34 ms·
Ringling Bros. circus to close after 146 years
- freshyill 10y agoThere's no doubt that people want to see exotic animals. Reputable zoos made a transition from entertainment to conservation, but many still have issues. There's no way circuses could ever do that. It's just antithetical to what they are. Animal issues aside, it's a very dated form of entertainment. Frankly, I'm surprised it made it as far as the 1960s.
- knieveltech 10y agoI'm guessing you don't have children? Edit: hit a nerve there did I?
- freshyill 10y agoWhat the hell are you talking about?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hashkb 10y agoGo to Africa or India and see an elephant or lion where it lives. The zoos are only slightly less horrible than the circus.
- nostrademons 10y agoIt's debatable whether introducing humans into wild animal habitats causes less harm than introducing wild animals into human habitats. Certainly better for the individual animals, but I'd imagine that having a bunch of jeeps running around on safari in the middle of virgin wilderness has all sorts of negative effects on the ecosystem.
- apathy 10y agoNice theory but there are a lot of people in Africa without a lot of money who are looking for things to eat. No safaris etc. means no justification for some of these pristine parks, least of all for enforcement. Witness the scores of elephant poisonings in Zimbabwe for poaching purposes. If you view people as contradictory to Nature, your efforts on the largest of continents will come to naught. It's so easy to argue for ideological purity when it doesn't directly affect you or your family (abstract you, for all I know you may live down the road from Kruger). Ultimately though there has to be an incentive for the people affected to part with the resources and opportunity offered by the big animals. Safaris are one (not terribly effective) compromise that at least justifies economically why big animals need to be preserved (no animals means no safaris means a lot less rich visitors).
- hashkb 10y agoSure, but it's the only option. Without safari parks, it'd all be farms/cities. Conservation doesn't make sense unless it makes dollars.
- soundwave106 10y agoNot sure why the downvotes for this; maybe it was the way it was said? Ultimately, I feel that conservation that balance some of the local interests in mind will run into much fewer problems than those that don't. I also feel that you need some of the natural habitat to remain humanly accessible, in part so that people can experience nature and thus get behind preservation efforts. Creating walled off territory where no one but a few Specially Approved Scientists and deep backpackers can enter does not seem to be the best way to build public support. For portions of land, it may be necessary (hence the wilderness preserve designation in many places) but for much of the land, there is a fine balance between preservation and accessibility. Safari parks are imperfect but in my opinion fall into this category. Even in the US, the politics of parks can be contentious. (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/why-it-so-hard-create-national-park http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/storie...) I can only imagine what a developing country would be like. That said regarding an earlier comment, I don't view all zoos as 100% horrible these days. A lot are making genuine efforts to try and improve animal welfare as much as possible.
- madiathomas 10y agoI hope you aren't assuming animals are roaming streets of Africa. I live 60km away from Kruger National Park but have never seen an elephant strolling down a street. Majority of us also go to the zoo to see elephants, just like everyone else.
- hashkb 10y agoI was just in Kruger last month. Why on earth would you go to a zoo if you live so close to it?
- madiathomas 10y agoI keep on postponing the trip. I always tell myself that I will go next year. Been postponing for 20 years now. People who stay closer to something rarely values it. Most people closer to the national parks will pick Eiffel Tower over going to the national park anyday. Vice versa.
- VLM 10y agoIts interesting that for everyone involved its unthinkable to transition from "performance" jumping thru flaming hoops and the like to being a traveling zoo. Better to close than not jump thru hoops of fire. I'd expect there to be a larger faction of the population who are cool with Tigers and want to see one, but flaming hoops don't light their fire. I would imagine a pivot to traveling zoo would take major business changes to move away from the stadium experience and towards more of an amusement park or zoo like experience.
- gnarbarian 10y agoShame. I went when I was a kid and thoroughly enjoyed myself. The elephants were my favorite. I was in awe of a HUGE bull elephant with giant gilded tusks straight out of an indian fairy tale. I think I still have a poster from that event.
- adamnemecek 10y agoNot really. The animals don't deserve this treatment.
- 1_listerine_pls 10y agoOk then, elephants were not his favorite.
- adamnemecek 10y agoReminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKccr8g1xCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKccr8g1xCU
- khazhou 10y agoYou misunderstood. gnarbarian didn't thoroughly enjoy himself.
- mrob 10y agoI think circuses should use only dogs and horses if they want to use animals. These animals are completely domesticated and can be trained with no cruelty. And they can do more impressive tricks than wild animals, so the only drawback is that they're more common. If people want to see rare animals they can go to a zoo.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- asciimo 10y agoWhen an animal is employed toward a human's profit, it usually ends poorly for the animal.
- woodruffw 10y agoOne of my most vivid childhood memories is waking up early in the morning to see the elephants come through the Lincoln Tunnel. It was a truly wonderful experience, one that I wish I could share with others without supporting the overarching practice of show elephants.
- astrodust 10y agoThey could make them animatronic.
- woodruffw 10y agoIndeed, although I suspect that it would be easier to just put paper-mache elephants on car floats ;)
- fennecfoxen 10y agoThe entire point of having elephants at the circus is to see elephants. Real, living, breathing elephants, social creatures which weigh several tons with a brain three times the size of yours - and, in the best case, to see them interacting with humans as part of an elaborately choreographed performance showcasing the strength and skill and agility of man and beast alike. Animatronic mockeries? Why bother?
- DanBC 10y agoRoyal de Luxe seems to do well with their giant elephant puppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_de_Luxe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_de_Luxe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_de_luxe_%C3%A0_Amiens_en_2005.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_de_luxe_%C3%A0_Amie...
- astrodust 10y agoPrecisely. You can celebrate the animal without keeping them captive.
- astrodust 10y ago
- dcwca 10y agoStep right up to one of the many amazing animal-free circuses. Cirque du Soleil in particular puts on an incredible show. http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/amazing-animal-free-circuses/ http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/amazing-anima...
- mattlevan 10y agoQueue complaints about how acrobats' living/working conditions are just as poor in 3.. 2.. 1..
- aerovistae 10y agoCouldn't agree more.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- troymc 10y agoI think the decision not to have animals in the Cirque du Soleil was also a business decision: animals are expensive and unreliable, so cutting them reduced expenses a lot. The downside was that there were no exotic animals to draw people to the show, so maybe less demand. Times had changed though. Back when Barnum & Bailey got started, elephants were truly exotic: many people who went to the show had never seen them before. Even photographs were rare. When Cirque got started in the 1980s, elephants were not mysterious exotic creatures any more.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoI always thought of Cirque de Soleil as a more of an adult show? No? Not that there is adult content, but I had the impression that they are marketed towards entertaining adults. Do they market to families as well? Ringling Bros always were a thing to bring your kids to, they were always marketed primarily towards children. I can totally see an adult couple going to Cirque de Soleil, I can't really see an adult couple going to Ringling Bros without children. I may be way off base here. Wild animals appeal mostly to children. I gotta agree though, animal acts are totally outdated. Especially now. For Cirque, I think it was a business decision but also a different market than Ringling Bros.
- georgeburdell 10y agoThis is good news. I believe that circuses and zoos will be viewed, in retrospect, quite harshly in the future, and we'll wonder why the unnatural confinement of animals was so normalized. I have fond memories of these places as a child, but I went to the San Diego Zoo last year and the animals just looked miserable in the summer heat - especially the polar bears.
- dizzystar 10y agoThere are species that only live in zoos. In other words, if it wasn't for zoos, these animals would be extinct (in part due to human over-hunting). Some species that were once on the edge of extinction have been re-released into the wild due to the efforts of the zoos, and they should be commended for this kind of effort.
- VLM 10y agoIf feelings and social signalling get "us" to a place, you can't expect logic and reason to get "us" out. Zoos are utterly doomed, it doesn't matter if they're logically or rationally good or not.
- chomp 10y agoCircus, sure. Zoo, I don't believe it. A lot of zoos perform conservation work, and a lot of this work is funded thanks in part to zoo patronage.
- jonathankoren 10y agoZoos? Quite frankly without zoos, the holocene mass extinction would be going even stronger.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- fennecfoxen 10y agoModern zoos are orders of magnitude nicer to animals than historic zoos were and far nicer than circuses could ever be. The Asheville zoo, which I visited regularly while growing up, gives the elephants 37 acres.
- sergiotapia 10y agoThis is so incredibly sad. :( My parents used to take me so often in Boston. I hope the performers manage to land on their feet.
- bksenior 10y ago10/10 pun
- tritosomal 10y agoAt this point, it's pretty tough to feel good about a circus modeled around 19th century nostalgia. We all kind of know that we're well beyond sheer domination of all things earthly and bestial. There's not much to revel in, and it's not valuable to teach your children to revel in such displays. Maybe it'll put a smile on their face, and they'll talk about it for weeks afterward, but there are other things going on in the world right now, and it's probably a good idea to figure out how to entertain our kids more wisely.
- donatj 10y agoI bet you're a hoot at parties.
- Proof 10y agoI'm quite curious to see what he has to say about Monster Jams.... If I had a choice between a Circus and MJs: Circus would win every time.
- throwarray54321 10y agoHey dang, how about banning this cock for his insubstantive comments that add nothing to the conversation. Where's the boilerplate response from standards and practices? We need the operant conditioning to induce community standards, asap.
- jonathankoren 10y agoComplain with your own name.
- donatj 10y agoI'm certainly sorry for my rash, emotion fueld comment, but there's no pattern of "insubstantive comments" the throw away indicated.
- EGreg 10y agoPerhaps we should stop sending our kids to schools designed around a model of classroom learning in the 19th century, also. Overdiagnosis of ADHD is the result of forcing kids to sit down and shut up for 10 hours a day
- RichardHeart 10y agoThat's a really long time. I'm curious what other really long running shows of any type are still going out there.
- sympodius 10y agoThe Mousetrap by Agatha Christie has been running for almost 65 years (it's been running continually since it opened in 1952).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 10y agoIn recent years, Ringling Bros. tried to remain relevant, hiring its first African American ringmaster, then its first female ringmaster, and also launching an interactive app. It added elements from its other, popular shows, such as motorbike daredevils and ice skaters. But it seemingly was no match for Pokemon Go and a generation of kids who desire familiar brands and YouTube celebrities. I think if they made a great app and some kind of brand phenomenon, it could have gone very differently.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI've got a lot of mixed emotions about this. It was interesting that CBS aired a story on Friday about the 'first female ring master'[1] and then it drops that the show is closing. An acquaintance of mine from grade school has pretty tirelessly crusaded against circuses for their mistreatment of animals. And for them, even the notion that you could "take excellent care" of an animal in your care that your raised from birth is an abomination if that animal is not allowed to run free in their original habitat (not that they would survive at that point but still...) But I've always enjoyed people pushing themselves to the edge to see if they can. As a result high wire acts, trapezes, and even the clown routines are fond memories for me. If I'm honest with myself though it is just nostalgia for a different time. That time is past, whether or not there is a circus to go to. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ringling-brothers-woman-ringmaster-first-kristen-michelle-wilson/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ringling-brothers-woman-ringmast...
- marricks 10y agoI'm also against circuses massively, pushing people to their limits is fine and great if people are up for it, animals taken from their environment just to entertain us? Less so. If we want to "enjoy" an animal it should be on their terms. We have Circu De Soleil now though, right? They don't use animals and do some amazing things. I'm not sure what there is to morn.
- slfnflctd 10y ago> animals taken from their environment just to entertain us? Funny thing-- it's not too much of a stretch to extend this to pet ownership, as well. I have mixed feelings about all of it, honestly, but since these are essentially intractable problems at this point in time, I believe it comes down to how each individual animal is treated. I certainly think it's quite possible to have a large, 'exotic' animal who is trained to perform from birth to be happy and have a decent quality of life, just as I think the same is possible for that puppy or kitty adopted by someone you know. It seems clear to me that neither is ideal, but there are plenty of examples of better and worse situations. It's not black & white. Regardless, in my view, anyone concerned enough to protest the treatment of animals in circuses and/or zoos is being hypocritical if they're not working just as hard (or harder) to end the suffering of all the other sentient creatures we subject to 'unnatural' conditions on a vastly larger scale. Right now, the best we can seem do is keep saying "spay and neuter" like we have for at least half a century, and too many people still don't even seem to be getting that utterly basic message.
- tranv94 10y agoWhat happens to all the animals?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 10y agoConservation parks.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago>The [owners] say their existing animals — lions, tigers, camels, donkeys, alpacas, kangaroos and llamas — will go to suitable homes... the company will continue operating the Center for Elephant Conservation.
- noobermin 10y agoI'm not sure if anything is as indicative of changes in these modern times as this.
- aaron695 10y agoLol, we shoot animals in the head, cut their flesh from their bodies and consume it for fun. Should we give animals a life without predators(aka murders) shelter and food it's bad. > "I applaud their decision to move away from an institution grounded on inherently inhumane wild animal acts." Humans are wild animals, yet we don't want to live in the wild, it kinda sucks bigtime.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nommm-nommm 10y ago>when the elephants left, there was a "dramatic drop" in ticket sales. Paradoxically, while many said they didn't want big animals to perform in circuses, many others refused to attend a circus without them. This isn't paradoxical. The people protesting the circus are obviously not the same people buying tickets to the circus. They seriously half assed it. They only dropped elephants, and pretty suddenly at that.... But left "lions, tigers, camels, donkeys, alpacas, kangaroos and llamas." Not nearly enough to keep the animal welfare people happy but just enough to annoy the ticket buyers. People who want to see tigers jump through flaming hoops also want to see elephants "perform." 99.9% of the people who object to elephants being in circuses are then going to object to other wild animals being in circuses. Removing elephants but leaving lions doesn't please them and it doesn't even make sense. By getting rid of one without the other they made exactly nobody happy and signed their own death certificate. How the hell did nobody see this? I guess it was a knee jerk reaction? They might have used the opportunity to have reimagined themselves as a modern circus without animals... Maybe, if they reformatted themselves and modernized. But I think their identity may have been too interwoven with animals to be able to move forward. But the question posed remains, would people bring their kids to this kind of show without the allure of exotic animals? Probably. But maybe not under the Ringling Bros name. Maybe the writing was on the wall for years and the elephants were the last nail in the coffin. I, personally, feel that Ringling Bros always was kind of still an outdated sideshow act. Sorry, Ringling, you stayed in the wrong century.
- sigi45 10y agoI haven't been to any circus show for ages. I don't think it would have changed at all when they would have reinvented themselfs without animals. You see so much stuff online already. The only relevant circus are already those with international acts. Casting globally for a tour with 1-4 different shows.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoModern circuses are a thing and are popular. Cirque de Soleil being the biggest example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_circus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_circus It's a different sort of show.
- wvenable 10y ago> But it seemingly was no match for Pokemon Go and a generation of kids who desire familiar brands and YouTube celebrities. I hate how stuff is just thrown into articles like this as if it's fact. The circus was passé when I was a kid 30 years ago. I could throw out unsubstantiated garbage like this as well and claim that kids today are actually much more understanding of animal welfare and would rather see animals in their natural habit on Youtube than see them perform tricks on a stage.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoThank you! I totally agree! I found this too be odd for the same reason. And I think you are absolutely right. I never thought about it before but passé is extremely accurate. I remember, I went to the Ringling Bros circus, once, as a child [almost] 30 year ago. Before the internet, before [ubiquitous] computers, before cellphones, before iPads, before YouTube, before pokemom [even the card games], and even before Tamagotchis. I had an very small world at that time, I had the library and I had tv. I was also very easily entertained as a result. I was excited because "circus" and you hear a lot about "circus" on TV and pop culture. Sounded exciting because of media. I remember it as just odd. The reason why it is so memorable is because it was so odd. First there were the protesters, I couldn't even begin to understand at that time why they were protesting but the idea that some people didn't approve of this didn't sit very well with me. Before my trip to the circus I've never seen any protesters ever in my life. Then the show. It was... OK. Animals didn't impress me, they were more interesting on TV and in books than performing. Seemed unnatural and almost distracting and not at all impressive. I don't really remember the other performances because they seemed to REALLY want to showcase the animals. I kinda felt, even as young as I was, that this was just outdated. Even though I wasn't able to articulate it or even understand it then. My mom said she felt the same way too, "well I always wanted to to the circus, I did, now I won't go again." Seem like they were cruzing on nostalgia for half a century. It's never a good sign when a kid goes in for entertainment and comes out confused. Seems like they were cruzing on nostalgia for half a century. "I could... claim that kids today are actually much more understanding of animal welfare and would rather see animals in their natural habit on Youtube than see them perform tricks on a stage." - I think this is probably more accurate. :) I [totally unscientifically] think that most humans enjoy watching big cats with catnip on YouTube more than big cats being coaxed to jump through a fire hoop. (At least I do...)
- in_cahoots 10y agoAll the slights about 'kids these days' with their TV, YouTube, Pokémon Go, and short attention spans seem pretty unfounded. I see tons of kids lining up to see Cirque du Soleil, or Wicked, or Penn & Teller. All of those shows are just as long as the circus, and much more expensive. If I had to guess I would say that our standards for 'awe-inspiring' have changed. Dancing elephants are a lot less exotic when you can watch them in 1080p with David Attenborough narrating. The human acrobatics are nice, but not as thrilling as Cirque du Soleil or the X-Games. Add in the nagging feeling that watching animals perform is unsavory at best, and it's no wonder that the business was unsustainable.
- DanBC 10y ago> All the slights about 'kids these days' with their TV, YouTube, Pokémon Go, and short attention spans seem pretty unfounded ...and people have been saying it for years. The distracting thing has changed over time. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch_that_dial.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
- nightcracker 10y agoFirst (not really, but gotta start somewhere) it was books, then it was comics, then it was television, then it was computers, then it was smartphones, then it'll be VR, and then it'll be... Kids these days...
- doingmyting 10y agoThat took a while. SeaWorld, you're up next!
- Animats 10y agoSad. It will be tough on the circus folk. That's a culture of its own, with hard-won skills useless elsewhere. Now they have to find other jobs.
- fattire 10y agoThere's always politics.
- AngelicaAurora 10y agoCould have evolved into a 100 youtube channels. Failed opportunity.
- eltoozero 10y agoIt's just the shakeout of a shifting entertainment marketplace. All markets are cyclical. Though I'm sure PETA will take plenty of credit.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- stOneskull 10y agoFuck 'em.
- trelliscoded 10y agoWe've gone from a time where entertainment was one size fits all, to a world where all sizes try to fit you.
- losteverything 10y agoI'm stealing this one.
- socialist_coder 10y agoI went to a circus here in Germany and it only featured domesticated animals such as camels, goats, donkeys, llamas and sheep. Wasn't too bad but I still felt sorry for them =\
- yardie 10y agoThat's kind of sad as we were just at the Miami show this Saturday. I've never been to a circus and this was the first time for our son and I. I didn't even realize the elephants weren't in the show. It just never occurred to me that they were a requirement. The show was really good. The audience was full of kids. For a 11AM showing I was expecting a half filled arena but it was surprisingly full. Tickets were $18-$35 which for a live performance really is good value compared to a movie theater. The theme for this show was space exploration so they had a lot more human daredevil stunts. The animal entertainment I do remember were the big cats, horses ridden by kazakhs, and domesticated animals doing parlor tricks (dogs, a big pig, and llamas). The ice skaters, motorcyclists, and flying acrobats had a bigger impact. Okay, the big cats too. They were really amazing. Sad to see it go, it's my first time and now I see it will be the last time.
- nkkollaw 10y agoThis is good news. There's no reason to treat animals like they do, in 2017. Do a VR one.
- puddintane 10y agoShould be noted some zoos do spend enough on habitats to make them worthwhile, however this is very slim as well as not doable for all animals. In my state (Colorado) we have something called a sanctuary [1]. From humans being put high up into the air (via a 40 foot tall bridge that crosses the entire complex) which simulates a more natural way for us to observe the different animals they house (they specialize in carnivorous species), to larger and more natural feeling habitats for each different species (over 720 Acres devoted to over 450 rescued animals) They spoke of Zoos and how bad they are most of the time, however the Denver Zoo they said were better then most other Zoos in our country when it came to building decent habitats. However in my opinion the sanctuary is an example of how every Zoo should alter its setup. I wouldn't even mind helping donate to my local zoo for this change and I highly believe the masses would contribute as well. [1] http://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org http://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org
- kuschku 10y agoThat zoo expands on the Hagenbeck concept – an idea Carl Hagenbeck developed in 1907, where he wanted to construct a zoo without glass or fences – and researched how far and high animals could leap, and just built moats of the appropriate size around their habitat sin his zoo. You can read more about the original concept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierpark_Hagenbeck#Panorama_exhibits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierpark_Hagenbeck#Panorama_ex...
- puddintane 10y agoVery interesting I'm gonna forward this to the Sanctuary they should have this in the intro* talk they give to each new group. Thank you!
- bane 10y agoIf you live within a drive of the Washington D.C. zoo, much of the zoo is built in this way. There's even a rope over the humans that monkeys can climb across to navigate between different parts of their habitat. However, some of the harder to contain animals still end up behind glass or bars. But then you can also get up to within an inch or two of a mature Gorilla and interact with him a bit. I can't help but feel sad for the animals, but you can also learn tremendous amounts about them by seeing them so close.
- losteverything 10y agoWe debated this in our household years ago. Seeing live animals like orcas and dolphins and elephants etc.. gives children an appreciation of those species they can't get any other way. To see them is extremely important to understanding why they should be protected. Is it better to not be able to see them for yourselves live - the enormity and grace - or just not learn about them at all. Having sea world and zoos and circuses benefit the cause for conservation. (I lost the debate in my household)
- asciimo 10y agoYes, it is important to understand the awesome beauty of nature and why we should protect it. Ironically, you would be harming these animals by supporting the institutions that enslave them. There are many ways to learn about subjects without observing them first-hand, especially these days with immersive media technology. Alternatively, there are sanctuaries that exist primarily for the well-being of the animals, though they may take some effort to discover and visit.
- losteverything 10y ago<There are many ways to learn about subjects without observing them first-hand, The crux of family debate. I do not agree that vr or any other form has the same effect and affect as seeing and touching these love creatures. Zoos etc teach and discovery is personal ( not like a video or lecture)
- sizzzzlerz 10y agoThe circus is an affectation of nostalgia held by people that weren't even born when the circus was still a thing. They may have read a book when they were children that was 40 or 50 years old at that time that showed clowns and happy lions and bears dancing on balls. Like other cultural touchstones, horse racing, boxing, the Harlem Globetrotters, their time is past. They've been existing on fumes for decades and, now, those fumes are dissipating.
- bogomipz 10y ago>"The circus is an affectation of nostalgia held by people that weren't even born when the circus was still a thing." So identical to "mixologists" with Reconstruction-era facial hair that make pre-prohibition era cocktails for adults. These are are hugely popular though and seemingly everywhere these days. Also circuses are for children, thats the target demographic. I don't think a 5 or 6 year old has an "affectation of nostalgia."
- kowdermeister 10y agoVR will pick up on this space :)
- encoderer 10y agoIf you're ever in Sarasota, FL check out the Ringling museum. The circus was a remarkable moving city.
- ebaustin 10y agoThe Big Apple Circus, which has only used domesticated animals for years, is liquidating. The Ringling Bros. closing would have eventually happened, with or without the protests.