Don't blow cash on show that supports animal maltreatment
When I heard the Royal Hanneford Circus was coming to Breslin Center and after reading a bit about it, I was appalled. No one has anything good to say about the circus. It has violated USDA regulations numerous times in the past 12 years — allowing animals with painful foot problems to perform and suffer, and by failing to provide adequate veterinary care, not to mention by keeping animals in cages that are legally too small.
The circus failed to provide up-to-date tuberculosis test records in the past, and when the records were finally given, one of the elephants tested positive, with the other two elephants having come in close contact. Dogs live in cages with less than six inches of headroom and less than five square feet of floor space. I cannot understand why MSU would want to promote something that allows for such atrocities, nor will I support it. I vote no on the circus in East Lansing!
Kristen Lindley
anthropology sophomore
Published on Thursday, February 14, 2008
Comments
More Pointless Evolution Debate
02/14/08 @ 7:32pm
Homo sapiens have outcompeted the other animals.
By way of natural selection, all other animals that can be eliminated should be eliminated; unless, they can dance for our entertainment.
The comment above
02/14/08 @ 9:39pm
The comment above is by far the funniest thing I hae ever read here. Pat yourself on the back.
I seriously coughed up my coca cola when I read it.
Ben
02/14/08 @ 11:37pm
Perhaps we could force these animals to perform in competition, then shoot and eat the loosers?
Phil
02/15/08 @ 7:48am
I can’t wait until my kids are old enough to take them to the circus. I want that they enjoy seeing the elephants, lions and other animals.
Purple monkey dishwasher
02/15/08 @ 8:21am
Will you also enjoy seeing your kids get eaten by a lion or trampled on by an elephant?
blah blah blah
02/15/08 @ 9:06am
Ben, great idea, but elephant is a little tough, can we use spotted owl instead? They are delicious!
Dan
02/15/08 @ 9:09am
Why are the same people that are concerned about the lives of stupid animals are staunchly against preserving the lives on unborn human babies?
Nate
02/15/08 @ 10:03am
Dan: Nice trolling job. The article could be about paint drying and you would still find a way to insert the same old neo-con talking points. (Paint drying!! That’s liberal slang for kicking fetuses and burning flags!!)
First of all, I think animal abuse is a concern that people all over the political spectrum agree on. But if you’re going to play the generalization game, I have a question for you.
Why are the same people that are concerned with the lives of a 32-cell organism staunchly for the death penalty? I always thought “pro-lifers” were exactly that, pro life; but for the most part they are supportive of an institution that has killed a lot of innocent people.
blah blah blah
02/15/08 @ 10:12am
Nate, where did you come up with the hard and fast number of “a lot” of innocent people? Can you put a percentage on that or a real number that is backed up with facts and evidence? How many of those 32-cell organisms are guilty of a crime? And what crime are they guilt of that requires a death penalty?
Ken
02/15/08 @ 10:22am
The exploitation, abuse, and systematic (habitat destruction, poisoning water sources, consuming feed supply, etc) elimination of wildlife is a pretty ugly indictment of the human species. It is also arguably a strong indicator of our own self-extinction.
Let’s not be foolish though, >97% of all animal and plant species to ever live on the planet are extinct, so the human race will have its end regardless of our long term plans. BUT, that said, we have an obligation to ourselves to live symbioticly with other organisms. Most other species have been very, very successful at this task, some, such as ants (which have a biomass greater than humans), are even more prolific than us, but you’d never know they existed were you not to see them in your kitchen or get a bite from one.
I think the circus and the zoo are perfect examples of humanity’s inability practice symbiosis. What more disgusting of a statement is there than to willfully exploit the innocence/instinct of another? We don’t perform forced medical testing on the mentally challenged or children, even though they are readily available and lack the intellectual constructs to protest. So what makes the circus, zoo, or animal testing any different? Is it that animals aren’t people that makes it okay?
If so, then we pretty much deserve all the horrible things that happen to us because such ego is not found in nature, and it should be argued that inflated ego is unnatural and thus not a characteristic of a well evolved species. That makes me think that humans came to power because we were so much smarter than other animals, but then in our supremacy, we got dumb again and are destined for the evolution trash heap.
Nate
02/15/08 @ 10:27am
“However, at least 39 executions have been carried out in the United States in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt.”
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/executinginnocent/
“Newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the US”
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/575.php
That is in the US alone, and I would consider that a lot of people.
And i’m still wondering how you can support the death penalty but be pro-life. A 32-cell organism does not have complex thoughts, feelings, or emotions like an innocent person on death row.
Dan
02/15/08 @ 11:13am
I am a neo-con? I wasn’t aware of this… Anyway, I simply posed a rational question. With all honesty, it was the first thing that popped to my head when I read this article. I didn’t mean to voice a political opinion that pissed anyone off. My rational question was: how can PETA-type people be so pro-animal life and so pro-abortion? It just seems illogical to me. It has nothing to do with being a neo-con (haha) or being pro-death penalty (which I oppose – does that still classify me as a neo-con in your eyes?) I just want to know the psyche of a liberal. Pro-animal life, anti-human life. It just seems kinda silly.
Mark
02/15/08 @ 12:26pm
Why must we conflate so many issues that are so different? Each issue has a number of facts that people can weight differently in making thier decisions on an issue.
Come On
02/15/08 @ 2:43pm
The comments started out funny, then turned into drawn-out, coma-inducing diatribes worthy of Sunday morning political panel TV. Tim Russert is boring.
Fredrik
02/16/08 @ 1:10pm
Dan, let me rebut your argument.
First of all, the political issue of abortion is strongly misleading. The divide appears to be between advocates of abortion and opponents of it. I don’t think this could be further from the truth. It’s not about abortion, per se, it’s more of a debate about government involvement in decisions regarding whether women should have a formal right to have an abortion or not. It incidentally stops there, too, because whether women will have abortions or not cannot be outlined in the law, just the government’s endorsement of it and permission.
Furthermore, if I consider myself “pro-choice”, it is especially not equivalent to “pro-abortion”. I don’t support the killing of any being and I don’t wish abortions to happen, but rather if they must or will happen, the Government need not restrict the (safe) means or else women will resort to unsafe means.
Finally, all that being said, I condemn unnecessary killing of any being, and whether it’s an animal or an infant, they both deserve to live, but as I’ve alluded to above, nothing is absolute.