble. These laws have no basis in the constitution and are a moral courtesy. The fact that to you or I it is obvious common sense to treat animals well does not give them rights. In a constitutionally pure legal system, they would have no protection aside from derivative protection as their owner's property. Animals do not need rights to be treated well. What is needed is a decent society with good people, and that can't be legislated.

We also routinely perform euthinasia on animals (out of mercy), but it is illegal to do so on humans. Another wild inconsistency.
 
The day we say animals have rights is the day eating meat, hunting, animal experiments, and considering animals property can be outlawed and that will never happen.
 
Originally posted by milefile
The day we say animals have rights is the day eating meat, hunting, animal experiments, and considering animals property can be outlawed and that will never happen.

yip, i have to agree with your statement there..

it's not about animals having rights, it's about humans having the knowledge to know that we can abuse mostly any animal that we would want to, and to do so is one of the most cowardly acts that a human being could do !

don't know if you guys heard about the "badger bashing" that is seemingly going around just now. i seen pictures of it in the newspaper and you just have to think that the people that could do this to any animal is so sick! i mean what the hell is going thru
his head? you just want to get your hands on these guys

what is the difference in the state of mind of a guy who kills someone and a guy who smashes a badger in the face with a spade? are the both the same? :mad:
 
Originally posted by milefile
No I'm not saying that. I am saying that the US Constitution says humans have rights, not dogs, not cats or parrots. And because most every animal we know, under normal circumstances, is treated well doesn't necessarily mean they all are. It is our choice to treat animals well or not. We eat them. We hunt them. Some people beat them or neglect them. It's dispicable.


Well, if it truly is our choice how we treat any animal, then there would be no need for laws to single out and punish unacceptable behaviors. Because the notion of any law is to prevent unacceptable infringments on an entity's rights. The entity can be a person, or a corporation or -in this case, a certain animal.

Let's say I decided to drive out to Barrow, Alaska. While I was there I decided to club some baby seals and make off with their pelts. If you were there, with, say.. a 9mm pistol in your hand, would you stop me? If I refused, would you shoot me with the nine?

Now, say we were at a commercial cattle ranch near Austin. I decide Bessy looks like she might make a pretty good steak, so I herd her over to the slaughterhouse. Do you stop me then?

If the answer for #1 is different than #2, I'd like to know why.



///M-Spec
 
I wouldn't kill you over either. I'd be upset over the seals because they're cute, because they're babies, and because they're not food, and try to prevent it.
 
Originally posted by jay wilkie
But what are your opinions about using animals such as tigers for our entertainment?

I think it's perfectly okay - I'm always entertained when some girl gets her head bitten off because her brilliant father decided it would be fun to have seven bengal tigers, a monkey, a platypus, and an alligator in their backyard.
 
As far as animal rights go. I believe that it's cruel to mistreat an animal.
If you plan to eat it or wear it. Put the animal down as quickly and humanely as possible.
As far as entertainment. Most domestic animals like to "perform" to please thier masters. Cats don't count. They consent to let us live in their homes. They also refuse to do too many stupid tricks.
Remember rule 1
If it can gore, maim, kill, and eat you, do not go out of your way to piss it off.
 
Animal abuse is inexcusable. The tough part is determining what is and what isn't animal abuse. There is no way that our society could be where it is today without animal domestication and without animal products. As far as I'm concerned, the livestock used to make food is treated quite well up until the point that it is killed. It is given food, water, and shelter. It recieves medical attention right up until the point it get slaughtered. Is it a nice thought that we kill animals like that? No, but it is necessary.

Societal values also have a lot to do with it. In America, we don't think twice about eating hamburgers, but we are repulsed by the thought of using dog meat for food. Other countries (granted mostly 3rd world ones) think the same of eating a dog that Americans might about a cow. It is all point of view.

As for wild animals used for entertainment, I say as long as the animal's handler has COMPLETE control over the animal and can insure the safety of everyone involved, more power to him. Otherwise, the animal belongs either in the wild or in a facility where it can be taken care of and kept secure.

.02
 
Originally posted by bmwx


As for wild animals used for entertainment, I say as long as the animal's handler has COMPLETE control over the animal and can insure the safety of everyone involved, more power to him. .

.02

i'm sure after years of training tigers roy thought he had complete control of the anilmals. but there will always be that little percent that is in the instinct of the animals. you could never 100% insure the saftey of everyone involved....
 
Back