"The Greatest Show on Earth" is ending
 

The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Baily circus is closing for good in May.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-top-c...070659128.html

Such a shame.

huh, circuses... Don't think I've been to one since I was like 5.

Circuses always seemed trashy to me. Amusement parks are a better value if you want outside entertainment.

kinda glad its happening no more Animals being used as cheap parlor tricks to entertain people.

Thank god. Circuses are disgusting and have animal cruelty. Now we just need Seaworld shut down next.

Please no. Blackfish woefully exaggerates the how "bad" the conditions the animals are kept in are. Most REPUTABLE sealife parks (Seaworld and the like) actually take very good care of them. Orcas and dolphins in them live as long or longer than in the wild, and have plenty of room to live in. Its the ones like the park in Mexico (that the orca from Free Willy was in) that give them a bad rep. The media loves to spin things for scandal and outrage, so of course that is the stuff people hear about. But if you've ever been to one, it is pretty obvious they are well cared for and happy.

Hold people accountable, sure.
Run them into the ground because of broad-brush painting? Is crap.

Maybe Ringling Brothers closing means other circuses who actually abuse their animals will close, but maybe it won't.

I'm pretty much in this camp.

All this REALLY means is that people who have spent their entire LIVES in this type of work/lifestyle(because that is what it ultimately is) and animals who have never known anything else will all be out of home and jobs. The animals will have to have homes found for them, which is often nearly impossible and can often result in them ultimately being put down because there is no place for them to go. Is THIS what people want??!!

Probably, depending on the source organization that forced the closing.
Peta kills a whole lot of animals in the name of ethical treatment.

Sadly that is very true. It is an unfortunate fact that many people are unaware of what happens to retired circus animals. Some are lucky enough to go to sanctuaries or zoos or even to private individuals with the facilities and resources to care for them. Others- aren't so lucky. In some cases retirement basically means a speedy trip to that big circus tent in the sky.

It's also saddening that few people realize just how far circuses have come especially within the last century or so. This is not the 1800's anymore. With so many circuses traveling between states with varying levels of restrictions and enforcement regarding animal rights laws, they virtually HAVE to pay closer attention to the care of thwir animals than mist people do or risk having them confiscated and lose their livlihood.

Well, looks like I won't be using the free pass I got for it, because I was born in its 100th anniversary. Seems that I would be 46 if that was the case...in which case, I don't know how I got a lifetime free pass, but I did. Oh well. I too have only been to one only once in my life and I must have been four or so. Very few memories of it. One of things where I don't quite recall how I got there. Just that it was in Colorado, there were some clowns...and then I rode an elephant, and was mad that I didn't get to ride the "real unicorns" like my brother did.

All issues aside, circuses have been declining in popularity as of late, ironically declining as animal care increased, and it's probably fitting that the last two big ones would go out around now. Granted, this probably means the lower-level "nasty" ones will continue to be active.

Circus attendance had been decreasing for over a decade, I'm sure the animal ban didn't help but they were going to close sooner rather than later. Today's kids are just not interested anymore, it's a relic of the past.

It is a bit sad to see Circuses go but their time is in the past, were all animals mistreated? Of course not but a big enough majority were for it to be a concern a problem.

Blackfish did exaggerate but not as much as you make it out to be, if you think these animals actually live a happy life then you need to actually check out the places and Seaworld only changed a lot of what it was doing after the documentary which the CEO said was nothing and resigned because of it months later. You don't even know the story about "the ones like in the park in Mexico" so why speak out because you read some article about it. THe animals are not happier than they would in the wild and to dismiss that because you like is just cruel.

You do have a point here and it's a bit sad, many can't really return to the wild or their owners don't want them to so they get rid of them instead but that doesn't mean they necessarily having better lives performing. In general those animals were doomed to suffer the time they were taken from their habitat and yes it's what people want even if we should have something better for them after they stop the performancies at least those animals will be the last to endure that, if you continue it you just continue the cycle.


I'm not a fan of PETA's methods but that whole "PETA sacrifices more animals than ____" is a BS statistic spinned to argue that PETA is terrible.

They run kill shelters.

Aren't circus people themselves nomads with no homes since they travel from place to place for performances?

Circus people are all oddballs.

Yes I DO know the story about that park- it was big news at the time and that orca eventually was moved to another park with better conditions then died a few years later. That was my point- it is places like that that give Seaworld and other LEGITIMATE sealife parks a bad name. US animal cruely laws are far stricter than many other countries. Have you ever BEEN to Seaworld or to B&B&RB circus? I HAVE. In the case of the circus, several times over the years growing up. In fact as Utromaniac mentioned, one of those visits includee the "Living Unicorn". His name was Lancelot.

It is easy to critisize something without understanding it. Circuses use fairly simple methods to train the animals, which usually consist of positive behavior reinforcement. As for keeping the elephants chained and other such training methods- they are not harmed and it is more of a psychological restraint. They could easily use their immense strength to get free but dont because the physical restraint creates a boundry they won't cross- even if it is removed. They are also RAISED in this environment around people and trained to respond to and interact with humans their entire lives.

Same goes for the big cats. They are part of the circus "family" and a very important one at that. The circus people rely on the draw of these animals, and must be willing to comply with the laws of the strictest states they travel to. Again, without knowing a bit about circus culture and history it is easy for an outsider to assume there is abuse when there isn't. I've read/seen numerous articles and documentaries over the years about B&B and they have a long history of LEADING the progress in better treatment of circus animals. They also primarily use female elephants which are more social less agressive (mothers protecting calves excepted) and smaller than males which makes them safer to work with. Using a chain restraint is as much a safety measure as it is a training tool- these are BIG and very dangerous animals when angered!


This.

Cubed the circus IS their home. They live work and often raise their families within in. To close it down means they WOULD be homeless. Being nomadic is not the same as homeless- they take their homes WITH them when they travel.

You never went to Reino Aventura, you never met Keiko, you don't know Spanish and didn't live there so you don't know the whole story.

As to the rest, well that's your perspective of it but I think the rest of the country is glad that Circuses around the world have been closing the last decade.

The whole story? Why, do YOU? I.know more about that case than many probably do simply because I pay attention to such issues. I have been a member of both ASPCA and Humane Society for years by the way. I keep up with news of animal rights laws and issues and DO read or watch articles and programs on the subject regularly. Even tried to get into humane law enforcement as a career at one time but had to drop my classes due to lack of reliable net access.(I was studying for an online college degree.) So YES, I know enough to understand Keiko's situation at the time and to have been quite angered by the conditions he lived in. I do not speak much Spanish (but I DO understand quite a bit of it by listening for key words similar to their Latin roots, which I DO know/speak) but since it WAS such a big story it was not hard to find info on it.

Try not to assume you know what I do or do not know about these issues. I am and have been an animal rights adherant for most of my life, adopting or rescuing ALL of my pets rather than buying from pet shops or breeders, and have probably done more in that regard than most here. Animals are one of my passions in life, and suggesting I don't "understand the whole story" simply because you disagree with the FACTS I have brought up on the topic is arrogant and tacky. They are facts. All you have done is suggest that your speculation of what I know somehow trumps those facts.

I am indeed fairly familiar with the situation, especially when it comes to Keiko. The American side of the story was definitely biased and given a spin to get better ratings because of Free Willy. I'm not trying to say that Keiko lived in great conditions or the same as seaworld but this is exactly the same thing that you're arguing about Blackfish taking a spin which I'd agree on you but it's also false to claim that these killer whales are happy to live there and that only "the one's in Mexico" give the others a bad name. I lived in a touristic city in the midwest where I got to to see plenty of animals being mistreated as well so yeah, I'm not saying every animal was but enough that I'd want something done about it.

I went to Sea World and Reino Aventura many times and loved it but I can see how it's wrong and as sad as it'll be that I won't be able to take my kid to those attractions I know inside that it's for the better. Which is beside the point when it comes to Circuses since even if they had animals, kids today just aren't interested in those things anymore, even I as a kid in the 90s thought they were a bit old fashioned so they were doomed to die any time now.

I have experience in caring for animals in a zoo environment and I wholly believe in zoos continuing to operate! I view the animals in zoos as the ambassadors for the remainder of their species in the wild! It's hard to get people to become informed or care about something if they can't see or experience it for themselves. I do however draw the line when a "park" or circus use the animals to "perform". I simply cannot get behind that level of exploitation! Please show me a case occurring naturally where an elephant puts on a sequin laden outfit and balances itself on a giant ball for the entertainment of others? Or, where a killer whale jumps and flips on command to splash children with an adult riding on its back? I'm not saying that all of these animals are being "abused" in the tradition sense of animal abuse but it's not necessary for the exploitation of these animals to go that far!

I think we should free all of the horses, let them back into the wild. They're being abused by all the people forcing them to let them ride them around like some kind of living bicycles.

Same with teaching dogs tricks. Very unfair to the animals. Let them go back into the forests.

I used to love going to the circus when I was a kid.

And if you guys think circuses are bad then don't look up videos of bullfighting. That actually airs here on state owned TV on prime time schedule. Nothing says family entertainment like seeing a bullfighter riding a horse and trying to stick giant iron spikes on a bull's back. But it's legal and not considered animal abuse because "culture".

SURE WHY NOT! Let's also release our houseplants back into the wild since that is clearly plant abuse! Your statement is about as ridiculous as that! Look zoos, horseback riding, dogs performing tricks, sea world, circuses, and raising animals for food products are all forms of exploitation and even some of it very abusive! Your statement of domesticated dogs and horses really is apples and oranges when compared to killer whales in pools and elephants balancing on balls! I mean there has to be a limit to what people do! Right? Or are you simply taking an all or nothing approach! When do the negative consequences of the "animal abuse" outweigh the potential for gain and make it not worthwhile? What is your line in the sand?

You should probably brush up on Andrew's sense of sarcasm...

It's funny you say that because I almost prefaced my previous post with something to the effect of how I know you're just trying to be funny or incite a response but I figured screw it! I'm well aware of his sarcasm and his usual trolling ways but I'd bet money he actually buys into what he's is saying on some level! Someone will probably let me know that I'm off base but whatever? I'm really not interested in changing his or anyone else's mind I guess.

I agree. I think the broad-brushing though is a product of the last two gens. of people with small attention spans being more interested in looking at soundbites and tiny screens, mindlessly reacting to something provocative rather then actually determining whether or not it's true. Thinking people would have lawmakers pass laws to regulate circuses and traveling acts, thus ensuring that the animals are cared for and ensuring no abusive practices are tolerated. Non thinking people, however, don't think. They cry at animals performing and think that if they're released the animals magicly poof to some bucolic wilderness or happy sanctuary, when in reality some are used in canned hunts or get chained up in a barn in someone's backyard zoo. That's if they can't find a zoo to take them or the sanctuary happens to be filled to capacity, because most people don't have the funds or facilities to keep them.

And the thing is with Asian elephants, Ringling is actually breeding them to keep them going. They are doing more towards keeping the species around then by sticking them in a sanctuary and rendering them essentially genetically dead, because God forbid any get born outside of some imagined wilderness paradise, which hasn't existed for the last 50 years. They always can re-wild them later. They can't rewild any if they are extinct.

What's sad too, is that the ex-Ringling employee has been alleged to have been paid to say the stuff he did. I can't remember who paid him, but I think it was some nutter animal activist group that had their tits in a twist over Ringling for some reason.

Yeah, it won't touch them. All it will do is inconvenience abusers for a while, until they can find a podunk host town that looks the other way. Lawbreakers won't care, while the big public guys get destroyed.