PETA Roars Over Roy Incident

[Khephra]

As Roy Horn, of Siegfried & Roy, continues to recover from injuries sustained in a tiger attack on Friday night, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals faxed a letter yesterday to Horn's hospital room expressing the group's hope that he make a full recovery but urged the duo to retire their animals and build a sanctuary.

"Perhaps Friday's frightening incident will make you realize that a brightly lit stage with pounding music and a screaming audience is not the natural habitat for tigers, lions, or any other exotic animals," PETA Vice President Dan Mathews wrote.

"The only natural thing that happened on that stage was that this majestic animal lashed out against a captor who was beating him with a microphone because he wouldn't do a trick," Mathews continued. "No matter how much you say that you love the wild animals whom you have confined continents away from their natural homes, you are still the men who have subjugated their wills and natures to further your own careers."

more.........

http://www.nynewsday.com/entertainment/nyc-etpeta3484426oct07,0,995768.story?coll=nyc-flash-headlines

[ReadTomPaine]

1. Hard words, but that's the way truth works sometimes.

I'd love to see them turn around and become proper conservators of these animals, as their love for tigers is well known. It would be the best outcome from this tragedy.

[leftchick]

2. I agree. They have made millions of dollars exploiting them...

Perhaps now is their chance to use that money to build a sanctuary with a natural habitat and save even more exploited animals.

[BQueen]

3. Ditto

They really need to stock up some positive Karma on this issue. They should do a high-profile turnaround, work closely with established and credible sanctuaries, and actively work to educate the public not to think of wild animals as good pets.

Hope Roy recovers to a new awareness.

[ReadTomPaine]

5. Considering they likely will never work onstage animal acts again...

...it's also good biz sense.

[opihimoimoi]

4. Tragic for the cat. Hope he makes a full recovery

[classics]

55. Who?

> Perhaps now is their chance to use that money to build a sanctuary with a natural habitat and save even more exploited animals.

You mean PETA right?

[leftchick]

69. perhaps you should re-read my post....

I am sure you can figure it out if you try....

[Undemcided]

133. Oh dear

PETA has a budget of over 10mil a year and what do they do with it? Seems to me it's all about pissing off people and precious little about animals.

[expatriot]

142. um...

how is this letter pissing people off? its stating the obvious. PETA is wishing for Roy's full recovery but saying what can you expect... it is a WILD animal.

PETA does A LOT of various stuff... they run campaigns to create visibility for animal issues and to promote vegetarianism, etc.

[radwriter0555]

156. Some UNPLEASANT FACTS about S & R and those cute white tigers....

First, white tigers aren't exactly an endangered species. See, they were bred INTO existence from one single female abberation found in india in the 1950s.

All the white tigers you will ever see, especially in the S & R circus shows are related. Inbred.

Those so-called sanctuaries for the S & R white tigers? Breeding labs. And because they're genetic anomolies and inbred, the fatality and deformity rates are literally monsterous. Few survive. And think about it; the ones that do survive are kept in cages, and forced to perform circus tricks. Whatta life eh? No different than the slavery imposed by whites on african blacks.

Don't get me wrong, I like Jack Hannah. Worked with him on Zoo Life, his teevee series in fact. I learned some fascinating secrets while working with him was how zoos and breeding programs work. Primary draw for zoos? Baby animals; the nurseries. One of zoo's dirty little secrets is that animal parents rarely reject their offspring unless the baby is defective. ALLLLLL these stories about the parents rejecting the babies, which results in the zookeepers raising the animals is a lie, so that the babies can be put on display in order to raise attendance in the zoos.

Another is that the animals in zoos around the planet, with few exceptions, are reaching a critical mass point with inbreeding problems. Primarily the big cats... See, for example, those cats at Busch Gardens are related to the ones in the San Diego Zoo, so careful records have to be kept while breeding cats up for the nurseries. There are actually data base programs to track the breeding.

My point is that this stuff is all smoke and mirrors. We're told that everything is just fine, but the tiger lashing out and attacking his 'master' is a classic example of human arrogance, pitted against a wild animal, born, bred and beaten into behaviors that have nothing to do with their innermost instincts.

[Scairp]

146. Give me a break

PETA is the height of impropriety and bad taste. So what if everything they say is true? The man is fighting for his life and they have the gall to criticize him? I do not like PETA because I feel they hurt their cause with their absurd antics. Remember the California dairy ads? They sued because they felt the public might get the idea that milk cows live idealic lives. These commercials were ANIMATED cows, not real live ones. They lost me after that.

[okieinpain]

177. cool, but this is what is labeled as liberalism. couldn't they

have waited for the guy to get out of the hospital.

[izzie]

6. I think wild animals are just that. Let them be wild.

Put them back on the land where they should be.

[jmowreader]

139. You mean, so they can become extinct?

At this time, Siegfried and Roy care for more white lions and more white tigers than live in the wild in all Africa.

[Northwind]

150. You do realize

that white lions and white tigers rarely survive in the wild, right? Their coloration makes them stand out and they cannot hunt and feed. You knew that, right? You knew that releasing them in the wild would be a death sentence, right?

No? I thought not.

[Superfly]

7. I think PeTA is a bunch of crackpots

but this is right on. I do not agree with using animals for entertainment purposes.

[saigon68]

8. I have a retriever who would disagree with your statement

She goes hunting with me. She is a true friend and companion.

[gulliver]

9. That may not be such a disagreement.

I believe retrievers enjoy hunting and being with people. They have been bred for it for perhaps centuries, and hunting with people is their nature. No so with tigers/lions jumping through hoops that are on fire, etc.

What's happening with tigers worldwide is such a shame.

[liberalmuse]

14. Dogs and humans...

have a symbiotic relationship of sorts. We both get something out of it, so it's a different situation altogether. If you really think about it, dogs are the only animal that truly likes humans. We become part of their pack. Cats are different, whether tame or wild--they really could do without us, though I'm sure many domestic cat owners would disagree. I don't think owning a housecat is inhumane, btw, birds--yes. When we start trying to tame creatures that are best left in the wild, we shouldn't be surprised when they do what comes perfectly natural to them. I just hate those stories where an elephant or tiger is killed because they are being exactly what they are. It's senseless. I hope Roy recovers, and they both open that reserve.

[ReadTomPaine]

103. Dogs have influenced humans almost as much as we have influenced them

They are the one of the rare exceptions regarding keeping animals. Symbiotic is a good word to describe it. Early humans who were able to keep dogs simply lived better and longer due to the practice, as well as the dogs themselves. Just as some animals can be domesticated (Horses) and some cannot (Zebras), there are a few animal species that are naturally well suited to living with humans and gain from it. Dogs are probably the best example of this.

[bahrbearian]

173. I worked at an Sale's barn

we acutioned off almost everything, all farm animal's and some exotic one's The Zebra's were the meanest thing's you couldn't go near em. They jump or climb any fence or pen you could build, just to kick the shit out off some Stud horse, nearly killing em' Real bad Asses!

[ReadTomPaine]

185. Almost lost 2 fingers to a zebra, they are legendary in that regard!

[el_gato]

21. big difference

between lions and tigers and a domesticated dog

[Superfly]

42. Me, too!

I have a chocolate lab that is a great duck dog...in fact, I'm getting him out tomorrow for opening day.

I think, however, there is a major difference. My dog absolutely loves to go outside and hunt with me. To him, it's a big game of fetch.

Now, I think you might have a hard time convincing me that a tiger enjoys getting beaten with a microphone or jumping through burning rings of fire.

Brian

[Myra]

61. The key distinction being "wild" animal saigon68

Dogs have been domesticated for over 10,000 years.
Tigers have been domesticated...never.
Ergo, "wild" animal. Even if it's caged and
trained and forced to perform, it's wild.

Comparing dogs and tigers in this regard
is simply not valid.

[0007]

10. Everything has it's limits '

Even animals - most humans perpetrated by ego and greed find that animals have a 'will' that is just as annihilating as ego and greed.

Will Roy Horn learn the lesson? That remains to be seen. Humans are as unpredictable and unstable as cats.

[Lilith Velkor]

50. My question is

will PETA ever learn?

I acknowledge that I cannot be objective at this point. One of them was in my little antiwar group, got to know me, found out I am a recovered anorexic, then tried to humiliate me into giving up meat and dairy. He was out on his skinny white ass before he knew what hit him.

My assorted run-ins with those people have led me to the conclusion that PETA people are just plain mean. They have been successful so far because they appeal to hatred of other humans, with compassion for animals as an excuse.

But, like I said, I'm not really objective about this.

[0007]

78. LOL!

You gotta be kidding, 'eh?

Nothin' objective about 'will' I'd call it moodily introspective.

[Lilith Velkor]

82. will

I would advise against seeking objectivity amongst humans. Someone once told me they are unpredictable and unstable as cats.

Petans are also human, and have pretty destructive wills themselves. That was my point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Wildly inappropriate

A man is in the hospital and they are trying to score cheap PR from it.

Boy, if I didn't find PETA disgusting before, I sure would now.

[laruemtt]

12. i agree with PETA

completely. some humans just can't get over themselves long enough to appreciate the sovereignty of other species. homo sapiens have proven to be at the bottom in finding peace with their natural selves and the environment they live in. "most intelligent" has always been a joke, imho.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Based on PETA

I would agree with your last point.

[liberalmuse]

15. This is what PETA was set up to do...

--protect animal rights and make people aware of animal abuse! I'm sure many animal lovers are both concerned about Roy Horn and the fate of the tiger that attacked him. PETA was 100% appropriate in saying something regarding this incident.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. They should have waited

It was beyond inappropriate, but they are good at over-the-top actions.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

18. Sending the letter was good...

There's a host of medical literature suggesting that people who have undergone trauma (think teens and guns) are more receptive to an invitation to change their life.

Making the letter public was in poor taste.

[el_gato]

22. peta is right on this one

and I don't give a flying shit about roy
he got what was coming to him

[The Stranger]

27. Maybe you should take your show to the Freeper Boards.

PETA is dead right on this one. Those offended by PETA often know down deep inside that they are wrong -- that is why they are offended.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laruemtt]

31. motr, with all due respect

to your "seniority", as a relative newby myself, does that somehow negate the veracity of what i say? just curious. interesting logic here. again, all due respect.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. No, it was reference to your comment about me leaving

You as a rookie have no right to tell someone they don't belong here. In fact, no veteran here has that right either. Only the Powers That be can do so. But it's awful presumptuous of you to think you can do so.

Whether you are right or not (You aren't) is a different matter entirely.

[laruemtt]

38. woah nellie!

i never said you should leave. and it's really not a good debate tactic to say "you're not right." until you or anyone connects with universal truth, it's merely your opinion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Sorry

That comment was not meant for you. Reference to the statenment where I was told to, "Maybe you should take your show to the Freeper Boards."

I apologize.

[LeftistGorilla]

37. wow...

he really told you....
:puke:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. You, sir, see too much

I don't revel in the injuries of this man. Peta sure seems to.

What you see is the image of PETA through the strawmanizator you seem to be using. Drop the manicheism. They're right this time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Capitalizing on pain

To score points in the media is disgusting.

[NashVegas]

65. As Opposed to Capitalizing on Captivity

of a tiger forced to perform circus tricks?

[Zephyrbird]

77. I agree with muddleoftheroad

And lest any of you jump MY feathered butt, I have been involved in pet bird rescue, education, and fighting bird farms, breeders and exploiters of exotic birds for years. I also give thousands of dollars to rescue organizations.

Now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, PETA exploits animals to make political statements. This is just another example of them doing it. IMO, it exploits the animals just as much as they claim--in this case--Siegfried & Roy did, or others do.

PETA can bite my feathered butt. They do more damage to those of us doing the grunt work in rescue than any right wing pundit. All you have to do is say "I'm in rescue" and folks say, "you're with those PETA nuts, aren't you!? Get out of my face."

IMO, PETA cares more about its shock tactics than the animals they sanctimoniously purport to try to be protecting.

[PennyLane]

145. I've Heard That Too.........

Being involved in wildlife rehab, I've heard the same PETA remarks, too. They are over-the-top about some things, but this particular
case, they are absolutely right. Wild animals need to be free.

[im4]

166. Offended by PETA

I was offended by PETA when they had people stand naked outside a mall at Christmas with sandwich boards (I think that's what they're called). Like I want my kids to see that. Everything that they do is over the top. They insist on using bad taste to promote their views. (Like the Unhappy Meals). A local rock station turned it around on them though. They hold an annual fishing tourney right next to the PETA offices.

I like fish, meat, eggs, and milk. If you choose not to fine. Go ahead. Could care less. I may even go as far as not to eat those things in front of you. Tell me your views agree to disagree and go on. It's the same level as releasing the mink only for them to eat each other because they weren't capable of living in the wild or trashing Hummers at a car lot. In the rush to save, they are not thinking of the damage they can cause.

Anyway, sending the man a fax in the hospital while I'm sure he couldn't read it with all the pain and drugs I'm sure he's on, is a low way to get publicity. Think before you do. You come out looking better and are more able to get your point across.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Hey, Muddle. We Finally Agree On Something

This is grandstanding of the absolutely worst kind.
The Professor

[joshcryer]

71. That makes two of us.

Don't agree with muddled on everything, but he's obviously right here. PETA is doing this for plublicity, really. It's not achieving anything. It's making it worse for them.

Where's PETH?

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Thanks ;)

I don't agree with me either. :)

Seriously, I am a big supporter of animal rights and charities, but Peta harms them all with stuff like this.

[BiggJawn]

16. PETA. Feh.

I'll say no more, in the spirit of flame-proofing.

[Plaid Adder]

17. I agree with the content, btu

I gotta say the delivery is a fine example of why PETA constantly pisses people off. It reads as if the guy is gloating over Roy's getting mauled. Now, I am sure that in fact this guy really is rooting for the tiger, but if PETA actually wanted mainstream support they might try to hide the glee a little bit in their public statements.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[The Stranger]

30. You need to wake up.

Your response is exactly what the conservative think tanks and press want you to believe. This tactic is an hourly occurrence on Faux News.

No one truly debates that PETA is right on the issue. PETA is dead right on what it is saying -- so the press tries to focus instead on the way in which it was communicated. In the past, the press has portrayed PETA's dousing various people with colored water as showering them with "fake blood."

The implied message is two-fold: (1) It doesn't matter what they are standing for because they have gone about it wrong (especially because we don't want to admit that they are right) and (2) Don't do what they are doing or you will be demonized in the press as well.

You need to wake up.

[Plaid Adder]

54. You need to calm down.

I'm making a simple point: that the guy's letter would have been more persuasive to a non-PETAn if he hadn't been licking his chops over Roy getting maimed. I don't see where you're getting your two implied points out of that. I don't think gloating over human suffering is ever a good idea, no matter how well-deserved you may think it is. We certainly have seen enough of THAT from the right wing to last us a lifetime.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[sendero]

122. was the "colored water" red?

Because if it was, I'd say "fake blood" was a fair characterization.

Really, PETA are like any number of fanatic groups, conservatives, leftists, ELF, etc. IMHO these people are a lot more in love with their vision of themselves than they are the objects of their cause.

I love animals and deplore their abuse. I don't really see PETA being the solution to that problem, their tactics just alienate people. I'm not going to convince you of the need for clean air by farting in your face, yet PETA does just that over and over.

I have no truck with S&R, and frankly agree that they are basically using animals the way a circus would, perhaps with better accomodations. But I sure don't wish the kind of injuries that Roy has suffered, from what I'm hearing he will never really be whole again. And coming out with a letter like this, at this time, making it public is really in very poor taste, and I don't need the "media" to tell me that.

[The Stranger]

132. Yep, red colored water.

Real nasty stuff -- may even kill you. Of course, it could also have been characterized as fake Cherry Kool Aid or fake red paint, but, you see it wasn't.

Because it was just colored water, like I said.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of people are in denial regarding the plight of animals, the state of the environment, and other "fanatic" causes. If you don't fart in their face -- or at least give them a good smell of it -- they will remain in denial.

It is important to plant seeds. People will remember and think about it later. Their anger is temporary, the reason and the truth will win out. Here's to some small percentage of those people coming out of denial.

[Robb]

20. Devil's advocate here

Realistically, how many people even knew there were white tigers, and that they were rare, before S&R started their schtick? Did that awareness do nothing for the cause of endangered animals?

THAT said, my own cruel statement when I heard the news was "well, just goes to show you, you should always go see S&R in Vegas, because you just never know." I think everyone should be allowed one *sshole comment per day; PETA's a little ahead of the curve, IMO.

[laruemtt]

23. why have to choose

between the human and the other species? in no way am i happy about what happened. it's a tragedy all the way around. but people need to get they're just another species and get along to get along. maybe we need a rerun of planet of the apes? this "superior humans" thing never made sense to me. other species never dropped the bomb - never even dreamed it up. so who's superior?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. Allow me to be the counterexample

When I read this news and saw a photo illustrating the article, my first thought was, "WHAT? They're using white tigers? Isn't that an endangered species?"

[Gato Moteado]

60. i don't think white tigers are a separate species.....

...the white coloring is due to a recessive genetic trait...something along the lines of amelanism except instead of lacking black pigmentation they lack the pigmentation that makes them orange. maybe it's anerythrism or something similar.

if i'm not mistaken, all the white tigers in the world are descendents of a single white male specimen found in india 50 years ago. zoos have been breeding them for some time now and propogating the recessive trait that causes them to be white. so, while white tigers may be rarer than orange colored ones, they are not a separate species.

[jobycom]

24. Yeah, as usual, they'll win lots of converts with that.

PETA makes me ashamed to be vegetarian. Actually, I guess they just make me ashamed that they are.

BTW, they should fact check. Roy wasn't hitting the tiger with a microphone until after it grabbed him, and these tigers as far as I've been able to find out and according to PETA's own web page are bred in captivity. So they are in their natural homes.

I'm sympathetic to many of PETA's ideals towards animals, but not towards people.

[laruemtt]

26. so, if a baby

is born in jail, that's an okay environment for it. uh-huh.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. So tigers are equal to people now?

When do they get to vote?

[laruemtt]

34. no, they're not equal

and they should thank the creator or evolution or whatever your belief system for that. so now voting is the benchmark of superiority? in that case, how do we know they do not have their own social system? from what i know of wild animals, which granted is not an encylopedia's worth, they certainly do have their own system.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Of course they are not equal

Thanks for agreeing.

When, in the course of tiger events, they evolve enough to be able to reason and speak, I'll be happy to advocate for tiger freedom and emancipation.

Voting is not the benchmark, but I wasn't the one who compared them to a human baby.

[leftchick]

40. apparently this tiger was smart enough to reason

he did not want to do anymore stupid tricks for humans! These tigers made S&R MILLIONARES! Now tell me how they reaped this fortune to save the species and educate people... :puke: poor old roy had to learn the hard way that wild animals will ALWAYS be wild.

[0rganism]

74. So, do you think mute people should have a vote?

They can't speak. Are they still "emancipated"?

Chimps can reason and speak sign language, have you advocated any chimp emancipation lately?

[0rganism]

67. Shove your strawman right up your ass, Muddle

The point was about NATURAL HOME for a WILD ANIMAL, nothing more.

And don't try that post-count seniority shit on me, either.

[jobycom]

64. Release it into the wild, then

It's white, see how long it survives in the jungle. Animals bred in captivity don't do well back in the wild. But my main comment was to the claim that the animal was far away from its natural habitat. Its natural habitat was captivity. Right or wrong, that's where it's been raised.

Notice even PETA didn't say to do that. They want it released into a sanctuary. Not a bad idea. I wonder how they know the tigers don't like performing, though. I wonder how they know what a wild animal that has never been wild thinks are wants.

Trying for humane treatment is a realistic goal. Trying for equality isn't.

[0rganism]

72. Ever hear of instinct? genes?

Even if a human child is albino, it still has the same sorts of longings and urges that change drastically during adolescence, the same tendency to prefer human company, the same ability to reproduce with other humans that it wouldn't share with a wolfpack even if raised by one.

Animals bred in captivity can do okay in the wild, but they need time to be retrained, to learn the things that they couldn't learn during a childhood of imprisonment. Releasing former exotic pets to sanctuaries is hardly a new idea, it's been a humane necessity for years.

Whether the tigers like performing or not, is hardly the question. They're still wild animals no matter how well they've been trained. They might prefer performing at one moment, and biting an arm off at the next. It's their nature.

[MrsMatt]

86. Wild animals born in captivity

have almost no chance of surviving in the wild once they reach a certain age - they have the instincts, but not the learned skills.

[The Stranger]

33. You want to fact check?

It doesn't matter when the "entertainer" hit the tiger with the microphone -- the tiger had been exploited for seven years.

[Corgigal]

25. I'm probably going to get flamed for this

However on one of the network morning news shows it was suggested that this tiger was actually attempting to protect Roy. Something in the audience upset the tiger and Roy must have felt it. He tried to gather his cat back but it was too late. This tiger would have killed him if he wanted to. I'm not sure if it's true but it's something to think about.

[NNN0LHI]

32. 600 pound tigers are not something to be fucking around with

Roy learned this lesson the hard way.

Don

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

41. Irony

On Yahoo News (don't have the link) the advertisement on the page for this story is for the DVD release of "The Lion King" and Simba is looking back over his shoulder at the article.

[0rganism]

73. Priceless moments like that are what screen captures are made for

Oh man, that would be a sweet shot.

[enki23]

43. perhaps. but what if

these particular tigers were helping to further awareness of the plight of tigers in the wild? would you let a few animals live under less than optimal conditions if you thought it gave the entire species a better chance of survival? i would.

i don't think they were that altruistic. they were there mostly to make money. but *their* motives might not be the most important factor.

[GinaMaria]

44. a little off topic

Who has a fax in their hospital room? This seems really odd. I'm sure there's lots of medical equipment in the room, suction, O2, monitors, but a fax? Seems odd to me.

If the story had been about a tightrope walker who fell from the tight rope, what would your reaction be?

Mine is the same for Roy. I'm sad that he was hurt but I also know that he knew the risks associated with the work he chose, as does the tight rope walker. There are risks in many professions. You do what you can to protect and educate yourself about the risks, but it is always a possiblity that something could happen. He's fortunate to be alive. I hope his recovery is speedy.

[slackmaster]

47. Siegfried & Roy treat animals better than most people treat their kids

What does PETA expect them to do, release the big cats into the wild?

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

57. totally AGREE!-the cat that had a problem was new

I read he was a 9 year old and it was his first show.
This accident is no reflection on their treatment of animals at all.
I love animals and have been a vegan for many years.
We need to leave Seigried and Roy alone.
They have "humanized" these sweet creatures for many children who are "developing" their opinions.
These kids walk away just LOVING all animals.
Seigried and Roy have DE-Demonized these "scary" creatures thus furthering the conservation effort on this planet.

[Occulus]

48. Couple points

First, the tiger that attacked him wasn't exploited for seven years like the others; this was this tiger's very first public show, if what I have read is accurate. Yes, Virginia, that would make a difference.

Second, WTF were they doing with a group of white Siberians (*was* it a Siberian that attacked him)?!??!? Isn't this an endangered species?

What makes S&R so Goddamn special that they can have a whole group of these endangered animals to exploit, yet zoos and wildlife preserves have to struggle just to get one or two?

I've never been comfortable with the S&R shows, while at the same time guiltily admiring the animals' beauty. PETA could- and likely should have waited on this, but I must agree with their overall position.

What this all boils down to: Roy rolled the dice one time too many. Like most of the patrons of the city he was performing in, the odds finally caught up with him. Sorry- I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy for why this happened.

That said, I do wish the man a speedy recovery, but at the same time, I hope he learns from this incident.

[Heddi]

51. one slight correction

this wasn't the tiger's first time on stage. He (the tiger) had been performing on stage numerous times. Part of the "act" was to say that a particular tiger was appearing for the first time on stage---I read this in the newspapers and heard it on Larry King last night from several people associated and familiar with the show.

[FlaGranny]

49. I've read through all the replies thus far

and one thing in particular strikes me. Some of the posters have been a little outraged at the fact that "white tigers" are an endangered species. Actually, all tigers are, not just whites. I haven't really been following all the discussion on the attack closely, but are you are all aware that Siegfried and Roy DO have a sanctuary where they breed tigers, keeping alive gene pools that probably otherwise would fade away? I'm not certain I agree with using tigers for entertainment, but these are tigers that would not otherwise exist, and every single one of them has been hand raised by those two entertainers. They probably would not trust any tiger on the stage if it were not for hand raising them themselves. If remember correctly, this in a documentary on Animal Planet or TLC or a similar network.

[Seneca]

53. PETA is wrong on one thing

Most tigers are NOT safe in their natural habitats. They are subjected to poaching for a variety of reasons - food, superstitious medicinal purposes, and the like. Tigers, especially white ones, are severely endangered. Wishing them to be returned to their natural habitats is a risky proposition for the tigers.

That being said, I can agree with everything else: A full recovery for Roy Horn, a permanent sanctuary for the animals (I believe they have one at the Mirage, but one with a more naturalized habitat, like at the San Diego Zoo, would be much better). Being one of the largest-grossing acts in Vegas, they both can retire comfortably, and the Mirage will just have to find a new headliner. It's Vegas! They shouldn't have any trouble.

[transeo]

56. He was not beating the tiger because he wouldn't do a trick

He started beating the tiger with the microphone beacause it bit, and held onto his arm. It then proceeded to grab him by the throat and drag him off-stage. May seem like a nitpick, but it is important. PETA suggests that Roy's beating the tiger was uncalled for and rediculous. I ask any of you though - what the hell would you do if a tiger latched onto you? I think you'd hit it with whatever you could find as well.

That said, I agree that these animals should not be used for entertainment, and I'm sure they've learned quite a lesson. However, PETA should do their research and see that S & R have been ensuring the survival of these beautiful animals and they DO have a sanctuary already. This is all about publicity and in very poor taste.

[drfemoe]

Poor Taste

I agree poor taste.. sending a fax? to someone in critical condition??

Sometimes peta reminds me of the pro lifers who claim to love the unborn so much.. until they are born, and then don't give a damn if the children get a decent education, food, shelter, etc. ...

If someone wants to stand up for santity of life and dignity for all living creatures, then imo consistency is key.

I'm not even sure this was an "attack". The tiger slapped at Roy's arm and he stumbled ... this could have given the tiger the idea that Roy was in danger .. the tiger grabbed him by the neck and dragged him off stage. Cats pick up their young by the neck. He didn't stay there and continue the "attack", he removed him from an apparent threat. It is just as reasonable to me that the tiger was trying to save Roy as assuming it was a savage attack.

"There are only 3 sanctuaries in the world that are dedicated to helping these big cats, and one of them is here in Las Vegas. Their love, respect and devotion to the conservation of rare and endangered white tigers and white lions have earned them global respect. In the years to come, when other generations of people are able to see the beauty of these animals, they will have Siegfried & Roy to thank." <snip>
http://www.lvol.com/bios/e21.html

[leftchick]

76. LOL! Their love and respect....

uh yeah, the love and respect of their big ticket lifestyle these poor animals provided them. They made MILLIONS off these animals. Why do you think they were breeding them and forcing them to perform nightly? Give me a fucking break... :puke:

[Skip Intro]

59. PETA is absolutely right

And I can't say it any better than they did.

Wild animals belong in a natural habitat. Its cruel and torturous to force them into any other type of environment. That animal can hardly be blamed its actions here, it is a victim.

I do not understand why some otherwise intelligent posters on this board seem to be overcome with seething anger anytime PETA is mentioned. Its as if some feel that ethical treatment of animals is a perverted, disgusting concept that would spell doom for mankind should it ever take hold. :shrug:

[transeo]

62. I think people are disagreeing with their methods, not message

I truly believe most people on this board agree with PETA's message, just not the ways in which they deliver it. This current instance is a prime example. PETA could have used this opportunity to educate the public, but instead they sent an inflammatory message to someone in critical condition, implying that he deserves what he got.

Yes, these animals belong in the wild, not on stage. But guess what - they are endangered in the wild. They are not surviving. S&R have a sanctuary that is protecting this species. Using them in the show sucks, but at least they are taken good care of, not beaten, whipped and chained like circus animals.

Without the show there would be no money for the sanctuary. In this case a small evil (the show) is creating a great good (preservation of these animals for future generations).

[Myra]

63. Totally agreen nu_duer

Now is an appropriate time to show outrage over the
enslavement of these specacular wild animals.
They are, in fact, the victims here.

I really applaud PETA for pointing this out.
And want to thank many people in this thread
for recognizing the wisdom of PETA's stance.

[Lilith Velkor]

68. Why is it

that ethical treatment of animals always means being hateful towards fellow human beings? Why do otherwise intelligent people not recognize any ambiguities in interspecies relations?

Who the hell was blaming the tiger, anyway?

[slackmaster]

80. Yes, but tigers bred in captivity are not wild animals

They're more like livestock; working animals like rodeo horses only without the clowns.

Big cats used in entertainment of course retain most of their natural instinctive behavior, but the likelihood of a captive-bred tiger ever being able to survive in the wild is very low; they are not wild animals. It's pointless to argue that those particular animals should not be captive. They are captive and for their own safety must remain so.

[kwolf68]

66. Goddamn...

I want to respond to the absurd political/social/ecological commentary on this thread, but I won't without saying that...

THERE IS NO SPECIES CALLED THE WHITE TIGER...

Just like there is NO SPECIES CALLED THE BLACK PANTHER...

They get their "whiteness" or "blackness" from a recessive gene. Otherwise, they are Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, etc....There is NO "WHITE"

[Superfly]

70. OK....if you want to put a fine point on it...

there is no such species as a Labrador Retriever or a Cocker Spaniel...it's actually Canis familiaris, and they are all sexually compatible.

[kwolf68]

136. Its just being accurate.

No need to get defensive. Still, the fact these two dogs are sexually compatible isn't relevant.

If you breed a Lab and a Spaniel, do you think you'll get a Lab or Spaniel? No, you'll get a subspecies of it...something we can name later.

A White Tiger is derived from a simple genetic instance. Both the male and female must have the recessive gene for the color. Therefore, if you breed a Bengal with a Sumatran, you would never have an instance of White Tiger.

The best way to save "White Tigers" is to save as many Bengals (any color) as possible. It is possible the alleles of some wild Bengal out there is carrying the recessive gene for this color. ME? I love em all.

If someone is interested in "Black Panthers", then you must protect Leopards.

[Forkboy]

75. I agree with PETA totally on this issue

animals being used for entertainment purposes in shows and circus' bothers me a lot.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Why?

Do animals used in other working capacities bother you?

Drug sniffing or guard dogs?
Elephants that do heavy lifting in third-world nations?
Horses that people can ride or can pull a plow?

Or is it just entertainment? If so, why?

[RebelOne]

162. Yes, I agree, too.

Wild animals do not belong in zoos, circuses or as entertainment.

[confusius]

79. AAARRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

I have been reading the threads on this board for a long time, and never responded, but now this gets my ire up so bad I have to.

Lets throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!

Lets stop using the rainforest, because collecting nuts, which pays for saving them, exploits them.

Lets stop having petting zoos, which teaches children about animals and how to love them, exploits them.

Lets stop havings zoos, which do them greatest works on saving specieces of animals ( panda ), because it exploits them.


AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH, what do you people not think????!!!!???!?!? How are we going to pay for saving these animals!@!!??!?!?!?

PETA would be better served coming out to Arizona and protesting the dogs tracks which kill thousands of greyhounds, but they have to do this s*** which is just a publicicty stunt. Call me when they shut down the dog tracks out here because of PETA, otherwise they are c***!!!!!!!

How is a white tiger, which is just a white Bengal tiger, supposed to survive in the wild with no camoflauge!!!>?!??!!?!?!

How is it exploting when they get 40 pounds of meat a day, have a large preserve to roam around on, and have to perform a few hours a night with their trainers, who treat them like their own children????!!?!?!?!?

ROYS LAST WORDS BEFORE THEY TOOK HIM TO THE HOSPITAL.... "DON"T KILL THE CAT"

Khrist!!!!! Some of you people want to go from point A to point Z without thinking about how to get there!!!!

[laruemtt]

95. arggh yourself, sweetie

"How is a white tiger, which is just a white Bengal tiger, supposed to survive in the wild with no camoflauge!!!>?!??!!?!?!"

well, they've been doing just fine for many tens of thousands of years without human intervention.

"How is it exploting when they get 40 pounds of meat a day, have a large preserve to roam around on, and have to perform a few hours a night with their trainers, who treat them like their own children????!!?!?!?!?"

which is completely from your point of view. that's our game, get the real cushy gig and work as little as you can. they're built to hunt, it's in their DNA. i completely appreciate them for what they are and have no desire to remake them into what some humans think they should be grateful to be.

peace.:hippie:

[confusius]

98. Welll I have to disagree

"How is a white tiger, which is just a white Bengal tiger, supposed to survive in the wild with no camoflauge!!!>?!??!!?!?!"

well, they've been doing just fine for many tens of thousands of years without human intervention.

Most albino animals die in the wild. There is no such sub-group of tigers as a "white tiger". You should watch "the king and I"

which is completely from your point of view. that's our game, get the real cushy gig and work as little as you can. they're built to hunt, it's in their DNA. i completely appreciate them for what they are and have no desire to remake them into what some humans think they should be grateful to be.

Like the PETA people complaining when the Alaska Huskie have to run the Iditarod. The dogs love to go. But That is not the same as this. Tigers are endangered, and need all the help they can get. And someone has to pay for the care, and keep of the Tigers. They are going to be in a cage, or on a preserve, or dead. which do you prefer?

[laruemtt]

104. but con,

"Most albino animals die in the wild."
"Tigers are endangered, and need all the help they can get. They are going to be in a cage, or on a preserve, or dead. which do you prefer?"

these are not albinos. so how have they survived all this time. if you bring up the poachers, well, that's us again, ain't it.


"Like the PETA people complaining when the Alaska Huskie have to run the Iditarod. The dogs love to go."

and we know this how.

peace.

[confusius]

81. My Second thought on the subject

You want to help stop war, well we reject your application,
You crack to many jokes and you eat MEAT,

What better way to turn people off, then to twist ideas for change
Into one more church that forgets we're all human beings.

[roguevalley]

83. Jack Hannah is no fan of using animals this way but he supported

these two guys. He says they have educated perhaps 30,000,000 people about tigers and other endangered animals and have done good in the world for animals on the edge. They have also increased the world's
population of endangered animals with breeding programs.

I HATE circuses and animal exploitation but the world is shades of gray. if you want to be black and white, then fine. But if Hannah
says there is good here, I will take his word for it.

[Corgigal]

127. Hannah

is also the one who mentioned he believed the tiger was trying to prtoect Roy. Which he said explains why the tiger took him off stage. He mentioned he saw a tiger kill a water Buffalo in 5 seconds if the tiger wanted to kill Roy. Roy, regardless of his condition, wouldn't be here now.

edit:spelling

[Cocoa]

84. this could make people think about circus animals

I bet a lot of people watch circuses and such without even thinking about how the animals are treated and without even realizing there's an ethical issue at all.

Maybe some of these people are interested in Roy, and they come across this PETA campaign and start thinking about it.

I don't think it will hurt Roy at all. He's probably used to dealing with PETA by now.

[komplex]

85. Peta is like the GOP

They only attack when you are defenseless. You know they always are throwing paint on women in fur coats but not men, what's their position on leather? I'd like them to try to pull those same stunts at Bike Week.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/PETA/peta.html

All animals are smarter than we think, they can habituate to the wild lights and stage performances. They have had their show for what 25 years? They knew what they were doing. If an animal couldn't cope with the show they wouldn't use them.

Here's a link on their efforts at conservation...
http://www.sarmoti.com/conservation/index.php

[curse10]

88. When did you last see a man walking around with a floor length

mink coat?

And, I've seen it done on both men and women. As an active PETA supporter I do my fair share of animal rights activism.

[phrenzy]

87. Disgusting

Add this to the list of reasons that I am sometimes ashamed to be associated with the left.

There are so many reasons this is wrong. If keeping wild animals in captivity is cause for being mortally wounded than I guess I should get what's coming to me for my companion African Grey and Lovebird.

Keeping animals, even wild animals in 'captivity' is not always an inhumane exercise in cruelty. I don't know them personally, and I am not a "fan" of these guys - but I would wager that S & R "love" these creatures very much.

PETA is just our version of the ARMY OF GOD

They a bunch of sanctimonious fucks that live to wag their finger in other peoples faces.

[curse10]

90. PETA does not have a political affiliation

PETA is a non profit organization. It cannot have a political affiliation and it does not support candidates. Just because some PETA members, like myself, are left leaning does not mean all members are left leaning. I have met republican PETA members. Love for animals happens to be an issue that both democrats and republicans can agree on.

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Many of us love animals

That's why we want nothing to do with the harmful attitudes of Peta.

[curse10]

93. And some of us believe that we can do more for animals

than stand idly buy and let them be abused, killed, and eaten for fun and profit.

[confusius]

100. Then join the humane society, They do more then PETA has EVER done!

[curse10]

102. More than PETA has done?

There are few animal associations that have the success rate of PETA. Since 1981 PETA has worked to stop animal expirements, shut down abusive labs, shut down abusive animal shows, stopped cruel experiments at major universities, launched a major campaign against fur that had major designers (Calvin Klein included) swear off fur, and their boycotts have improved animal conditions around the world (namely through their boycott of Sears, Nike, Safeway Stores, and Burger King).

Although I love my local humane society and I support them as well, I look at the bigger picture- beyond the cute kitties and dogs than inhabit the shelters. The elephants, chimps, primates, tigers, minks, foxes, rabbits, and ALL other animals need our help too.

[confusius]

117. Yea, their just in love with themselves

[ReadTomPaine]

94. Keeping birds caged *is* cruel.

It baffles me that a person who claims to love birds wants to keep them caged for amusement. You’ve literally ‘clipped their wings’. Consider joining Audubon and picking up birdwatching as a hobby so you can properly appreciate these animals, when they are flying and free.

[Zephyrbird]

131. What a bootless argument.

Insisting someone is cruel because they have birds.

Do you own birds?

Are you involved in pet bird education, rescue, funding of shelters?

Do you contribute to and attend seminars on pet bird status in the U.S.?

What can you tell me about exotic bird diseases?

Have you rescued any exotic pet birds?

Instead of thinking what YOU would want, learn what those millions of pet birds want, NOT what you think you'd want.

Get to know an exotic bird. Up close and personal. Any little bird or big bird will do. Be bitten a few, or maybe many times. Get some stitches in the service of a poor abused bird. Go work at a shelter and sweat and shovel crap. Get bitten by a cockatoo.

Then lecture bird folks about what's cruel and what's not. Really look at the bird's perspective, not what YOU think you'd want as a bird.

All the sanctimonious breast beating done by PETA doesn't help pet birds one damn bit, I guarantee it. All the little folks working behind the scenes do. We're not out there with stunts like this, we're spending our energy to improve the state of pet birds in the U.S. and don't have time for that kind of crap.

PETA did the same thing when a little boy in Florida got his arm bitten off by a shark. Don't tell me they don't exploit animals to further their agenda.

[ReadTomPaine]

147. Your questions are bizarre and ill considered.

As a member and contributor in good standing with Audubon, I see birds in their natural habitats regularly. I go to the birds open habitat, I don’t lock them in my home where they are clearly ill suited to be. As a person repelled by the thought of locking a bird in a cage, I find your questions bizarre. In many ways it proves my point. Why are these birds abused in the first place if human ownership is so healthy for the species? Species, might I add, that are rapidly being depleted to service the very demand for pets that you support.

You euphemistically say ‘have’ birds in your first sentence, but that means *cage* birds, let’s be clear about it. Why would I want to associate with organizations that cage them, or deal with the sad repercussion that stem directly from this ill advised ownership when I am ethically opposed to the practice to begin with? This is akin to asking someone from Amnesty International to torture someone so they understand the captor’s point of view.

While I find those who commit time and energy to assisting ill or mishandled pet birds quite noble, the very existence of such sick animals proves my point and should tell you that we are taking far more from these animals than we provide to them. It’s pretty much a one way street. Much better would be to assist rare birds who are injured in the wild so they might be reintroduced to keep populations stable. With just a fraction of the money and effort expended in the pet bird care industry you describe repurposed to service reintroductions and grow natural endangered populations, we would be doing a far better service to them and to ourselves. This isn’t selfish, it’s precisely the opposite.

You know what those millions of pet birds you refer to want? They want to be free. They want to fly as nature has intended them to do, in their natural habitats. ‘Ownership’ makes that impossible of course, likely forever. The question to ask if you love these animals is why you don’t want this as well. Rather than get to ‘know’ a bird and force it to live unnaturally, I’d rather get to know the owner, so I might convince them to no longer keep birds in cages for personal vanity in the future. This makes righting all the wrongs of ham-handed ill intentioned ‘owners’ and ‘shoveling crap’ and being bitten unnecessary.

The place for bird lovers is in the field with a good set of binoculars. That’s just common sense. What, other than selfish gratification, is the purpose of a bird in a cage, floored with paper soaked in fecal matter? What is the beauty in that compared to seeing a Bald Eagle in flight, or hearing the cry of a Turkey Vulture in the wild? Why deny them the joy of flight? It makes no sense to me.

[Zephyrbird]

148. This kind of sanctimonious crap is exactly what I'm talking about.

How high-handed, how noble, how righteous. Did you raise your eyes to the heavens as you wrote it? I bet a halo appeared around your head.

It proves you know nothing about the real roots of the problem, nor do you know anything about how to solve the problem, nor are you willing to devote any time to fixing it, but you'll devote plenty of time to a self-serving lecture. That really helps those birds, doesn't it?

"With just a fraction of the money and effort expended in the pet bird care industry you describe repurposed to service reintroductions and grow natural endangered populations, we would be doing a far better service to them and to ourselves."

And how do we do that with their natural habitat disappearing? How do you convince dirt poor people to stop smuggling birds? Oh, it's so easy to lecture, so easy to be patronizing. It's a mark of how little you know of wild parrots that you think you can re-introduce them as easily as you would an orangutan, and that ain't easy at all.

But it isn't easy to get into the trenches and shovel crap, is it? It isn't easy to admit that the problem isn't going to go away that easily. It's common for folks like you to propose an unworkable solution that you call "obvious" and then ignore it, telling yourself it's not your problem.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Feh! Like I said, go shovel some crap at a pet bird sanctuary. Get involved in eduation regarding pet birds and species. Get involved in rescuing abused and neglected birds. You love them so much, be part of the solution, not part of a useless sanctimonious attitude. Use that energy and do something positive.

And my friend, I too am a supporter of Audobon. And Michigan's Loon Association. And Sierra Club. And National Wildlife Foundation. And every year on my tax return I give a portion of my refund to the state's fund for wildlife. Now there are my credentials. Give me yours in rescue that you lecture on pet birds and what they want.

The problem of pet birds exists. It's not going away. You offer no solutions, just an patronizing lecture with stupidly simplistic "solutions."

Please. :eyes:

[ReadTomPaine]

151. The question remains unanswered – Why keep a bird in a cage at all?

We prevent the habitat from disappearing by discouraging bird ‘ownership’ in the first place and by establishing natural sanctuaries which provide something more than a continually filthy cage for them to dwell in. That’s quite clear in my message. You convince people to stop smuggling by making it financially unattractive to do so. This has happened with many species. It should happen with more.

I’m obvious in my statement that once a bird has been taken from the wild for any significant length of time or successful attempts are made to ‘domesticate’ it, it can no longer be re-introduced, despite your attempts to make it sound as though I suggested otherwise. If you live surround by the misery of these birds, it’s a world that you helped to create. It’s not surprising that you feel defensive regarding this as the cognitive dissonance you display is deafening. I’m glad that you feel driven to help, but you are addressing the symptoms of the problem and not the source, so you will be shoveling ‘shit’ as you so charmingly say, forever.

If you want the problems of pet birds to cease, the most efficient way to try and stop the endless stream of suffering is to educate people from thinking it’s ok to do this to these creatures in the first place. Assuming you are not a pet store owner with a vested financial interest in the purchase and sale of these animals, I don’t see the issue. The same as in any conflict, to stop the wounded, you end the war, you don’t just hire more doctors.

The fact is that you still haven’t addressed the core point, and it’s a telling omission. There is no defense, no explanation, why keeping birds in cages for amusement is beneficial or anything other than selfish. Why do it at all? Until that question is answered, all the bile you spill is for naught.

[Zephyrbird]

152. Oh for pete's sake.

What don't you understand? The problem exists. It's not going away. All your "There is no defense, no explanation, why keeping birds in cages for amusement is beneficial or anything other than selfish." doesn't help solve the problem one bit, does it? If I answer no, does it change the fact that there are tens of thousands of pet birds in the U.S.? If I answer yes, does it change the fact there are tens of thousands of pet birds in the U.S.?

Your question is immaterial to the problem at hand.

YES, IT IS.

As for this, "I’m obvious in my statement that once a bird has been taken from the wild for any significant length of time or successful attempts are made to ‘domesticate’ it, it can no longer be re-introduced, despite your attempts to make it sound as though I suggested otherwise."

Didn't you say in a previous post,

"With just a fraction of the money and effort expended in the pet bird care industry you describe repurposed to service reintroductions (am I crazy or does that mean RE-INTRODUCE) and grow natural endangered populations, we would be doing a far better service to them and to ourselves."

Was that you that said that or was it your evil twin posting while you were asleep? How do you think you'd reintroduce parrots extinct in an area? From um, pet birds...? Reintroduce, right? Train them to live in the wilds, right? And how do you propose to re-grow the forest these birds came from when it was burned to the ground for cattle grazing and minimalist farming?

And BTW, where do you think a lot of the conservation money, research money in Brazil, or sanctuary comes from? That's right, me bucko--from bird owners.

Look, lest you're spraining your arm patting yourself on the back for lecturing a breeder or pet store owner, let me tell you I am involved with a sanctuary that publicly lectures and publishes articles advocating severe curtailment of breeding for the pet industry, and advocates stricter oversight of pet stores and breeders. They take a hell of a lot of heat from the pet bird industry for it.

I'm going to come out and say it right now, and if it's not ideologically suited for you, then tough noogies. Responsible pet bird ownership is A-Okay in my book. Now, if you don't know what that means vs. keeping them locked in filthy cages as your overactive imagination suggests for purposes of high-handed lecturing, then get with the program. You're once again not thinking of what's best for the birds that exist here, you're thinking only of your ideological beliefs. Talk about selfish! Sheesh!

That's a lot of help for these birds, isn't it? You may not be bringing them back to health, cleaning bird doodie, helping find them new loving homes, financially supporting rescue organizations, educating people on why NOT to buy pet birds, helping shut down bad breeders and stopping abuse in pet stores, supporting parrot research in the wild, supporting disease research, BUT HEY DOWDY! you're sure lecturing the people who do. My birds (two of whom were rescues) would give you a big birdy kiss for how much help you have been.

I'm abashed! Ashamed! Cowed into submission!

Not.

You purport to love parrots? Then get off your butt and get involved. Put your money and your energy where your mouth is. It's too late for sanctimonious crap. The problem exists. Help deal with it.

[ReadTomPaine]

155. Reintroduce meaning wild injured birds, not domesticated ones…

Check your PM, it’s best to take this discussion offline.

[Zephyrbird]

159. No offline discussions.

I didn't read it, and this is the last I'm going to discuss it. Please do not email me.

[ReadTomPaine]

188. Final words. My turn.

Listen up, lout. I’ll put my 30+ years in wildlife conservation/fieldwork and PhD against your ‘crap shoveling’ any day you like. You’re far to close to this problem to properly understand it, and despite what you think your vested interest shows. You are, ever so appropriately, at the ass end of the conservation field. Many of the birds you treat are the ones stolen from the few sanctuaries of the type that I have helped to preserve and create, both with my time, presence (everywhere from Alaska to New Zealand) and contributions- which are probably more per year than you even make.

I’ve done fieldwork and sweated and sacrificed for more species than you’ve ever heard of for likely longer than your ungrateful hide has been alive. Here’s the point you need to chisel into that thick, slopeheaded skull- Once the birds are in your hands they are gone already. From a scientific standpoint, it’s too late. You might like to think that saving them for commercial cages is relevant, but that’s a false impression born out of selective scientific ignorance and an urge to believe that what you do for you paycheck is helping (I do my conservation work here and abroad for free, incidentally). You throw up your hands like it’s too late to save the habitat, and by your acceptance of that as a fact, you make it true. You save the individuals (again, worthwhile), but you doom the species because you enable the very people you claim to hate.

You have to get *ahead* of this problem. That requires getting out of your rut and saving the birds AND the habitat before they are pimped into a caged existence. Don’t whine to me about how hard it is, and save the blue collar hero crap for your beer buddies. Taking industry money and telling people it’s ok to own rare creatures- and I don’t just mean birds- isn’t the way to do it. Have *you* got it now? Every bird in a cage is a failure.

Want to make a *real* difference? Start by supporting the *natural* sanctuaries I have described in my posts on this subject with you. Not the prisons people construct in their apartments. Get the hell out of your isolated world and travel to the places these animals are harvested, and educate and stop people (you speak more than English, right?) from stealing them from their natural homes in the first place. Oh- that’s right. You already mentioned that animal sales of this type are “A-Ok” with you. I guess because you like it that makes it ok, since displaying and kissing your pretty captives delights you. And of course, anything that doesn’t conform to your whims is insultingly irrelevant. For a person who like to carp about sanctimony and self centered attitudes, you display an amazing amount of both.

I’ve met people like you for decades. Busy all day lipsticking the pig, while pouring these animals long term futures down the drain. Do that work where it counts, jerk. Along the coasts of oil soaked Alaska, or in the flaming forests of Madagascar. Get *wild* birds, and other animals (remember them?) back into their remaining habitats, and protect those habitats from destruction without making devil’s deals that save a few at the expense of the rest.

But no, it’s more important to look at your row of cages and think that’s the answer and the future. Doesn’t matter really, the compassion and sensitivity you display won’t fit in a shoebox. It does appear to fit in a cage, though. Despite what people like you think, it is not too late. As you so nicely put it – NO IT ISN’T.

And that’s *my* final word on the subject.

[expatriot]

141. no, they do not 'love' those animals...

perhaps like a drunken frat boy 'loves' a stripper giving him a lapdance or like a pimp 'loves' his girls for whoring for him. How can you possible honestly love something by exploiting it for your own purposes? Love would be let these large cats spend their days calmly and naturally in a sanctuary. PETA is not against pets (i.e. companion animals) but it is against exploiting animals for personal gain. My wife is a frequent benefactor of PETA and I a very sympathetic 'half-member' I can not call myself a full member in that I'm not vegan and eat fish occasionally and sometimes even fall into the sin of eating real hot dogs. But I despise the blatant abuse and exploitation of animals. Another thing that just urks me is the breeding of pets just so people can have 'full breds' when there are thousands and thousands of wonderful animals longing for a home at the shelter who are being put down. that makes me furious. that is just pure selfishness.

[Zephyrbird]

153. Oh, you said it!

"Another thing that just urks me is the breeding of pets just so people can have 'full breds' when there are thousands and thousands of wonderful animals longing for a home at the shelter who are being put down."

Oh, well said! This is one of my biggest beefs also.

[phrenzy]

96. THank you

Thanks you sniveling PETA members for outting yourself to be nothing more than Bible thumpers in different clothing. Your 'black and white' 'all or nothing' attitudes are exactly the same as the 'other side'

Keeping caged birds is cruel? How about snakes? pigs? hamsters? Fish? The unbelievable hypocrisy and inconsistency of PETA is comical.

They almost ALL wear leather shoes and violate their own 'rules' all the time.

PETA Militants & Abortion clinic bombers - one and the same.

[curse10]

97. Wow, just checked my closet, no leather in there

and it's always great to be compared to abortion clinic bombers :eyes:

[ReadTomPaine]

99. Yes to all of your examples- cages are cruel, period.

With *very* few exceptions, pet "ownership" of any kind is questionable. So is making animals work for a living, as mentioned upthread (i.e. horses, elephants, etc.) And I'm not associated with PETA in any way, shape, form or manner. BTW, given your frothing, you picked your nickname well.

[confusius]

101. So we should never have horses or cows working on the farm.

All those people who use animals, such as horses, to plow the land and grow crops to feed people are criminals. Very nice.

I'll tell you what, when the PETA people commit sucide, they'll stop oppressing animals.

The food they get, the veggies ( Because they won't eat meat) are probably brought to market with the help of an animal, be it its poop or labor.

Die, and you can stop oppressing the animals.

I'm waiting.

[laruemtt]

105. ultimately

no - IF we lived as herbivores as our digestive system dictates. don't see gorillas needing horses and cows to survive, working a farm or not. but again, imho.

peace

[confusius]

115. Yea, if the pop of the earth was 4 million

You gonna get things started on the downward spiral?

[laruemtt]

119. ever hear of

attrition?

oops. changed here to hear. can't even spell anymore!

[ReadTomPaine]

125. Actually...

... a purely or mostly vegetarian food supply model supports higher population densities, as livestock farming consumes more resources in calories than it provides. I'm not a vegetarian, just thought I'd point that out for accuracy’s sake.

[ReadTomPaine]

110. Don’t let your emotions cloud your logic.

And certainly don’t put words in my mouth, esp. when you don’t know how to properly debate an issue. I can speak for myself, and I do it considerably better than you.

Questionable doesn’t mean criminal, it means questionable. If you are able to use a tractor or similar farm equipment, than you should. That’s the ethical choice. Few people outside the third world use horses as farm labor these days. Cows don’t do farm labor either. They are harvested for meat and other products. It’s unfortunate that we have evolved factory farms that seem to be predicated on the misery of these creatures, but having everyone hunt for their dinner isn’t an option just now. Organic farming is the best alternative in that case.

Does it surprise you that I am a hunter and that I eat meat? It shouldn’t. The meat I eat is either brought home by my own hand, or raised in an organic farm environment where the animals run free. Visit a factory pig farm and you’ll lose your taste for store bought pork very quickly, and if you don’t then you should. That is assuming the noxious gases from pig waste don’t knock you unconscious and kill you (many die each year that way).

Animals in the wild die all the time, that’s the law of nature. Whether it’s by my rifle, or by some other top predator, the key thing to remember is that they do not suffer in a cage all their lives for a person’s amusement. We all have to eat, we all live on death. The question is whether we enjoy making other creatures suffer for it along the way. I don’t. Do you?

on edit - typos

[confusius]

114. Don’t let your emotions cloud your logic... giving it back

Logic.....

How do you propose we save all the animals going extinct on the earth? Tigers and lions have fallen 50% in the last 30 years or so ( BBC news) the siberan tiger is on the verge of extinction, and people on this board are bitching because a couple of tigers have to work to save more of their type.

Look, there is reality... and PETAs reality. You wanna give up your pets and you hunting? Support PETA. No animals for entertainment, even when the people who do it help out the tigers? Then come up with some other way to save all these animals. We live in a capatalistic society, and money is the key. S&R help out more then they hurt, so I see no problem with it.

Thats the big question in life isn't it? Whats going to hurt less. If Humans never existed, all the animals would be having a grand old time. but we do, and their part of the earth is shrinking, and some are trying not to disappear of the face of the earth. Either you say these guys help more then they hurt, and I can live with that, or they are gone forever. Humans aren't going away. Find a way to live in the bounds.


>Questionable doesn’t mean criminal, it means questionable. If you >are able to use a tractor or similar farm equipment, than you should

But that causes Global warming, or what if you live in the third world, can't afford a tractor.

>Cows don’t do farm labor either. They are harvested for meat and >other products

In the third world cows/ steer/ bulls are used to pull hoes to grow crops.

>Visit a factory pig farm and you’ll lose your taste for store >bought pork very quickly, and if you don’t then you should.

I don't eat much meat, by my choice, not by anything PETA has ever done.

>We all have to eat, we all live on death. The question is whether >we enjoy making other creatures suffer for it along the way. I >don’t. Do you?

No, I don't want animals to suffer, but I don't think making them work a couple hours for three squares a day is bad at all. I don't think having an animal do medical testing for medication or drugs, which will save human lives, bad. Cosmetics, animal cruelty bad.

[laruemtt]

116. "Humans aren't going away."

are you certain? you know this how? maybe the late, great dinosaurs thought so too. after all, they were the "mightiest" of their time, too.

[confusius]

118. If we go away, so do all the animals, and so does the planet

by Nuclear War, or destruction of the enviroment, or by plague.

Or we move to Mars or the Moon. Which doesn't seem to be getting anywhere

[confusius]

120. Another thing

Dinosuars didn't think. They had a pea brain. Nothing more then an killing and eating machine. You've been watching to much Disney.

[laruemtt]

121. "an eating and killing machine"

like sharks. they're the ones who'll outlive us, and cockroaches. sharks don't even beach themselves. they seem to be immune to whatever's causing the whales to beach themselves (btw, pretty sure it's the sonar).

speaking of eating and killing machines, there's a perspective that says we are too. we just don't see their nuances, and they don't see ours (or maybe they do ;-) )

[ReadTomPaine]

124. Bone up on your science...

Hadrosaurs like the Maiasaur nurtured their young and lived in herds. Many raptor species hunted in packs and had very large brains for thier size. You science is about 30 years out of date.

On edit - typo

[confusius]

134. Bone up on YOUR science

Your talking about 2 or 3 amoung thousands of pea-brains.

Last time I heard, the T Rex or the Triceratop or the Stegosaurus haden't been taking brain-enhacing vitamins and the time of the great extiction.

Try reading some of the classics, they still have alot of info.

Although Stegosaurus was about the size of a bus, it had a small head (the size of a horse's head) and a brain that was only the size of a walnut!

I'll give you a leg up....

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/

[ReadTomPaine]

137. Hadrosaurs were among the most populous & successful species...

There were so many of them they are jokingly referred to by professional paleontologists as "The jelly donuts of the Cretaceous". Try reading anything by John Ostrom or Jack Horner. That children's site is cute, tho. When your reading level improves try http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm - Journal of Dinosaur Paleontology.

BTW it's spelled "Confucius"

[confusius]

160. I thought I would prod a little

And you reacted the exated way I thought you would.

Instead of "there's no reason to be insulting" you took another opportunity to belittle me.

>i.e. And certainly don’t put words in my mouth, esp. when you don’t >know how to properly debate an issue. I can speak for myself, and I >do it considerably better than you.

>i.e. You science is about 30 years out of date.

>i.e. When your reading level improves

So what do you have to say? do you just come to this site to talk down to people? I didn't know they did that in debate. I'm glad I never took it college, because you never will get to the root of an issue doing that.

other things also...

>Regarding global warming, you are aware of course that cows are one >of the primary source of Carbon Dioxide emissions, yes

Cows produce methane, cars/ factories are the biggest man-made source of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. I think you got that fact from PETA ( cows producing large amounts of C20 ). I don't trust it. I don't trust anything from a group that has an Agenda, be it liberal or conservative. If its a scientific study from a non-partisan research group, please quote.

>then they should do what they must to make their living, but don’t >pretend there isn’t an ethical problem with it.

I don't pretend, and your putting words in MY mouth. I have absolutly NO problem with animals being used to produce food, i.e. to haul a plow, as long as they are treated well.

factory farming I have a problem with.

>Considering I already made clear that I’m not a member, it’s odd >that you keep mentioning them in your responses to me

You seem to be defending them, so I mention them, this is what the thread is about.

>I choose the way that preserves what they truly are

The ones in the wild are going extinct, there will be no place for them to "be what they truly are". And if you think not having a few in shows or Zoos is OK, then we won't lose a few, we will lose them all, because there will be no "wild" areas for them.

>Hadrosaurs like the Maiasaur nurtured their young and lived in >herds.

proves that we thought they abandoned their young, like the great turtle, but now they may have had a more complex reproductive cycle. but it does not prove that they had anything more then a pea-brain. Ostrichs do the same thing, stupidist of the birds. except for the chicken maybe, they herd also. I know. I chased them around my moms house.

>... a purely or mostly vegetarian food supply model supports higher >population densities, as livestock farming consumes more resources >in calories than it provides. I'm not a vegetarian, just thought >I'd point that out for accuracy’s sake.

Yea, in theory, I'm sure. When has it ever happened? I sure would like to know, being the history geek I am.

If you can refrain from being insulting, or talking down, please respond. Otherwise, I don't really care.

[ReadTomPaine]

163. I've answered all of this already. Learn to spell, then we'll talk.

<eom>

[confusius]

164. blah, blah, blah

I see you couldn't go without another insult.


Another thing... if you take "confusion" and and "ius" as in "tiberius" or "claudius" you get "confusius", which means....

Nothing.

[laruemtt]

138. this size of the brain stuff is hysterical!

even einstein used, what, 7, 8% of his brain? that's an awful lot of wasted space. maybe the dinosaurs used disc defragger and reduced the size of the brain. bigger isn't always better.....

[confusius]

161. As for you

The percentage is 10%, Einstien probably used more, and the brain has pieces and parts which control certain things.

The reptile brain, also known as the reptilian complex, or r complex for short, evolved first. This corresponds roughly to the idea of an id, or child. From the reptile brain we get our instinct to survive, fight, flee, gain territory and reproduce. From the reptile brain we get our most basic emotions. The dragon within is very much alive and well, and necessary. Humans wouldn't be Human without the reptile brain

In brain size, bigger is always better.

I could make a joke here, but I will refrain.

[laruemtt]

174. joke gotten, con!

but still disagreed with. hah! something about meat and motion - BUT i digress... in my admittedly simple mind, i see this all reducing down to whether you see all living things being equal in value (not monetary) or you see things in a hierarchical paradigm. i don't think the two camps will ever agree - maybe there's a part of that huge brain of ours that decides which of the two camps you'll belong to. like just about everything, just a theory. but this discussion/debate's good!

[ReadTomPaine]

123. The bitter truth is that we are going to lose some species.

Ecotourism is the main industry in many areas in Africa, it’s an excellent way to make natural areas self sustaining. I find S&R’s love of these tigers laudable (I mentioned this in the very first response to this thread) but I find the way they earned their money to be exploitative. Since it’s clear that the act is now over perhaps they will turn their efforts to creating more of these natural sanctuaries. As I also stated upthread, it’s good business sense also.

Regarding global warming, you are aware of course that cows are one of the primary source of Carbon Dioxide emissions, yes? If a farmer is too poor to afford a tractor, then they should do what they must to make their living, but don’t pretend there isn’t an ethical problem with it. I’m sure every one would prefer machinery, simply for the capitalist reasons you state.

I understand why some people have problems with PETA. Considering I already made clear that I’m not a member, it’s odd that you keep mentioning them in your responses to me. I don’t condone, for instance, the break-in and release of animals on to the freeways as a method of ‘liberation’. There are clearly better ways to help these animals.

The bitter truth is that many of the rare animals you cited are already gone, from the biological & scientific perspective. We can find ways to preserve them, like a relic species, or we can turn them into circus freaks. Either way, they aren’t going to survive without us. I choose the way that preserves what they truly are. To me, that’s living within the bounds of both humanity and nature.

[phrenzy]

106. Please list the 'exceptions'

Please list your 'exceptions' that justify the owning of animals in your opinion.

I'd love to hear your logic on this.

[curse10]

107. PETA is not against animal companionship

However, other animals are more suited to co-habitating with humans. Animals like big cats, bears, elephants, and other exotic breeds are left best in the wild, and if that is not possible, in the protection of a sanctuary or zoo with professionals.

[laruemtt]

108. 'owning of animals'

does not compute in my brain, as dotty as it is.

guess you could frame this entire debate in degrees. i myself do not see the world in anthropocentric terms. but that's me. i've had this discussion with people too many times to know i won't sway them and they won't sway me. maybe we're two different subspecies of homo sapiens ;-)

[ReadTomPaine]

112. I already discussed this upthread...

See #103

[shimmergal]

183. I find your second sentence ill-advised.

I'm much more owned by my two dogs than the other way around. You'll find many many other pet people who feel the same way.

On second thought, if you've never experienced the mutual joy and love between a human and that special dog or cat that shares their life, you're more to be pitied than scorned.

[ReadTomPaine]

187. Dogs are great companions!

See #103 and #112

[laruemtt]

109. gee

THAT'S a logical progression of thought :crazy:

what happened? this was supposed to go after post 96. oops.

[haymaker]

111. If you play with fire, you might get burned.

Derrrr. I have very little sympathy for ol Roy.

Of course PETA is going to kick his arrogant ass over this one. What they do is cruelty, no question about it. How the hell do you think they get them to do that stupid, unnatural shit.

Maybe Roy should switch to swimming with crocadiles.

[Myra]

128. "If you play with fire, you might get burned."

That's exactly how I feel haymaker.

Except that, unlike fire, these are living
breathing animals that are being enslaved
and humiliated on a daily basis so that their
captors can be wealthy.

While I'm really pleased to see that this
is a hot topic (no pun intended) on DU,
I'm amazed at the number of people that equate these
wild animals with dogs (who have been domesticated
and living with humans for 10,000 years)
or human children (who are expected
to live with their human parents, duh).
What a narrow range of vision.
What specious logic.

I totally agree with PETA's stance and action.
And what better time to take that action?
The subject is in the news, and the future of 60 some
enslaved wild cats is in great peril.

[jiacinto]

113. PETA is crazy

That's all I have to say.

[henslee]

126. Why aint PETA going after those "grizzly bear killing" sherrifs in Alaska?

EOM,

[undergroundpanther]

129. Wild

Tigers need a lot of space for thier territories .Humans and thier'civilization'take up alot of space too.
Humans have covered this planet,not just with themselves but with civilization and civilizations support systems.There are too many of us and this way of life we have is nuts.People have superstitions and delusions regarding animals as well as themselves.The colonial mindset has been a tragedy for Animals,the Earth,poor people,people of color,women,kids.

Tigers if released in the "wild",because of the way people are when they must compete to put food on the table or have a place to stay because of our hierarchical social order,our competitive societies,property and profit,have very little chance of making it without getting killed and sold.
As more people have more kids ,and do not take control of thier own reproduction and cling to myths like"be fruitful and multiply" the civilization and it's support systems expand to take care of people and empires..Profit drives people deep into the wild places..

Until we stop developing land to use it for human purposes,making farms,cities,suburbs,roads,to support more kids turned adults.until we voluntarily curb our greed for offspring, money and power.Until we get out of the 'consumer'/property/profit game.Until we accept that life feeds off death (and death is something humans will never control -like the envioronment in persuit of absolute 'safety')When we stop seeking immortality through monnuments,empires,'sucess',religion or progeny nothing will change for the tigers.The tigers will die because they don't share these human "values"..

Putting tigers onto a reserve to keep them safe from humans driven by profit is nessary because some humans don't care about other species if thier kids are hungry or there's money to be had.I mean folk medicine to get a boner to bring another male child in the world to carry on the patriarcial line,for immortality is so friggin vital to the ego.It looks important in the moment.Until humans put that ego away and quit chasing the dollar or power-over people we will do dumbshit like this when we think we are insulated from the consequences of our actions.

Does Exxon support tiger reserves because the tiger is thier corporate logo? Yep you bet that's a big unspoken motive for thier "caring".That's why they can carry oil omn ships in the seas because shores and oceans aren't as important to Exxon other than a tool to get thier products around.Shorebirds and seals don't relate to the corporate Ego trip of Exxon like tigers do.

I am glad a few people with money and power do stuff to help out tigers,(as in saving them from extinction anyway you can)I wish humans in general had more foresight,wisdom,empathy and self control.
But to me,because of the Tiger's desperate situuation,saving lives is saving lives and a ny life saved counts twords preservation of tigers..even if it is for a corporate ego game.I am glad another tiger lives.Maybe if humans grow up and give back to the Earth,or if they eradicate themselves,the tiger will outlive us because of those people who put in effort to save tigers.

It seems people won't often voluntarily empathize with what they seek to dominate,profit from,or use up until they are FORCED to care by circumstances that were never in thier control that hurt the human into awareness that goes beyond the ego or internecine human mind games that occupy civilized people most of the time.
Peta is right,The Tiger is right,but so is Roy.What is happening here isn't simple.
This problem is with our way of percieving in civilization and the way we live life itself .Our way of relation warps what we see,it's not just Sigfried and Roy's exploitation of tigers onstage thats the issue.

It is the fact they care about tigers in the way they know how to,which entails, educating the ignorant,removing fears,and funding reserves for tigers,and loving the tigers they live with.How do you come to terms with two very different aspects of relating to tigers in one person without either demonizing or rationalizing the exploitation,in a society that condones exploitation in it's very structures?

Remember there are lots of women and kids and other animals being exploited everyday .There are emotions being manipulated,loyalites being exploited,base cgharacter flaws being used to further agendas,people being ripped off, used,lied to,abused by people too.People suffer just like tigers do in captivity living under the sting of humiliation and service to'masters'.Kids in school suffer like caged tigers and they aren't permitted to pace when forced to sit at a desk and PAY attention to a boring 'lesson' from a schoolmaster and'perform' for grades and rewards..
When will we step out of our exploiting trips that color even how we think,to realize this has gotten us nowhere as a species we are in real danger, when we go on using,torturing,belittling and killing each other as well as any other species we can drag to destruction with us? For WHAT?? What is it that makes us so instatiable,ambitious,greedy,
arrogant,evasive,shortsighted homocidal and suicidal when acting as a species?

Why does notions of social equality and peace never happen in our species even though if you ask the average person,they say they desire it? What is it inside us that is getting in the way of right relationships with reality? Do large numbers of people have
Mental illness? Conduct disorders? Stockholm syndrome? Is it our collective persuit of certainty in an uncertain reality, is it delusions of immortality, is it our big rigidly structured brains,our sick civilization, the want of Money? the desire for Power-over making us behave this way? And the big question How do we teach ourselves how to stop destroying ,exploiting and dominating each other when we have to do this stuff to survive or thrive in this sick system that benifiets so little for so many.

[radwriter0555]

168. ACTUALLY, the way it works with bears, is once they've had human flesh

they will continue to consider it a viable food source. Kinda like dogs that raid henhouses for the eggs. Once an egg sucker, always an egg sucker.

So why should PETA go after the sheriffs? The bears weren't in captivity; the damage is done; what would be the point?

[im4]

130. PETA is NUTS

I'm all for protecting animals, but PETA has no morals. These are the type of people who stand outside malls naked protesting leathers and furs at Christmas. Like that's what I want my children to see. Not saying that the idea is good. But, you're going to email they guy in his hospital room? While he's probably completely medicated to the hilt? My problem with PETA is that they put more value on animals than humans. While this may change Sigfried and Roy's ideas it may not. I'm sure they feel about they're cats the way some people feel about "Fluffy". And apparently Roy said before he lost conciousness not to kill the cat. Which is usually the sad case after an animal tastes human blood. And a sancuary while being just what it is, is not the animal's natural habitat and could displace other animals. (which would be bad by PETA's logic) What's done is done with these animals. You can not put full grown animals back into the wild. And once they are familar with people you shouldn't. But I am always suspect of PETA. I wasn't thrilled with they're "happy meals" with the toys being butchered animals. That's another lovely thing for a kid.

[haymaker]

135. Playing the "poor little children" card are ya?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

PETA just points out the obvious and "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[DemBones DemBones]

140. So you approve of protesters

against abortion who hold up large pictures of bloody dismembered fetuses -- or arrange to have really large photos on billboards, sides of trucks, on banners towed by airplanes over crowded beaches?

I don't think ANY group has the right to tactics that frighten and disturb children, or to tactics that harm people or damage their property.

.
Convince others of your positions through educating them about what you believe and why you believe it, not by violence or intimidation.

[haymaker]

165. What a stretch.

Man, don't fall off your chair. Children aren't allowed to know where meat comes from?

Now get mad at me for saying there is no Santa Claus

[im4]

167. My kids do know

They know what kind of meat comes from where. They know that there is no Santa too if you must know. But little bloody looking plastic toys? Give me a break.

I'm saying that PETA seems incapable of presenting their case without using "shock" gimicks. It does nothing but makes people who may otherwise be receptive to their points of view dig in their heels more. When you say PETA you get two reactions from people. "Oh yeah!" or "Oh yeah (crack pots)"

[haymaker]

171. Yeah, that bloody plastic toy thing

was so widespread that you can find one in every home. They are everywhere. Did you get one? Did your kid get one? How many of your friends and family got one? I never even saw an image of one, much less got one. As a matter of fact, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Peta protests are sooooo widespread. You can't throw a dead cat without hitting some Peta fools standing around showing pictures of apes with probes up their arses.

Get a little perspective.

[im4]

169. Those disgusting images have their place

but not in front of children. News, magazines, internet, person to person. Yes. Out in public for any passer by to see. No. I saw the pictures of the town Sadam gassed. Not something I would want my kids to see yet. But educational for me. I don't agree with this "shock" method used indescriminantly for getting your point across. PETA just uses cheap shots for publicity, instead of allowing their cause to stand on it's own merits. Which actually works against them. When you hear PETA, you automatically pick a side before hearing the story. They started "shocking" people to get attention. They've grown enough name recognition to stop "shocking" people and act like a responsible organization.

[haymaker]

170. More of the same.

I just don't think it is all that shocking. And if it is shocking to you, so what. And what is so shocking about sending Roy a get well note that includes telling him he might want to reconsider his exploitation of those animals. I'm shocked!

And another thing, how do you know it was the town Saddam gassed?

[Shanty Oilish]

143. What's obnoxious about this...

If Roy had gone joyriding on a motorcycle without his helmet, and bashed his brains out on the pavement, and People For Brain Safety had issued a statement decrying his negligence while he lay struggling to survive his injuries...that would be somewhat unsympathetic to his personal tragedy, but it would not be obnoxious. They would, at least, be speaking from concern for other human beings and that would affirm concern for Roy as a member of that set.

Instead, PETA's concern is only for the animals. In PETAworld, animals are majestic, human beings are not. Roy's tragic injuries are merely an occasion for PETA to make a point, a pretext on which to hang a reproach against mankind per se.

They picked the most indecent moment to condemn him.

[fujiyama]

144. Yeah, this is in bad taste...

and it's a bit over the top, even though they have a point.

It's obvious that certain animals are easier domesticated than others and some of these animals should probably not be kept as pets or in what I'd like to call "unnatural captivity", meaning a home, or another enviornment completely alien to their natural enviornments. I think some captivity is innevitable, to expose people to the wonder of animals, but the enviornment should be as close as possible to a natural enviornment. I also think circuses and these shows are somewhat bizarre watching animals do tricks...and many do treat the animals very poorly.

But that said, S and R seem to be very decent people and by most indications they have treated their animals with a lot of care. They have nurtured them and raised them. It's quite obvious they love these animals very much, which is why the incident with Roy is very unfortunate.

Still, these creatures are animals. The tiger may have even been treating Roy as a child, as many cats tend to grab the neck of their offspring. No matter how domesticated these creatures are, they will not reason the way humans do. Sometimes little kids get frustrated and throw things, and hell, they even bite sometimes!

So, this shouldn't come as a big surprise. It was bound to happen. No matter how well trained it was.

[BenFranklinUSA]

154. S&R's Tigers Live Better Than In Wild

If you don't think so, then you don't know much about S&R, other than from PETAganda.

[radwriter0555]

158. How do the S & R tigers "live better than in the wild?" Where do you

get YOUR propaganda?

Is that like saying we live better in america in a chemical infested man-made suburban ghetto, than some guy napping in a hammock on a tropical beach in south east mexico? He's got a palapa hut, with fresh air, ocean breezes and unpolluted fish for his dinner and he works a few days a month. He and his family have everything they need and want, in their house, next door and down the road.

The guy in america works 50 hours a week, lives in a man-made overcrowded suburbia laden with chemicals, plastics and pesticides; he commutes 3 hours a day in pollution and traffic; his wife and kids are cancer and disease ridden from the petroleum based products they're surrounded with and ingesting 24/7; he can't sleep at night and makes $70k a year and is $30K in debt.

Gee, is that life in america better?

[shimmergal]

184. You've got half a point, but then

why are so many of those Mexican "hammock loungers" as you dubiously describe them, risking death to cross the border and exchange their carefree life for the horrors of the U.S. workplace?

[bushisanidiot]

149. Ouch! They're Right Though.

n/t

[undergroundpanther]

157. Tigers

I have met tigers face to face who were trained.

Cats and tigers have a "culture" and they do sometimes bond with people as companions and equals. How easily does our human perspective color things,We got the be wild camp,disregarding the dangers of an ever shrinking habitat,and poaching and predators..And we got the tigers as toys crowd who think you can own a tiger,a dog or cat. And then we got people who asre mixed on this they think tigers for entertainment are bad but like the idea of sancutaries and breeding programs.


The Tigers I met were the Hawthorn White tigers, I walked into the ring pet them. The trainer dropped me his card,asked me if I wanted to go to big cat school.When I saw it was in the netherlands I declined.He said few people have ease around big cats,that is why he asked me to meet the tigers after the show.
My hubby waited outside the ring.

One thing that happens to cats(normal carts and big cats) is they see us as mommies and children at the same time.(feline behaviorists have noted this) Feline Pride/ colony,family behavior can look contradictry to us because of our top down social thinking colors how we relate to them.
People say dogs like us because of the pack animals argument,Dogs accept and function in a top down dom/sub hierarchy which is more like our own social conditioning.So we assume dogs and humans go together.I myself don't get along well with dogs.Thier submissiveness and waiting for direction annoys me.

I have been around cats all my life and one thing about them is they do not submit to anyone.They can't be made to submit.They will seethe with resentment if they are forced.
Cats can reluctantly agree to things they don't want to do because they don't see many options because they know they are sick,and they want to get better,they might remember a bad trip to the vet,got them better before,so they are of mixed will and it shows in thier mixed resistance..But if a feline really doesen't want to do something you want them to do,you can't force them,and they will make thier displeasure known to you any way they can.


Now If Roy was taken offstage by a resentful tiger the Tiger would be mad,he would want to vent his displeasure at having his autonomy violated. But it appears the Tiger was doing the parental thing,and because of this I suspect a RELATIONSHIP was forged between them.
My cats do do things to look out for my welfare,they participate in my life,they are a part of everything I do.They care,I care and I do stuff for them,Relationships with cats are equal and equitable.Cats form equal relationships with you if you care to observe what's going on..Big cats are not the same as domestic cats,but they share traits in behaviors.

Whether you belive it or not Tigers do find fun in PLAYING with thier trainers.While we see a stage set,they might see a jungle gym.
Domestic cats play with thier human companions too.They get obvious joy chasing the feather wand and lazer pointer dot. Do they feel manipulated chasing a dot? Or are they just having fun.
My cat Rustle enjoys his training sessions where he plays with me,walking on a leash,fetching,ect.He reminds ME when it's time to "play" he will bug me until I get the leash the clicker,the treats, the ball.He looks forward to it.This play which I call training is called this because of my human social bias.
I have seen Tigers eager to play with a human on the big jungle gym in a caged circle and bug thier trainers to play. A tiger will not do something they don't enjoy themselves on some level like any other cat.The tiger knows they could destroy the human if he disrespected him. Like a cat knows his teeth and claws are sharp.Adult tigers have playful sides like little cats do.
Most observers don't understand or notice the subtle signaling going on between tiger and trainer during a show.Like most people cannot read a cat's emotions when they signal to their companions.

Cat behaviorists say when cats are raised with humans they remain eternally kittens. This is only half the equation. The cats also form a motherly relationship with us,as mouse parts left on the stairs testify what lousy hunters we are to them and so they share the booty so we could hopefully become a proper feline hunter and bring home our share of rodents too.

I observe this incident with Roy as a playful tiger in cub mode who stopped playing,and jumped into mom mode,and Roy because he was distracted missed the Tiger's cue. When the Tiger saw a threat during playtime, Roy didn't see it,so Tiger because he thought it was important,took junior Roy off stage to safety as he batted mommie like a frustrated cub.The Tiger didn't realize fragile humans are not Tigers too,until it was too late.Could it be that cats because they relate to us as equals ,they see us as cats instead of owners and dominators? And isn't our vision of the dominator/owner a reflection of human society and human bias?

Feline culture is very different from human or dog culture.
Felines have a social hierarchy and territiory but it is very different than how we would do it.People misunderstand feline human relationships alot.People assume cats are aloof and can do without us,when in fact they are so very sensitive to whom they share living space, deeply caring,fiercely protective and emotional equals to us and we are part of thier colony as they are part of our family.

My catfreinds groom my "fur" when I get out of the shower everyday because I brush thiers everyday,we bond in the feline way in an exchange of emotion and care between equals.I have seen Tiger trainers brush a Tigers fur and the Tigers obviously enjoy the brushing like any cat does, they rub thier heads on the brusher in a show of freindship and appreciation for the pleasure given,chuffing.(tigers are discouraged from licking people back when they are cubs because thier toungs can scrape your skin raw with just a few light licks.)Why would they appreaciate it and tell the brusher they do,if they didn't?

Sometimes I highly suspect,our cats see us as thier funny looking hairless kin.Cat mothers can adopt ducks,mice birds as thier own.A lioness adopted a springbok as a cub before.It isn't unheard of. Some Animals don't see the same distinctions between species as we see as important in their relationships with us or other animals.
We can try to step outside of our top down social order conditioning games and when we do we might see things more from a feline perspective if we give up our preferences.
Sometimes peta is so caught up with human notions of wildness and place they fail to see the relationship between animals and people outside of the human power or utility aspects.Some humans that are seeing animals as something to be used fail to see the awful damage that kind of relationship with animals causes in the world.
The real issue is here It seems is what kind of RELATIONSHIP does Roy have with the tigers he lives with really.Is it reasonable,respectful? And who are we to put our ignoranthuman biased judgemnts on it unless we are partaking in it and understand it from both POV's,Tigers and Human? We so easily speak for the Tiger wuith our own biases ,and we deny the tiger might have a relationship with Roy that means something to him,quite different than what we think it means.

I am not favoring Roy's perspective and I am not condeming it.I am just trying to see the relationship as it is. Won't we always be guessing based on our own assumptions ,agendas and emotional reactions unless we look at our assumptions honestly? Once we let our political opinions,feelings and our assumed perspectives on Tiger human relations color what we see going on with Sigfreid& Roy and the Tigers, Framing the whole relationship with what we want,what we fear,what we think should be, all of a sudden we aren't seeing a relationship with the Tigers anymore,were seeing our relationship to thier relationship through our personal bias.
You can blow me off as someone "talking out thier ass"or excusing a corrupted industry but my experince with cats looks this way so take it or leave it.

[NNN0LHI]

172. I feel like I just watched The Pet Psychic

I am only joking here! My thoughts are very close to yours actually. My thinking is that animals and the reasons they do what they do is even more mysterious than your theories. Though I realize that much of my thinking is based upon hope. While I really do wish that animals had the ability to rationalize as well or better than humans I have a nagging suspicion that may not be the case. I think there may be a good possibility that most if not all animal behavior is the direct result of either instinctive or learned processes. Thanks for your opinions though. I enjoyed reading them.

Don

[BraveDave]

175. FOOTAGE JUST RELEASED!!!!

WARNING! VERY GRAPHIC!

[Rex]

176. Was the tiger wild or was it domesticated?

-"Perhaps Friday's frightening incident will make you realize that a brightly lit stage with pounding music and a screaming audience is not the natural habitat for tigers, lions, or any other exotic animals," PETA Vice President Dan Mathews wrote.-

Depends on if the animals were totally domesticated from generations of the same line. I'm personally glad to see that both men have stated it wasn't the animals fault, and that no harm should come to the tiger. PETA is trying to cash in on a non-issue IMO.

[idontwantaname]

178. it was wild enough.

...

[MacCovern]

179. No such thing as a domesticated tiger

It might depend on how you define domesticated, but animal experts
commented after Roy's mauling that it took hundreds of years for
dogs to become fully domesticated, and tigers are nowhere near that
stage yet!

In the entire world, there are no domesticated tigers. If there were
I would want to have a mini-white tiger myself as a pet!
Check back in the year 2403, and there might be some docile tigers.

[curse10]

180. You can't domesticate a tiger

heck, I've been scratched to hell by my so-called "domesticated" cat

[undergroundpanther]

182. Relating,

Tigers stay wild they aren't predictable, any more than humans are.
If you work with big cats you know you take a calculated risk.People who really desire to understand big cats go to a school,an apprenticeship to learn all they can about Big Cats.
People who get a 'pet'tiger and put it in thier backyard are fools.
However this wild animal issue is wayyy more complicated than it appears on the surface.Tigers are in serious danger of extinction and it is humans who take the land,kill the tigers,and opress people so that killing a tiger can feed thier families. And it is humans who seek to preserve them too.Our civilized system is opressing us,and the entire Earth,the economic opression makes ordinary people do awful things just to survive.Killing a tiger and selling the body can feed a family for awhile.Our human profit system,and our human superstitions isn't the tigers fault.
Some people do genuinely seek to relate to big cats, because they are interested in them and thier welfare.This 'interest'can take different forms including some rather insane ones.
There is alot of misguided romaticism and fear concerning "life in the wild" vs captivity,as well as a kind of false security about ,and serious over-reactions about Big Cats.

Ok I'm gonna note something a bit different here,just something I was speculating on, Isn't it weird how
Sometimes people who seem so"normal" and non threatening..they just"lose it" and go shoot a bunch of people at work, regular people snap and kill people.Yet these confused ,frustrated, angry humans aren't seen as reacting to the invisible bars of "civilized" captivity.Why not?Because we don't see this way of life as captivity. Humans at work are captive,extorted and bored,the trainers whip is the work review and the paycheck as well as fear of it's withdrawl.We are conditioned to work to desire"sucess" and to make money from a very early age. Our parents train us well our culture tains us,the media influences us...Yet people say they sometimes"enjoy" school or a career even when they are captured in the 'system'..And no one says they are prisoners asked to do dumb busywork and perform and claim that it diminishes them.People are born into our cultural captivity.Cultural economic and 'norm'captivity is seen as the way it is.
This is why issues like this one concerning big cats are so raw.
Interesting similarity here Huh?

[tedzbear]

181. Roy hit him first.

I read that Roy tapped the cat on his nose with the mike to get his attention and that was when he grabbed his arm.
I know if someone hit me on the nose with a microphone I would be irritated too.

Sounds like Roy was getting a bit arrogant to think that he could hit a tiger on the nose with impunity. I agree with PETA on this one.

[shimmergal]

186. What do PETA and the people who agree totally with the letter

have to say to the survivors of the man and woman killed by the bear
mauling?

After all, the bear was in its natural habitat.