Are there any volunteers here.... We need a woman to grow a beard then go undercover to film a documentary.

I found a figure that says Ringling Bros annual sales is only $10mil which I find surprising and may not be accurate. The company that owns RB-B&B is Feld Entertainment, a privately held company that also produces other shows like disney on ice and Siegfried and Roy. They mention having more than 2500 employees, over 25 million visitors/guests and operations and field offices worldwide

In 1995 they opened a m-m-dollar 200 acre research & preservation facility for the Asian Elephant. The production company says the RB B&B C gave $180k to the Smithsonian Inst. in 2005 to support reasearch of Elephant herpes amongst other charitable actions, most of which are of course in the form of free tickets to needy youth orgs.

I don't bring this up to make them seem like angels..... I'm just saying here you have this big company. One with resources... that can be held accountable... And on the other hand you have PeTA which I don't trust them any more than the bearded lady with a cattle prod.

What does the ivory tower (ouch, bad pun) have to say about these accusations of animal cruelty? According to a CBS news affiliate article they say the "notions of animal cruelty are misguided."

It's not just 4-legged animals. In a related story...
Circus Performer Plunges To Death
Woman Falls 30 Feet To Concrete Floor; But The Show Goes On

My opinion is that there probably is a great deal of objectionable treatment to the animals but more evidence is needed from a source other than the ALF and PeTA. I haven't been to the circus in about 30 years so I couldn't tell you if this abuse happens in plain sight.

I don't care if they are treated with kid gloves, elephants don't belong in the circus!

qq, your post is right on.

WARNING: I AM ABOUT TO HIJACK THIS POST. But, since it I am the OP, I assume I am entitled to! You've been warned :-)!

First, I am not a supporter of PETA, nor I do I support extremists of any kind. But if they video tape abuse, who are we to argue that?

I think it is obvious that the quality of these animals lives are diminished. I find it sad that anyone would support keeping large animals in cages and made to perform. But, as long as your entertained, right?

Apparently it is CBS that is misguided; there are DOCUMENTED cases of circus abuse.

The circus promotes animal abuse both directly and indirectly by purchasing animals from vendors that abuse. This is not to mention, that these wild animals do act out and have been known to escape and stampede through the stands & residential areas putting spectators and civilians at danger, hardly fair. There are also numerous complaints from eyewitness individuals that are not associated with any group...

LetÂs focus on the Ringling/Barnum Group:

August 5, 2004: An 8-month-old elephant named Riccardo was destroyed after suffering severe and irreparable fractures to both hind legs when he fell off a circus pedestal. Riccardo was undersized when he was born to Shirley, a Ringling elephant, in December 2003. Failing to wait until Shirley was 18 years old, when she would have been physically and emotionally ready to raise offspring, Ringling used Shirley for breeding when she was only 7 years old. Riccardo may have been afflicted with a bone disorder caused by malnourishment, since his mother was unable to nurse him.

July 26, 1999. Texas - RINGLING BROS. AND BARNUM & BAILEY
Benjamin, a 4-year-old endangered baby elephant who had been removed from his mother before she could teach him to swim, drowned when he stepped into a pond while the circus was traveling through Texas. Benjamin drowned as he tried to move away from a trainer poking him with a bullhook. According to the Asian Elephant Studbook, published by the American Zoological and Aquarium Association, Benjamin was removed from his mother when he was only 1 year old.The elephant was the fifth Ringling Circus animal to die in the last18 months. San Francisco Chronicle,
August 19, 1999; San Jose Mercury News, September 6, 1999.

January 24, 1998. Jacksonville, FL - RINGLING BROS. AND BARNUM & BAILEY According to charges leveled by the USDA, a 3 1/2 year old baby elephant named Kenny died after being forced to perform two shows in one day while ill. According to the circusÂs animal care log, Kenny was "not eating or drinking," was "bleeding from his rectum  had a hard time standing, was very shaky, walked very slowly," and "passed a large amount of blood from his rectum." The log noted that at 11:30 p.m., "the elephant was dead." The case was settled by agreement and Ringling brothers paid $20,000 to close a USDA investigation into whether it broke animal welfare laws. Circus officials said that Kenny died of a gastrointestinal infection. He was one of nine elephants born into captivity at Ringling's breeding facility in Florida. In the wild, baby elephants are close to their families and travel in herds. At Ringling, Kenny was put on tour while his mother was kept within the confines of the circus's breeding compound. Entertainment Wire, February 14,1998; Jacksonville Times, January 31, 1998.

January 7, 1998. St. Petersburg, FL - RINGLING BROS. BARNUM & BAILEY CIRCUS. During a publicity photo shoot with tigers, Richard Chipperfield, of the famed British circus family, was attacked by a four-year-old Bengal tiger named Arnold. His brother, Graham Chipperfield, and another trainer, used fire extinguishers to control Arnold. The group of tigers was returned to their cages, and, as paramedics struggled to stabilize Richard Chipperfield, his brother shot and killed Arnold inside his cage. Chipperfield was hospitalized in serious condition with significant brain tissue loss. Graham Chipperfield, whoÂd been badly mauled by a lion in 1993, announced his decision to retire from the circus several days later. Reuters, January 7, 1998; The Electronic Telegraph, January 12, 1998.

July 13, 2004: According to an affidavit by former Ringling lion handler Frank Hagan, a 2-year-old lion named Clyde died while traveling through the intense heat of the Mojave Desert in a poorly ventilated boxcar without being checked or given water. The lion is believed to have died from heatstroke and dehydration.

December 22, 2002: A 57-year-old endangered Asian elephant named King Tusk was euthanized because of osteoarthritis. Captivity-induced foot problems and arthritis are the leading reasons for euthanasia of captive elephants.

February 22, 1999: A horse collapsed and died during Ringling Bros. and Barnum & BaileyÂs animal march to the Scope Convention Center in Norfolk, Virginia. A PETA videographer captured the horseÂs collapse on film despite Ringling workers attempts to obstruct the camera. Although Ringling claims that a veterinarian is available to its
animals 24 hours a day, there was no veterinarian on duty when the horse was in urgent need of medical care. According to the necropsy, Ringling was aware of this animalÂs delicate condition yet kept him on the road anyway.

Cited Violations of Federal & State Laws:

May 24, 2006: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to provide adequate veterinary care to an elephant named Jewel who has an abnormal gait and stiff front left leg. The inspector found that JewelÂs stiffness did not disappear within a few minutes of walking as claimed by RinglingÂs veterinarian.

May 3, 2006: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to provide adequate veterinary care and maintain medical records for an elephant with a large swelling on her rear leg. Ringling did not have the prescribed medication on hand and the staff was unaware that the medication needed to be administered.

February 15, 2006: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to provide veterinary care to a camel with two actively bleeding wounds.

January 6 & 17, 2006: The USDA cited Ringling for causing trauma, behavioral stress, physical harm, and unnecessary discomfort to two elephants, Rudy and Angelica, who sustained cuts and scrapes from arena seats after becoming startled by a barking dog while performing in Puerto Rico. Ringling was also cited for failure to provide a safety barrier between the elephants and the public.

October 5, 2005: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to maintain medical care records "for all the elephants, and Gunther in particular." There was no treatment plan for Gunther, who had been suffering from a lesion for at least five months.

December 16, 2002: The USDA cited Ringling for keeping alpacas and goats in areas with an accumulation of debris that included wood with sharp pointed nails sticking up.

August 20, 2001: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to provide access for inspection of animals, records, and property at its retirement center.

September 7, 2000: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to provide adequate veterinary care. The inspector wrote, "There is no documentation maintained on elephants that have minor lesions, scars, or abrasions.  Records of medical treatment were not available on the camel that recently had both rear feet caught in a train track." Ringling was also cited for storing the animals food near toxic substances and failure to maintain transport enclosures that could not be properly cleaned and sanitized.

July 12, 2000: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to provide adequate care in transit, failure to provide drinking water, and failure to maintain transport enclosures. The inspector wrote, "[A]nimals must be visually observed at least every four hours. Â Tiger transport vehicle is inaccessible as long as train is in motion. Â [I]t is not clear if the opportunity to water the tigers every 12 hours is available. Â Tiger transport design has allowed excessively high temperatures during routine transport. Â Vent failure pushed these temperatures to a point of immediate danger to the animals."

July 5, 2000: The USDA cited Ringling for failure to maintain the structural strength of its tiger enclosures. Two tigers had injured themselves attempting to escape cages in which an excessive rise in temperature occurred when faulty vent doors blew shut. One tiger tore at the cage, tearing the track from the door and breaking off a tooth. A tiger in another enclosure suffered an injury above the eye caused by the same faulty vent-door problem.

Federal lawsuit exposes Ringling elephant abuse against endangered Asian Elephant.
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-fedsuitringlingbros.html

Former Ringling employees say animals are abused!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17139184/

Ringling Brothers Trainer on Trial for Animal Abuse
http://www.literacynet.org/cnnsf/elephant/storyweek.html

I could keep going, but I think I have proven CBS wrong and made my point!

Last thought, the Ringling/Barnum group is a business, FIRST AND FOREMOST. They are NOT a nonprofit org! Of course they donate money, it saves their name, gives them publicity and makes them look "good".

BTW, Sweden, Austria, Costa Rica, India, Finland, and Singapore have restricted the use of animals in entertainment. The UK and Scottish Parliaments have committed to ban certain wild animals in traveling circuses. Approximately 200 local authorities in the UK have banned all animal acts on council land. Animal acts are still very popular in former Soviet Union and throughout much of Europe, the Americas, and Asia.

This guy looks like he is having a much better time then free. (Get real people!)

That is more than adquate amount of properly cited information and If I were not quirky by nature, I'd be persuaded by now. It did raise one question that stands in the way of me believing elephants don't belong in the circus to entertain humans. And that question is... Do dogs belong in the airport sniffing for drugs and bombs for human gain? In the line of fire in Iraq? Or doing any number of other dangerous (or not) jobs for human gain? What about horses, oxen, mules and whatever else doing jobs for human gain?

The reason I ask this is because is there any level of care the circus could provide for the elephants where the show can go on? One poster already said elephants don't belong in the circus. Where do they belong? Where does any working animal belong?

In a recent post I suggested that maybe race horses don't like running around in circles so old men can win a few bucks at the track. So I'm ready to assume that a 4 ton Asian elephant doesn't like another 4 ton elephant standing on it's shoulders in a pyramid formation.

Is this just a matter of those bull hooks and cattle prods or is there no circumstance where elephants can perform?

I do not believe in subjecting animals to a diminsihed quality of life for our own entertainment. I would never attend a horse race, never. I'll watch cars and motorcycles if I want to watch a race.

But the dog is a long time domesticated pet and does infact seem to be content living with us. Many working breed dogs enjoy their activities. I have a Jack Russell that would go crazy without.

My late stepfather was blind and had a seeing eye dog, Nico. When my stepfather passed away Nico went into a deep depression, he would barely get up and wouldn't eat. He enjoyed helping & working with my stepfather and grew an incredible bond to him. To me, this is not abuse.

I am also not against using animals for entertainment if they are treated properly and their quality of life is not diminished. For example, dog dancing, where the owner and dog work out a dance routine. I think that's great and the dogs really seem to enjoy it.

But, elephants... lions and tigers and bears... oh my! These are large animals, I won't bore you with another list of citations, but the Barnum group is commonly cited for having inadequete enclosures for these animals and sometimes no barriers at all!! Whatever town they come to they are putting people in danger.

I really have a personal front with the circus. It doesn't take an activist to see that it is inhumane. I can't really honestly comment on your question regarding using animals for our gain. I don't believe that animals should be used in war or goverment experiements. I do believe in medical testing on animals when neccassary. I eat meant but I only buy free range. No offense intended, but the question is really to much of a genralization for me to answer yes or no.

I do not beleive in keeping any breed of animal in a small enclosure to only be released when it is time to entertain.

As for the circus, these are large, NON DOMESTICATED animals that are, at times, snatched out of the wild, and made to perform for us. Again, I won't bore you with a list, but these animals "snap" far more often then one would imagine attacking their trainer and at times by standers.

So if it were up to you Sea World and places like that would haveto stop too? Just to clarify that this has nothing to do with cattle prods.

There was a world famous family of animal trainers who had their winter quarters near here. They were mostly large cat trainers but did have other animals too such as the ocassional elephant. They were well known as caring people who did in fact provide adequate facilities for the animals. It was easy to see the love they had for the animals in their care, we, as well as many other locals would visit their farm, they were often in the news for positive reasons. There were sometimes protesters but the local news media would jump on the story and it normally was nothing more than a group acting out of ignorance, with no facts pertaining to THIS facility. I will say that most animal trainers as well as breeders are more aware of what is needed relating to the care and training of animals than in the past. I also will agree that not all trainers or acts are equal in their abilities and management, the bad examples are the ones to make headlines while the better just plug away at doing what they do well.

I do remember a small circus which came to town years ago, it was not a well managed or presented outfir and was told to move on, the police and humane society were called to investigate and they were eventually put out of operation. This circus t one time did have a respected history but was bought and run by some foreign family and it really was poor.

Hi Quirky - I suppose we could go on forever for each individual group/org. As for Sea World:

They do not have the record of abuse & neglect that the Circus has. And since these animals are mostly contained to water they are not a threat to civillians. BUT, Sea World is a coporation, not a non-profit org. They are a business and are working to turn a profit. These animals are removed from the wild for commercial purposes. They will do things in the name of conservation for plublicity and to look good and at the same time they will show no more interest in conserving marine mammals natural habitats than they have in educating audiences. In fact, the industry has actively lobbied to keep small cetaceans, such as orcas and dolphins, outside the jurisdiction of the International Whaling Commission (which would help protect these animals in the wild) because they dont want to face the possibility that they may not be permitted to capture additional animals in the future.

Here IS my problem with Sea World: Killer Whales and Orcas (members of the dolphin family) are the largest animals held in captivity. In the wild Orcas stay with their mother for LIFE. They swim in a Pod (i.e. family group) that consists of the mother, her sons & daughters and her daughters offspring. Each Pod communicates in a a dialect specific and unique to their own Pod.

Some of the animals at Sea World are wild caught for no reason. (i.e. sickness, lost, etc) This disrupts the entire Pod. To obtain a female dolphin of breeding age, for example, boats are used to chase the pod to shallow waters where the animals are surrounded with nets that are gradually closed and lifted onto the boats. Unwanted dolphins are thrown back. Some die from shock or stress, and others slowly succumb to pneumonia when water enters their lungs through their blowholes. Pregnant females may spontaneously abort babies. In one instance, more than 200 panicked dolphins who had been corralled into a Japanese fishing port crashed into boat hulls and each other, becoming hopelessly entangled in nets during their attempt to find an escape route; many became exhausted and drowned.

Orcas and dolphins who escape the ordeal of capture become frantic upon seeing their captured companions and may even try to save them. When Namu, a wild orca captured off the coast of Canada, was towed to the Seattle Public Aquarium, he was insured by Lloyds of London, according to the BBC, for "various contingencies including rescue attempts by other whales."

In the wild, orcas and dolphins swim up to 100 miles a day. But captured dolphins are confined to tanks that may be only 24 feet long, 24 feet wide, and 6 feet deep. They navigate by echolocationbouncing sonar waves off other objects to determine their shape, density, distance, and locationbut in tanks, the reverberations from their own sonar bounce off the walls, driving some dolphins insane. Jacques Cousteau said that life for a captive dolphin "leads to a confusion of the entire sensory apparatus, which in turn causes in such a sensitive creature a derangement of mental balance and behaviour."
Tanks are kept clean with chemicals that have unknown side effects. Because of high chlorine levels in their tanks, dolphins at the Clearwater Marine Aquarium were unable to open their eyes, and their skin began to peel off.
A tank at the North Carolina Zoological Park didnt provide enough shade, causing a sea lions eyes to develop blisters and rupture. Oklahoma City Zoo closed its dolphin exhibit after four dolphins died within two years from bacterial infections. Sea lions at Hersheypark wouldn't come out of their pen because they feared the noise made by the nearby rollercoasters.
Newly captured dolphins and orcas are forced to learn tricks. Former trainers say that withholding food and isolating animals who refuse to perform are two common training methods. According to Ric OBarry, "positive reward" training is a euphemism for "food deprivation." Former dolphin trainer Doug Cartlidge maintains that highly social dolphins are punished by being isolated from other animals: "You put them in a pen and ignore them. Its like psychological torture."

If life for captive orcas and dolphins is as tranquil as marine parks would have us believe, the animals should live longer than their wild counterparts. However, while captive marine mammals are not subject to predators or ocean pollution, their captivity is nevertheless a death sentence.
It has been documented that, in the wild, dolphins can live into their 40s and 50s. But more than 80 percent of captive dolphins whose ages could be determined died before the age of 20. Wild orcas can also live for decadessome have been documented to be more than 90 years oldbut those at Sea World and other marine parks rarely survive for more than 10 years.

People around the world are recognizing that dolphins, orcas, and other cetaceans do not belong in captivity. Canada no longer allows beluga whales to be captured and exported. Israel has prohibited the importation of dolphins for use as entertainment. Australia also prohibits importation of dolphins. Plans for the construction of a dolphin tank at a marine center in Virginia were abandoned following extensive public outcry.

Just to prevent myself from having to disput this common arguement I will do so now:

Yes, dolphins enjoy interacting with humans. In Hawaii we had dolphins come up and swim right next to us. My close friend, Lisa, lives on Kauai and while she was pregnant a dolphin came up to swim with her placing its own baby inbetween the two. Surely these large and magnificent cretures are much happier in the wild with their families then in captivity.

I am sure (if you have children) you can imagine the horror of watching someone take them and never seeing them again. Why do they do this to them? To turn a profit. Why do we support this by visiting these attractions? For our own entertainment.

I have never wanted to see the marine parks for this very reason. It would make me too sad.

Our Detroit Zoo recently retired our only two elephants. They were transported to California (if I remember right) to live in peace. Zoos are learning that keeping elephants inside on concrete because of cold weather is very hard on their joints, most captive elephants suffer arthritis. Soon, northern zoos will not have elephants, I believe. It makes me happy to know that we are learning to take better care of the captured animals in our care. I will miss them, but I know it is for the best.

Sea World is a joke. I am sorry if others feel differently, We went there last year as part of our Florida vacation. I was not impressed by Shamu (how can there be 4 or 5 shamu's anyway?)
Not that I wasn't impressed by how beautiful he (they?) was, but while every one else was watching the Whale(s) I was trying to see how much room those guys had while not on 'display' It seems cruel to me. The Dolphins had a pretty good sized area, but I felt they had too many in there, they do act like they want to show off for the people as well and they act unafraid, but I know the next time we manage to make it down to Florida again, that place will not be on our list (and no it is NOT because one of their lovely birds (a Dodo maybe?) took a dump in my hair from above, as well as at the same time my 5 year old disapeared on us) We found him. Sea Worlds emplyees had him surrounded (My son, not the bird)

Some interesting points there. I'm starting to come around and don't really have anything to debate. Not that I have run out of steam, just that I agree.

You may have heard of all the suspicious deaths at our Georgia aquarium. If you google it, you find many links. I'm curious to know what your stance is on conservatory type outfits.

Micke- I remember the same thing happened to my dad at Disney world a hundred years ago. (RE bird)

Hey, one day while I was looking into the sky, bird poo fell into my eye!
I was not sad; I was nod mad;
But I sure was glad that cows dont fly!

Dodos been extinct for a few years now!

I support conservation/conservatories. I preserve a few poultry & pheasant breeds; used to do more. I have been to a few conservatories and I feel they do provide a needed service.

Ahhh. Hence the name faci fowl. It's all starting to make sense to me now.

Namu was caught decades ago in 1965!

Yes, it is wrong to capture an orca and remove it from it's pod and family.

SeaWorld's whales are born in captivity.

Children who love Shamu grow up to care about wild whales and their habitats. People used to think Orcas were ferocious killers and they were not protected and not cared about and Shamu and others changed all that. Now people know about whales and they care.

They aren't captured from the wild anymore. Orcas aren't being captured for captivity much at all worldwide.

However, the whales that are in captivity cannot be released, as the sad tale of Keiko the whale who starred in the first Free Willy movie proves. He was miserable alone in the ocean and was so bonded to people that he sought them out over and over and then he died. Would probably still be alive if he was still at the Oregon Coast Aquarium.

Buyorsell, you are mistaken on all your claims. First, wild captures of Ocras are still attempted today with the last successfull capture in 2003. Second, Keiko has not been the only Orca to be rereleased into the wild, some were actually released in the mid 70's and are still alive today! Finally, we do not learn about Orcas when they are kept in captivity, simply because they do not act naturally...

I will go into further detail on these topics:

The Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Fradkov, approved a quota of eight Orcas for capture in Russian waters in 2007. Although aeveral attempts were made, no Orcas were successfully caught in Russia in 2006. That, fortunatly, remained true for 2004 & 2005. Lets pray 2007 is a bad year for these whalers!

Wild caught Orcas can net One Million a piece.

In Feb. 1997 a group of 10 Orcas were caught by having 8 boats circle the pod. They used water bombs and the banging of metal rods to drive the Orcas into the bay. They were all captured, five were kept for captivity and 5 were released. Follow the link below to watch this capture and to learn the fate of these creatures.

In October 2003 an Orca was killed in Russian waters while an attempt was made to capture it.

In September 2003 a group was caught in Russian waters. This was the first live capture of an Orca since 1997. 1 juvenille died, 1 female was kept and the rest released. At the time of capture, the female was a prime, healthy and nearly-mature animal, but, less than a month after capture, on the 19th October, confined in captivity and separated from her family group, she died.

This is the current info on Captive Orcas:

46 in Captivity.

17 Wild Caught and 29 Capitive Born Calves.

They are kept in 13 Marine Parks in 16 Countries.

Sea World holds 22 Orcas, 47% of those held in captivity.

Of the 70 calves born in captivity since 1961 only 30 have survived past the age of 4.

NO, we do not learn about the Orca's habitats through Shamu. Not at all. The reality of existence for the captives has become painfully obvious. They are in cramped, chlorinated tanks, often leading to frustrated and unhealthy whales, performing circus tricks which bear little resemblance to their natural behaviour. Many people now feel that witnessing such impoverishment is unlikely to yield sound educational benefits. Highly respected scientific research has proven that the Orca does cannot live its full life span in captivity. They die very young.

Science is perfectly capable and does of observe these dolphins (no, they are not actually whales) in their natural habitat and properly educate the public.

By supporting Sea World and other Marine Parks you are supporting this trade. Sea World has NEVER vowed to not purchase wild caught Orcas. Currently it is more cost effective for them to breed. But when they no longer have breeders avaliable, they will buy. Again, first and foremost, they are business.

They are breeding Orcas to live in chemically treated small tanks where 60%-90% of all males Dorsel Fins will colapse.

WOULD KEIKO STILL BE ALIVE?

There is no way to know for sure, but either way he was doomed to early death when he was captured in 1979. He was sold to an amusement park in Mexico City for $350K. It was the movie (Free Willy) that brought attention to his living conditions and health. He had skin lesions and only weighed 7720 pounds when he was transfered to the rehabilitation facility in 1996 where e experiences natural sea water for the first time in 14 years! By the end of the year he gained 1000 pounds and the lesions are healing. In 1997 his lesions are healed and he weighs 9620 pounds!

Keiko was released into the wild in 2002. On Dec. 12, 2003 Keiko died from what Veternarians determined to be pneumonia. How does this prove that his rehab and release was a failure?

Keiko did REMARKBLY well being rereleased. He was miserable in the wild? Sounds like he wasn't doing very well at an amusement park! While in the wild he successfully feed himself, interacted with other Orcas and traveled over 1000 miles!

BUT WAIT! KEIKO IS NOT THE ONLY ORCA TO BE RELEASED BACK INTO THE WILD!

Taku was released in 1973 and lived until 1998!

T13 & T14 were released in 1976. T13 was last seen in 1998 and is presummed dead. T14 is still alive!

Charlie Chin and Pointednose Cow were "released" (escaped by the help of a stranger)in 1970. They are still alive today!

***This is to just name a few***

Quirky - I support conservation, ofcourse. As for conservatories... It's a touchy topic. While they should be held to the highest standards I don't know that it would be beneficial to shut them all down. I do not believe in capturing creatures that can be observed in the wild, what is the point of that. Here is a link to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society:

http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/D399F5DB073FC47380256CFD004BAE45?OpenDocument

Here is a link to one of their recent studies on Orcas. Actually, the pod they were studying was the pod that was destroyed by the 2003 capture noted above:

http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/0229DC98FC49916B8025703F003D7DCF

I find it so very sad that there is so much false information out there and that it is blindly believed by so many.

Oh, I forgot to add one thing. A quote by Jacques-Yves Cousteau:

"There is about as much educational benefit to be gained in studying dolphins in captivity as there would be studying mankind by only observing prisoners held in solitary confinement."

the adams: before I would believe anything you wrote I would need your sources which you conveniently did not list. Just because I read it on the internet does not make it true.

No Prob, sorry I didn't mean to "conveniently" not post sources. Most of my info is from journals, magazines and books so I can't post links. I will post some sources on the internet that are reputable and respected. You will find that my main source is the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. In case you are not familiar with them, this is a highly respected organization in the scientific community.

BTW, I did already post them as a source:

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society:
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/D399F5DB073FC47380256CFD004BAE45?OpenDocument

A link to their study which also speaks of the captured Orcas and pod that was destroyed in 2003:
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/0229DC98FC49916B8025703F003D7DCF

This study team was lead by two Orca Expert Biologists, a senior researcher for WDCS and a marine mammal scientist. This organization is nothing to scoff at!

As for the rest...

Keiko has a website: www.keiko.com
You can verify everything I posted under the "history" tab. Also, Keiko's website is a partnership with the Humane Society of the United States.

Here is a link to the Humane Society of the United States article on the death of the Orca that was captured in 2003 in Russian waters:
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/kamchatka_orca_first_victim_of_russias_captive_orca_business.html

And another link from the Humane Society about this capture and speaks of the 1997 capture:
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/what_are_the_issues/marine_mammals_in_captivity/held_captive_orcas.html

Another article on this capture at Keiko's website:
http://www.keiko.com/news5.html

The death of the female Orca during an attempted capture in 2003 WDCS link:
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/FE9F5650FAFB273280256DBB002AFFEE

Another link to WDCS article on the Russian 2007 Orca quota:
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/EDE5DDDB25B7821E802572490037D2CC

As for the Orcas that I spoke of that have been rereleased into the wild I give you a link to Orcahome.com's page on released/escaped Orcas:
http://www.orcahome.de/orcarel.htm

The Orcas I mentioned in my last post all have scientific names that consist of a letter and numbers. For your reference Pointednose Cow is T2/M2 and Charlie Chin is T1/M1.

Also, my most important sources for these releases are the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council (IWRC)(founded in the 1970s) and the National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association (NWRA) (founded in the 1980s). Unfortunatly, these organizations require memberships to search their websites and to receive their journals. Feel free to visit their websites, and by all means purchase a membership!!

Last, below is a link to a wonderful study from the Humane Society on Marine Mammals in Captivity.

So who would believe the HSUS, they have ties to terrorist activity groups like peta. We have had their mailing come here?? and Its not hard to see thru their lies and distortions.

No, I am not a supporter of the Humane Society of the US, as a whole. With that in mind, ther are people/scientists that work for this org. that are good and trying make a difference. In addition, some people are supporters of the HSUS, so I posted them as ONE source, not the only one!

The items that I refernced above, such as the 2003 captures made national headlines. There are books and journals and magazine articles and news broadcasts on these captures. I'm sorry, but they are fact - not up for debate. I was just posting one source.

There is a much bigger message here, why are you focusing on this? Is it because you are a supporter of Sea World?

Like I said, I listed other sources.

There are many, many, many studies on marine mammels. I linked to one. I have a feeling you are not really interested, but if you are let me know and I will post links to a handful of them.

One question, if you could answer me this:

Are you just throwing your 2 cents in about the HSUS, or are you actually debating that these captures ever happened?

I am indifferent to Sea World, I have been to a couple different ones and enjoyed them actually. Altho, I may have some mixed feelings to the whole thing I guess. Same as circuses.
That could be my 2 cents on HSUS, I have a low opinion of them.

I have nothing against your opinions not any efforts you may exert in support of your opinions. It may actually provide some balance?? I support some animal uses which you may be against, thats the way it is. We do owe animals which we posess the best care we can realisticly provide.

the adams: I was talking about your Ringling Bros. list, I hadn't seen the orca list yet. I can't verify anything on that list except that it comes from the Peta site. I thought you said you weren't a Peta supporter?

Sorry about that! No, I do not support PETA and I believe very little I read on the internet. As I said, I receive most my info from journals, magazines and books.

The sources for my Ringling/Barnum List:

All of the federal infractions I listed are legitment cases with docket #'s. For example & your reference:

USDA Docket No. 98-0020 "On two separate occasions on January 24, 1998, the respondent failed to handle a juvenile Asian elephant known as Kenny as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that did not cause behavioral stress and unnecessary discomfort, in that, after determining that the elephant was ill and needed to be examined by a veterinarian, respondent made the elephant perform before it had been examined by a veterinarian, in willful violation of sections 2.100(a) and 2.131(a)1 of the regulations."

Here is a link to an April 6, 2004 article from National Geographic about circus elephants. On page 2 of this article you will find a partial list of USDA violations. I am sure we can all agree that National Geographic is a reputable and respected magazine that certainly checks it sources, ensuring that what it prints is accurate:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0406_040406_circuselephants.html

If I get a chance & you want me to I will dig through some old mags and journals to see if I can find all the docket numbers and/or sources.

Here is another link. This one is to the animal protection institute. The page I link to lists a number of violations and their sources. (i.e. associated press, Ringling News Release, USDA Inspection Reports)

the adams: So if you don't support Peta, why is your list word for word from the Peta document? This was not something you compiled yourself.

Does it really meant that I "support" PETA if I quote them or use some of their resources?

I have never given money to PETA or acted on their behalf or under their name. Therefore I have not and do not support them in anyway.

However, I do not believe it is justified to 100% discredit them. AS I SAID, if they take live video of abuse and/or violations who are we to argue? They are extremists, I do not support extremists of any kind. With that said, I think it is only reasonable to acknowledge that PETA has done good, by prompting changes in legislationa and by bringing to the front those organizations that abuse animals, and will probably continue to do so.

The list you are referencing I received in a newsletter for Anti Circus Activists. It can be cross referenced to Docket #'s and USDA Inspection Reports. Personally, I really don't care who compiled it, if the info is verifiable and accurate... so be it.

I truly hope this answers your question.

BTW, is this a debate about the circus and their use of animals or whether or not I support PETA?

I find it far more important to convince people that these wild animals should not be used for our entertainment then debating the good and bad of the different animal rights org's.

In your posts you have yet to state your stance on the topic at hand. What would that be?

My take is this: Every use of humans and/or animals has the possibility of abuse. When I say humans I'm talking about domestic abuse and child abuse etc. There will always be people who abuse their wives, children or animals. Abuse in circus' is not rampid. These are isolated cases. Most on that list I could not verify by the way. There's abuse in horse racing. There's abuse against domesticated pets. To me banishing circus's, well why not outlaw marriage or having children? Or outlaw pets (something Peta does want to do by the way)?
I grew up on a ranch. Different animals have specific jobs. Similar to different dogs being bred for specific purposes like hunting, retreiving or herding. These animals need to do their jobs or you end up with a problem animal. Yes there is abuse and those that do it should be dealt with but I would not close down circus'.

I suppose you missed my last points...

In my opnion, keeping wild animals in confinment for the sake of our entertainment is abuse. Making them perform stupid tricks is ridiculus.

These animals do demonstrate in their behavior that they are not content in confinment. In addition, they are struck with afflictions that have been proven to be caused strictly from their captivity. (i.e. foot disease) This is not to mention the fact that these animals can and do harm to bystanders and civilians.

There are plently other forms of entertainment (not to mention more intellectual) then watching a bear in a tutu.

I will never understand why parents insist upon taking their children to the circus. Why not take them to something with culture? A theatre, museum, planaterium, etc, etc. All of these activities I have enjoyed since I was a small child.

Open Question:
Why do you support the circus? Why should humans be allowed to keep wild animals in confinment for non educational purposes?

If you still think we should be allowed to keep elephants in captivity I invite you to check out these studies/books/journals. I'd be amazed if someone could provide me with a study that supports keeping elephants in captivity!

Below is a link to a study that was done by G.A. Bradshaw Ph.D. & Lorin Lindner Ph.D., M.P.H. on "Post-Traumatic Stress and Elephants in Captivity."

Here is a quote from this study:

"Once in captive situations elephants also endure severe physical and psychological hardship. Many zoos and entertainment programs use physical force, pain, and deprivation to control elephants: methods that have been condemned by Amnesty International and other organizations as torture. Elephants are subjected for the purposes of control to food and water 2 deprivation, isolation, chaining, ankuses (bull hooks), and highly restricted movement. Food deprivation is one method that has deep ramifications. Being able to eat what, when, and how much one wants is part of being a self-governing individual. Like humans undergoing severe stress, abuse or trauma, many animals in captivity develop eating disorderssome so severe that they become life-threatening. Such trauma and deprivation, made particularly vulnerable because of captive animals dependence on humans for survival, leaves indelible psychophysiological scars. Trauma actually changes how the brain develops and functions."

Another study that I think is wonderful is entitled, "The Asian Elephant in Captivity - A Field Study" which was completed by Dr Fred Kurt and Dr Marion E Garai. Unfortunatly, this study cannot be accessed on the interenet and is only avaliable for purchase. Surely a quick search will yeild many purchase options.

And another wonderful study only avaliable for purchase (through membership to the journal) is, "A Review of Injuries Caused by Elephants in Captivity: An Examination of Predominant Factors."

Here is an abstract:

"Injuries to people caused by elephants in zoos can be lethal. Data on incidents of injury to keepers and visitors were collated from newspaper articles, personal communications with zoo directors and keepers, and published information from the European Elephant Group. Although the data were not of consistent quality and detail across the three sources, the causes and frequency of incidents were analysed to see whether analogies could be drawn about how and why accidents occur. The greater our understanding of these factors, the more likely it is that the number of elephant-related injuries and deaths that happen in zoos can be reduced. Data are presented on a number of factors that relate to elephants, keeping staff, management practices and the circumstances surrounding known injuries and deaths."

This can be purchased at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00051.x?journalCode=izy

A wonderful author, Jack Adams wrote a book entitled, "Wild Elephants in Captivity" which was published by the Center for the Study of Elephants can be found on Amazon.com.

Bluesbarby - I understand that you are a supporter of the Circus and you apparently believe that "the show must go on", but what do you have that supports this? Where are your sources that say the animals quality of life is not diminished?

I do not mean to sound disrespectful but, are you going to continue to support these shows pleading ignorance to the horrible life these animals are subjected to, or do you actually have a valid arguement for it?

You are aware that peta and other animal rights type orgs DO stage events even to the extreme of harming and even killing animals to make a point! Even quoting them to support an argument is lying in bed with them.

I have raised and bred wild animals without any more problems than domesticated animals. There are those who cant do it the right way and will have troubles.
I have seen enuff to know that not all circus animals are ill kept, some are; shut down the bad ones and leave the well managed ones alone. Some animals strike out not from abuse but because they are like some humans, rogues. happens in animals domesticated for centurie too.
Circuses can enlighten people to the need to conserve certain species, it might be the only place they will see some animals, how bout those tigers of siegfried/Roy fame, are they abused?
Go carry your protest signs, hand out literature, etc. while others go and enjoy the acts.

Fancifowl, so you are ok supporting an org. that keeps these wild animals in confinment and dimishes their quality of life?

I have provided many reputable sources/scientific studies that have shown this to be true. They prove that, infact, these animals are suffering.

What do you have to support the circus' exsistence?

BTW, I visited the Ringling website, where in the heck do they promote conservation?

How does a bear in a tutu teach conservation?

Siegfred/Roy? Their Tigers? Ah, don't you remember one of the trainers was almost killed by their tiger? These ARE wild animals.

A rogue wild animal? Really? What do you know of these animals to say that they are acting unnaturally?

Yep, Im ok with responsible care of wild animals in captivity. I dont believe animals suffer JUST due to the fact they are not in their natural state. They suffer from improper care in SOME circumstances. Its my opinion that sometimes their quality of life is improved, they are treated for intestinal parasites, externasl parasites, treated by veterinarians for illness and injuries of which they may suffer and die from in the wild.
Its proven that animals will not reproduce when they are stressed, I have proven that myself. When their needs are met, they will reproduce.

Do you think S & Rs tigers are mistreated? Of course I know they injured one of the trainers, slim chance it was due to mal treatment or because it was not in the wilds!

Animals dont reason, they lash out, that is their behavioral instinct. Not just due to bad treatment by someone.
Did I say they acted un naturally when they harmed some one? no, that seems like a normal animal thing. I have seen rogue bulls, rams and stallions, not because they were mal treated not were they acting un naturally, just being animals.
The bear in a tutu doesnt think about the tutu, it thinks about the reward it will get when it does its act, like a dog doing a job for a reward.

Well, Fancifowl, I guess your going to believe what you want to believe. No matter how many scientific prove you wrong. These studies have proven that the health and overall well being of the animal is jepordized, not due to abuse or improper care, but due to the simple fact that they are in captivity.

I never claimed that these animals lashed out because they are abused, sorry if I lead you to believe that is what I was implying. They "lash out" because they are undomesticated wild animals and it is to be expected.

Do I think the tigers were abused? Probably not.

As far as reproducing, it is extremly difficult to have many species mate & reproduce in captivity.

You speak your opnion but is founded in only you. You have no fact to back it up, just your opinion. Whereas I have provided much scientific fact to the contrary. Like I said, you are going to believe what you want to believe and apparantly no amount of proof will change your mind.

Also, my reference to the bear in a tutu was in regard to your conservation comment. I really cannot connect the dots between the circus and conservation.

Ideally, in the conservation of a species the most appropriate action would be to do so in their natural habitat.

My feeling on it is that wild animals have no place performing in circuses or anything like that. I have no problem with well-kept zoos like the San Diego Zoo who work hard to promote conservation, and that have decent sized facilities for the animals (yes, conservation would be most ideally done in the animal's natural habitat but we all know that's not always possible). If a WILD animal is going to be in captivity, that's the only acceptable place for them -- in a zoo. Not performing in a tutu.

'The absence of walking ... must have dramatic long-term effect on the elephants' physical and mental stability and must ultimately affect its longevity and propagation.'
- 1998, USDA elephant course document

Elephants will travel up to 30 miles in a day in the wild.

The San Diego Zoo IS a great resource. But what about this...

Unfortunatly, at my local zoo the elephants are subjected to living quaters that are less the 1/2 an acre! Recently many activists urged our City Council to move our elephants (at no cost to them) to The Elephant Sancturary. (link below)

Nancy In Mich, you are so fortunate that the Detroit Zoo decided to retire their elephants. (btw, I was born in Detroit and lived my early years in Trenton) My City Council voted it down. Argh!

The Elephant Sancturary I'm speaking of is 2,700 acres. The elephants here do not have to entertain humans, they are encouraged to live naturally! What a concept, huh? This must be a great place to study elephants, in all their natural beauty.

I do not need to watch wild animals perform tricks for entertaiment. Seeing them in nature, to me, is far more then entertaining, it is amazing.

To those of your reading, you should really check out the link. It is really informative and interesting!

There are some zoos that are less than desirable, and I'll be the first to admit it. The Detroit Zoo is one of them -- I'm from Michigan originally, too, and visited the zoo there many a time, and always felt sorry for the elephants...and many of the other animals. The Santa Ana Zoo, which is right down the street from me now, is another one that that is less than desirable -- the cages are too small, and not well kept.

But we've got to face the reality of the world that we live in now, as it is. Given the choice between an animal living out its life balancing on a ball for a few treats, versus living in a less than desirable zoo, I guess I'd rather take the latter. It's not great, but it's the lesser of two evils. Of course, I would MUCH rather that smaller zoos either expand their exhibits to better suit the animals, or shut down, and give their animals to sanctuaries. But I'd rather focus my energies, though, on the more obvious evil -- circuses are truly harmful to animals and need to be shut down, or limited to human-only acts.

Definetly a battle and choice of the of two (or more) evils. I fought for the elephants here because it was local and my family has a slight sway in with our City Council. (not so much this time, though)

But, no, I don't focus my efforts against zoos. Mostly circus and other areas where wild animals are forced to perform stupid tricks!

Thanks for your feedback Rivkadr!

the adams: I never said I was a supporter of circus' or the "show must go on". I really don't like it when people put words in my mouth. How much other information did you misread?

Bluesbarby,

Sheesh, didn't meant to offend you. The people on this "debate" forum really seem to assume the worst out of each other. If I misinterperted something you wrote why don't you enlighten me, or if you are just playing the devils advocate, say so? Also, I did not "put words in your mouth" because I did not quote you. If my assumptions are inaccurate, I did just what you said: "misread". Again, why get so upset with me for this, why not just make your point more clear to me? Wouldn't that be more valuable to this debate then simply stating your are not pleased with me?

This is what you did say that lead me to believe you thought "the show must go on":

"To me banishing circus's, well why not outlaw marriage or having children? Or outlaw pets..."

and

"...but I would not close down circus'."

Um, what did you mean by this? So, do you or don't you support the circus? Since you do think the circus should continue to operate, why do you think it is alright for these animals to be subjected to such a diminished quality of life for our entertainment? (Note: I posted reputable scientific sources above that support this claim I have made) As I have stated, keeping these animals in captivity purely for our entertainment (in my opnion) is a form of abuse. They DO suffer, this has been well studied and documented.

Again I ask, where are your sources that say the animals quality of life is not diminished? Also, how do you justify your statement of "...but I would not close down circus'" knowing that it has been proven that these animals suffer greatly?

You also said that "Abuse in circus' is not rampid. These are isolated cases." What research have you done to lead you to this conclusion and what are your sources?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sarah

Ok, according to the federal government that regulates the use of wild animals there have been 19 cases of elephant abuse in the past 35 years regarding the Ringling Bros/Barnum & Bailey circus'. Of those 19, 11 were dismissed and 3 were warnings. Of the other 5, 3 were for letting the animals perform while sick (gee I wish the gov't would protect me from my boss when he makes me work sick)and large fines were enacted. Circus' are heavily regulated. The thing I like about circus' is it gives urban kids a chance to see humans interact with wild animals- something they don't get at a zoo. And what's wrong with animals earning their keep just like humans? What makes them better than us? Talk to someone who works in a circus- you get a completely different perspective. These people are hard working and treat their animals with respect - after all this is their livihood. In many cases they'll do without for their animal.
Just a thought:The world is changing. Soon there will be no natural habitat for these animals, maybe we should be acclimating them to their new circumstances? Or should we just let them go extinct (something Peta preaches).

So you do support the circus? What am I missing here? What did I previously misread?

1st, in addition to federal cases that are filled against Barnum the USDA completes regular inspections. During these inspections a report is filled out and fines may be imposed for any infractions. These do not go to trial. Please post your source for the "federal goverment that regulates the use of wild animals." (Uh, do you mean the USDA?) Where did you retrive the statistics youhave entered?

2nd, wow! Double wow. I just have no idea how to respond to your line of thinking, it really blows me away. All living things on this planet must "earn their keep?" Do you think these animals do not do so in the wild? Humans have set up a barter and monetary system in which we are rewarded for our work and allowed freedoms and time to do as we please. What are circus animals rewarded with? Food? They can obtain that for themselves in the wild, why do they need to be captured and confined which leads to health problems and a shortened life?

I have talked to people who work with the circus, I cetainly didn't get the view point you are speaking of at all!

As far as the world changing and the habitats of these animals being destroyed. Soon there will be no natural habitat? Soon is a very relative term, what is your time line and where have you received you information. Why aren't you naming your sources.

I support conservation and conserving these habitats. Acclimate them to their new circumstances is absuard. We need to conserve our nature, clean our oceans, preven the destruction of the rainforest or it might just be the end of us all.

Also, I have seen humans interacting with wild animals at the zoo. Many times!! What are you talking about?

Your mentallity seems to be a very selfish one. The cases you are speaking of when elephants were forced to work when they are sick, the were extremly ill. I am sure you have taken time off when you were very ill. Also, what benefit is their for "urban children" to see humans interacting with wild animals? Why is this soooo important? Shouldn't children be taught to respect nature, not to take advantage of it?

I still can't get over it: "And what's wrong with animals earning their keep just like humans? What makes them better than us?" Again, the MOST CERTAINLY earn their keep in the wild!!!!! That is such a crazy thought. As far as them being better then us, I have said I believe in animal testing for medical purposes. This is not be treated equally to humans. Yet, with all the studies that prove the diminished life for these animals you still think the circus is important?!?!?

Yes, humans work to "earn their keep." But for most of us we do so to improve the value of our life. To take that vacation, to have a nice car or house, to have the ranch or farm you desire, to enjoy good food and dine out. What the heck do these elephants get that is so darn great? Again, studies have PROVEN that their life is diminished greatly and they will die prematurely!

Yes it was the USDA.
African Elephants cannot be imported into the US, not since 1970. All these elephants were born and raised in captivity.
Why do you think wild animals live an idyllic existence? Yes they do work in the wild, I never said they didn't,they live from one meal to the next and their life expectancies can be short according to the studies I've read in National Geographic. My point is that why shouldn't they earn their keep in captivity.
My son was laid off from his job after he was mugged. He was left for dead, broke his jaw, 3 ribs and was a mess so he couldn't work. They laid him off 10 days later. He lives in Idaho. My aunt was sick for 6 weeks in the hospital with a staff infection and lost her job. So yes I do go to work when I'm really sick (a bout with cancer comes to mind) because I can't afford to lose my job.
And no, I don't like circus', I like to play devils advocate because I see so much mis-information being passed around. I'm a teacher. That's what I do. However, my dislike has nothing to do with the animals.
Other than a petting zoo, I've never seen interaction between humans and animals in the zoo other than humans throwing food. Hardly what I call interaction. I gotta go. More later.

I don't think animals should have to earn their keep in captivity because they did not choose to be there! They are WILD animals.

My information is researched and double checked. This is one topic I have been active in for many years.

So you have never taken a sick day? Many of us have worked through illness. My DH and I were recently in a severe auto accident that we worked through and I could barely walk. But the fact of the matter is that I had the option not to work. I have the option to save money and obtain medical and accident insurance to take care of me. These animals are forced to work. It seems, perhaps, you just do not think socially very highly of animals and think we should be able to do what we please with them?

Not all employers will fire someone for taking sick days or hospital leave. I own my own biz and am an employer, I have never fired someone for taking sick days or hospital leave. It sounds like you and your family have some pretty crappy employers! The actions of these employers hardly seem fair, why should animals be subjected to this?

You said, "their life expectancies can be short according to the studies I've read in National Geographic." I am not sure what you are saying here. In the wild or captivity and compared to what?

At my small local zoo I have wittnessed enrichment programs with our Orangutans, tortoises and elephants. All during zoo hours and all open to the public. Just because you haven't witnessed something first hand, does not mean it doesn't exsist.

You still have yet to post your sources. You speak of misinformation being passed around yet you are ommiting facts such as the USDA inspections and only mentioning civil cases. Since you are concerned with the abundance of misinformation it would only make sense to post your sources so you yourself can be believed! I think you are playing The Devil's Advocate to ensure that I am not passing misinformation around, yet I have posted sources upon sources. Where are yours?

Out of curiosity, what do you teach? And why, then, do you not like the circus?

And what's wrong with animals earning their keep just like humans?

That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Animals are not people. Why should they have to earn their "keep" in the first place? If they were sentient beings, that should be given the right to vote, then yes, by god, force them to pay taxes, too! But they're not. They're dumb animals, that should be taken care of, because WE are the ones destroying their habitats and forcing them into captivity.

I'm sending my cats out to get jobs. After all, they should earn their keep, right?

You gonna stud them out??

Can't. Like a responsible pet owner, I've gotten them spayed/neutered. :)

I think they should get jobs as movie screenwriters. Every time I see a movie that really sucks, I say "My cat could have written something better than that." Now's their chance to prove it...

the adams: when you list a source (other than a website which really isn't a source) that I can actually verify then I might listen. However when I checked your so called "sources" I found nothing. So then I tried finding them on the internet (a very unreliable source by the way - which college students aren't allowed to use with only a few exceptions)and guess what? Peta kept coming up. And since Peta is well known for stretching the truth I'm not likely to listen to anything they have to say.
This is not actually a debate forum. Debates require actual facts. This is more like a ranting forum. Sorry just MO.

Ah, college student here, my Professors have always suggested using the internet in our research! (I attend the Univ. of AZ) What the heck are you talking about?

Nowadays, websites are MOST CERTAINLY considered souces. Especially if they corollate with a reputable organization. I am sure that the U of A would not consider their School of Medicine website as nonreputable!

BTW, I have cited the USDA and Federal Case #'s for reference. I have cited scientific studies that are posted on the internet and also ones that are not and can be purchased. Have you read any of these or purchased the others? I doubt it considering your blatant disregard for my sources. Apparently Biologists, Ph.d's, M.D.'s, M.P.H.'s, etc. are not good enough for you!!

You are disregarding reputable sources and are not listing your own sources or answering any of my questions, so I'm done with going back and forth with you! Your line of thinking is really a stretch which has been demonstrated on multiple posts.

riv, yep, know where you are coming from! I think some kind of critter writes most TV crap!
I guess all our animals do/did earn their keep in 1 way or another, cept for the wifes" Persians, and they used to when she was activly breeding/showing.
The horses did farm chores and provided rides & drives; the cattle made meat; the dogs herded and hunted; the poultry made meat and eggs and breeing stock for others, I guess the pigeons didnt really do too much but they were enjoyable to watch them perform(rollers).

Well, fancifowl, you're on a working farm, it sounds like :) My two cats living in suburbia don't have the same kind of opportunities :P And take a look at all the animals you have mentioned -- they're domesticated. Animals that have been bred for thousands upon thousands of years for a specific purpose, i.e. to serve the needs of humanity, should go right ahead and do that. Wild animals should not.