Kangaroos forced to box

[MsQwerty]

Hi, MsQwerty.

To you, there is a difference.

To the kangaroo, there is no difference. He reacts to a human trainer the same way he reacts to a competing male in the wild (which is why I attached that video).

If the trainer had been beating up on the kangaroo or malnourishing the kangaroo or running Frankenstein experiments on the kangaroo, I would agree fully with you. But, the trainer deliberately refrained from landing a single punch, and, if you watch the video, did not "aggravate" the kangaroo: the kangaroo came out swinging while the trainer's back was turned!

Letting oneself get pummeled by a wild animal in front of a crowd while taking measures to prevent serious injury simply is not animal abuse in my book.

Any actual abuse that did occur here was of such a small measure as to be a complete waste of effort to try to rectify. If animal abuse really upsets you, focus on Michael Vick and commercial pork farms.

This trainer has been investigated for animal cruelty to kangaroos prior to being in the spotlight this time. Kangaroos have to be pretty upset to turn on a human - you can bet your Vegemite this guy has done something to make the animal aggravated enough to attack in any way. Go to any animal farm, sanctuary or zoo in Australia where families and children are free to wander around petting the kangaroos in enclosures - there is rarely any danger even when the animal has been touched all day by humans. As a matter of fact they will move away from you when they've had enough of being petted by adoring children and tourists.

But hey, if you prefer to believe they make unprovoked attacks on people as this 'clown' is trying to convince you, go right ahead.

[MsQwerty]

Absolutely. That's the point. If we all get behind you we can probably get some employees laid off, take away their health benefits and cause them to lose their mortgages. That will really show how atrocious it is make animals wrestle with clowns.

Next I say we go after the seeing eye dog industry. An enlightened citizenry should not allow slavery,

Or, it might just make a point to Kraft that consumers don't wish to support a multi-national corporation that behaves in an unethical fashion. They won't lay anyone off, they'll simply modify their stance to avoid losing customers - as has been proven in the situation we're discussing in this thread.

[Bini]

I'm against provoking animals in order to create an amusing or entertaining spectacle for people. Provoking meaning, taunting the animal to the point where it instinctively feels it needs to fight, regardless if it's just for show. Animals don't have to be physically beaten on to be abused by people. Animal abuse comes in all kinds of forms, many that are acceptable forms by society too. Horse racing and greyhound racing being one of those acceptable forms of animal abuse. These animals are bred and forced into a high-performance spectacle, that quickly wears and tears on their bodies, all for the amusing and entertaining enjoyment for people. This is unacceptable in my opinion.

As for the OP. Never seen any videos or read any articles on this. But anyone who is being investigated for animal abuse and negligence, should not be allowed to continue working with animals until they're cleared by an investigation.

[marts1]

I think there is a fine line as to what is right and wrong on this subject. All of nature including animals are here for the benefit of man. I think it is just as easy to go overboard in favour of one side as it is the other.

[Bluejay]

Hi, MsQwerty.

This trainer has been investigated for animal cruelty to kangaroos prior to being in the spotlight this time.

Great, so why are you complaining about boxing, rather than about that prior case of animal cruelty?

If that prior case of animal cruelty hadn't happened, would the boxing episode still be wrong?

If so, argue your case on the merits of your case alone, and stop bringing in extraneous details.

If not, then stop pretending that boxing is the real issue.

-----

Kangaroos have to be pretty upset to turn on a human

And you are capable of judging how upset a kangaroo is, are you?

How do you judge this? By whether or not the kangaroo attacks?

That's circular reasoning there.

Furthermore, I hope you noticed that the kangaroo only attacked the trainer, even though there were at least two other viable targets. This animal has not be mentally or emotionally scarred by this trainer's actions: rather, he has only been convinced that this trainer is a competing male that needs to be put in his place.

If the kangaroo was rampaging and attacking everyone in sight, you would have a point that this kangaroo has been severely affected by this; but, since the kangaroo's behavior is very precise and focused, this is only a case of making it perceive that one person as a threat.

-----

Go to any animal farm, sanctuary or zoo in Australia...

American zoos have kangaroos too, you know.

And, not all Australians are experts on kangaroo behavior.

-----

...families and children are free to wander around petting the kangaroos in enclosures - there is rarely any danger even when the animal has been touched all day by humans. As a matter of fact they will move away from you when they've had enough of being petted by adoring children and tourists.

But hey' date=' if you prefer to believe they make unprovoked attacks on people as this 'clown' is trying to convince you, go right ahead.[/quote']

Two things:

One, conditioning goes both ways.

Just as animals must be conditioned to fight a human, they must be conditioned to allow a human to pet them. If you don't believe me, go try and pet a wild boomer, and return and report to us the results of your encounter.

I argue that it is better to train an animal to dislike humans than it is to train them to let humans come close enough to pet them, because docility toward humans has greater potential to get an animal harmed. So, it could be argued that petting zoos are more abusive than boxing matches.

-----

Two, you are anthropomorphizing kangaroos. Boxing/fighting is an instinct for kangaroos: it is not an emotional, human response to abuse, as you are trying to portray it. Expose that kangaroo to another male kangaroo, and you may also see fighting. Repeatedly expose that kangaroo to another male kangaroo with which it has had fights in the past, and you definitely will see fighting.

You are saying that it is abusive for the trainer to convince a kangaroo that he is a competing male, and let the kangaroo wallop him.

This is how kangaroos live, MsQwerty. They don't have opinions on whether or not certain actions are right or wrong: rather, they simply respond in the way that is most conducive to their survival. You are transposing your own feelings onto the kangaroo, when, in reality, the kangaroo doesn't care.

-----

I commend you for your sense of justice and ethics, but I feel that your effort could be better spent on other, more substantive cases of animal abuse. In this case, your emotional outrage is in great disproportion to the actual crime being commited.

Please focus on more important cases, such as habitat loss for millions of animals in the tropical rainforests of the world, or animals developing bonafide neuroses after being chained up or kept in tiny cages for long periods of time, or even chickens at meat-growing facilities being kept in stacked in tiny cages so that the ones on bottom get inundating in the droppings from the chickens above them.

Don't waste your time on idiots trying to get beat up by kangaroos.

[Guest]

Questions for need4peace:

1.) What is your stance on Barnum and Bailey Circus?

2.) What is your stance on non-domesticated pet ownership?

MsQwerty, can you answer these questions for me too? Just for clarification.

[Snow]

Please join me in a moment of silence as we mourn the pain and suffering of those kangaroos who were tricked in to rough-housing with clowns.

[Dravin]

Please join me in a moment of silence as we mourn the pain and suffering of those kangaroos who were tricked in to rough-housing with clowns.

I rough-housed with a clown once... I'm still in therapy.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Dravin

[Bluejay]

I rough-house with a clown once... I'm still in therapy.

Sorry, Dravin: there will be no sympathy for people who rough-house with clowns---it's only wrong when it's done to kangaroos.

[MsQwerty]

Hi, MsQwerty.

I commend you for your sense of justice and ethics, but I feel that your effort could be better spent on other, more substantive cases of animal abuse. In this case, your emotional outrage is in great disproportion to the actual crime being commited.

Please focus on more important cases, such as habitat loss for millions of animals in the tropical rainforests of the world, or animals developing bonafide neuroses after being chained up or kept in tiny cages for long periods of time, or even chickens at meat-growing facilities being kept in stacked in tiny cages so that the ones on bottom get inundating in the droppings from the chickens above them.

Don't waste your time on idiots trying to get beat up by kangaroos.

Oh please don't tell me what is important as far as social issues go. How dare you make assumptions about what causes I may or may not be involved in - you have absolutely NO idea. Believe me I am not uneducated in matters of animal welfare in spite of your effort to paint me that way. Your patronising comments are only aimed at furthering your assumption that the abuse of a the aforementioned kangaroo in captivity is harmless.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter of the kangaroo - however you are NOT entitled to make assumptions about my understanding or involvement in issues affecting our society and environment.

If you want to play that silly game, then let's just drag in every conceivable cause in the world today and up the ante with each post. I could tell you to stop carrying on about brainless chickens you are anthropomorphising as having 'neuroses' - I mean honestly, are you a chicken psychologist? And isn't that very concept, by your own admission, an oxymoron? If your chickens are allowed to be 'neurotic' then the kangaroo can be categorised as being 'upset' at being 'harassed'.

And using your pseudo-understanding of logic, I could also suggest you stop worrying about dumb animals who don't have feelings, when there are child soldiers in Sierra Leone and starving children and AIDS orphans in Africa and Haiti, oh, and sweatshops in India and Asia... Can I make a suggestion that you get on board with Operation Uganda and help women in village communities become self-sufficient by importing and selling their paper-bead jewellery and other ornaments? Am I to assume that because you haven't mentioned these or any number of other social causes, that you just don't care about them? That is what you have tried to imply about me. Just because a person is concerned about one issue does not make them some kind of uninformed nitwit on other causes - get the idea?

So let's not play animal-cause ping-pong - when the fact is that we all do what good we can within our own sphere of influence. If I believe an animal is being mistreated, I will make my views known and do what I can to alter the outcome. That doesn't mean I don't care about battery hens, the abuses of factory farms, scientific experiments on beagles or the mistreatment of circus animals. What it does mean is that in this case, I see a 'trainer' who has already been investigated for animal cruelty and the deaths of two kangaroos in his care, mistreating another animal he owns. Commenting on one issue does not make a person blind to all others - it just means that is the issue I choose to discuss in this instance.

Whether you like it or not - I have my opinion on the matter. Take it or leave it - I care not. You don't believe the kangaroo was mistreated - that's fine even though I disagree. Just don't make assumptions about the kind of person I am or my level of social awareness - you are in no position to know those things.

[MsQwerty]

MsQwerty, can you answer these questions for me too? Just for clarification.

Can you answer them for me, too. Thanks.

I do not support circuses that cage and showcase animals.

I do not support the keeping of exotic animals in a domestic environment.

I'm not as diligent as I could be, but I try to be ethical with the purchase of any animal products.

[marts1]

What are your thoughts on killing animals for food?

[MsQwerty]

What are your thoughts on killing animals for food?

What are yours?

[marts1]

Hey, I asked first lol. If it was a matter of life or death (starvation), I would give thanks and kill the beast. This, I realize, means I should not eat meat. I blame this weakness on the way I was raised. I should work on this soon.

[Finrock]

I have no problems killing animals for food. I feel good about it each time I eat a piece of meat.

I think the kangaroo is A-OK based on the video. Nothing sick or disgusting about it. I would gladly pay money to take my kids to see the show and I would feel very good about it afterwards.

Regards,

Finrock

[Bluejay]

What are your thoughts on killing animals for food?

The same as my thoughts on killing plants for food.

Either way, it's still killing.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Bluejay
"thoughts" is meant to be plural

[Bluejay]

Hi, MsQwerty.

Oh please don't tell me what is important as far as social issues go. How dare you make assumptions about what causes I may or may not be involved in - you have absolutely NO idea...

... Just don't make assumptions about the kind of person I am or my level of social awareness - you are in no position to know those things...

...Believe me I am not uneducated in matters of animal welfare in spite of your effort to paint me that way.

Calm down! You’re blowing this way out of proportion.

It certainly wasn’t my intention to accuse you of ignorance, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. I suppose it didn’t help my cause when I responded to a few of your peripheral comments with my irritable keystrokes. I’ve made a large number of such mistakes in a number of settings over the last couple of weeks, and I very sincerely wish I could redo the entire week, but alas, time only runs in one direction for me.

I added that last section about other cases you should spend your time on in the hope that you would realize that I’m not antagonistic to animal rights, and am not your enemy, but just somebody who disagrees with you on the importance of one minor case study. Since it obviously had the opposite effect from what I intended, I wish I could take it back and try a different approach, but it’s too late for that now.

I am a biologist, by the way, and I have spent a lot of time studying animal behavior: I am kind of speaking from expertise here. Granted, my experience is mostly with spiders and insects, but I have experience with mammals and birds, too.

-----

I could tell you to stop carrying on about brainless chickens you are anthropomorphising as having 'neuroses' - I mean honestly, are you a chicken psychologist? And isn't that very concept, by your own admission, an oxymoron? If your chickens are allowed to be 'neurotic' then the kangaroo can be categorised as being 'upset' at being 'harassed'.

A neurosis is a malfunction of the brain. Anything with a brain can have a neurosis. The signs of a neurosis are abnormal behaviors, which, for chickens, includes pulling out feathers, tics and twitches, over-alertness and excessive belligerence. (I’m not a chicken psychologist, but I did consider poultry science as a major in college).

If the kangaroo had gone on a rampage, attacking everybody in its reach, you could easily make the case that the kangaroo was suffering from a neurosis. But, since it only attacked one person, and was otherwise very calm and peaceable, it’s clear that this kangaroo’s behavior was not abnormal. This shows that the kangaroo has not really been adversely, lastingly affected by this boxing performance. The only thing going on here was a kangaroo learning to associate the trainer and his boxing outfit with the group of things that need to be attacked. This is not neurotic behavior: it’s just learning.

Boxing behavior is a normal behavior for kangaroos. This kangaroo was acting “normal” in an “abnormal” situation: as long as we’re anthropomorphizing animals, this sounds like the kangaroo’s character has been strengthened by the boxing. But, those of us who prefer not to anthropomorphize the kangaroo simply say that it has learned to associate one stimulus with a group of other stimuli, and react to them all the same way.

-----

And using your pseudo-understanding of logic, I could also suggest you stop worrying about dumb animals who don't have feelings, when there are child soldiers in Sierra Leone and starving children and AIDS orphans in Africa and Haiti, oh, and sweatshops in India and Asia...

(emphasis mine)

This is an appeal to emotions. Appealing to emotions is, by definition, not logical, MsQwerty. In logic, it is considered a type of red herring (irrelevancy) fallacy. I am somewhat trained in formal logic, too, by the way.

My argument was not an appeal to emotions, but an appeal to you to recognize that you don’t really know the kangaroo psyche. It is folly for you to conclude that the kangaroo’s behavior is a tragic result of abuse. I didn’t make a value judgment about the kangaroo based on its emotional capacity (or lack thereof), and I don’t perceive animal cruelty to be a less noble cause than sweatshops in India because of difference in emotional or sentient capacity between sweatshop workers and kangaroos.

I only attempted to make you understand that animal behavior is different from human behavior, and that anthropomorphization or emotional appeals are not the best methods for pursuing animal rights. Just because it bothers you doesn’t mean it’s unethical: the "shock factor" is not a meaningful analytical tool for diagnosing animal cruelty (or almost anything else, for that matter).

[Guest]

Can you answer them for me, too. Thanks.

I do not support circuses that cage and showcase animals.

I do not support the keeping of exotic animals in a domestic environment.

I'm not as diligent as I could be, but I try to be ethical with the purchase of any animal products.

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. Thank you for the explanation.

I'm different from you.

We attend the Barnum and Bailey circus every winter and I am a patron (through donation and service) of a zoo that cage and showcase animals.

We have 3 different morphs of ball pythons, 1 western hognose, 1 african gray bird, hamsters, african soft-furred rats, and several cichlids in addition to my dog at home.

I believe I am ethical.

I have 2 sons under 8 and they are both active in exhibits showing their snakes in school presentations, scouts presentations, impromptu neighborhood kid visits, etc. etc. all on their own with me and my husband doing nothing but transporting animals and help with crowd control. I will tell you that their efforts have saved snakes through education (neighborhood kids are less likely to whack the southern banded water-snake passing through the backyard with the shovel). One thing I noticed, most kids are not scared of snakes, especially when they see my younger son holding one. It is the adults that are phobic. It would be cool if even just half of these kids would grow up with respect instead of fear for snakes.

All this because I finally said Yes, they can have a snake in the house, or two, or three, or four...

With my African Gray, I have learned the benefits of not clipping bird wings in captivity and can advocate to friends and acquaintances the advantages of it. Free-flight is awesome although, I'm not expert on it.

I put Kangaroo boxing on the same level. It shows people a natural action of a Kangaroo (hey, to tell you the truth, I didn't know Kangaroos box! It's cool how Blue Jay gave us all this information.) that would eventually lead them to curiosity and education.

This is the same thing to me as Shamu in Sea World teaching me and my kids the natural instincts of a Killer Whale. Where it not for Sea World and their animals in captivity, we wouldn't have known that dolphins are a playful bunch and can make conscious art using bubbles. It gives us extra respect and appreciation for these wonderful creatures.

Where it not for the Australian Zoo and their animals in captivity, we wouldn't have half the stuff we know about crocodiles. My children were fans of Steve Irwin (it started with Stever Irwin's collaboration with the Wiggles when they were very very small) and when he died they became fans of Bindi. I love it when Bindi points to a komodo dragon and says, isn't he beautiful?

That's what kangaroo boxing is all about for me.

Granted, there are tons of those who abuse animals - lots of circus performers do, lots of pop-up side shows do, Michael Vick, heck, they have malnourished iguanas being sold on the side streets of Asia and 20-foot reticulated pythons stuck in a 12 foot chicken-wire-floored cage devoid of temperature gradient for show! Kangaroo boxing, though... not in the clip that I saw. Maybe the guy does abuse the Kangaroo. I don't know enough about him to make that kind of judgement.

Edited March 16, 2010 by anatess

[Bluejay]

Hi, Anatess.

Kangaroo boxing, though... not in the clip that I saw. Maybe the guy does abuse the Kangaroo. I don't know enough about him to make that kind of judgement.

To be fair, the guy probably did abuse the kangaroos. Poor medical attention resulted in the deaths of two of his kangaroos (I don't think he was actually convicted of this, though). But, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to admit that MsQwerty has successfully demonstrated that the kangaroos were abused in that way.

My view is that the boxing performance itself is not the problem.

It could have been done without abusing the kangaroos, so the boxing performance, in and of itself, doesn't constitute abuse, as long as the trainer is not fighting for real, and is checking his swings (as he did in the clip).

Maybe making it wear those boxing shorts was a bit abusive, though.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Bluejay
"it" is not a verb

[marts1]

The same as my thoughts on killing plants for food.

Either way, it's still killing.

I don't put plants and animals in the same catagory...I don't put animals and people in the same pile either.

[MsQwerty]

Hey, I asked first lol. If it was a matter of life or death (starvation), I would give thanks and kill the beast. This, I realize, means I should not eat meat. I blame this weakness on the way I was raised. I should work on this soon.

Hey, it's only fair that I'm not the only one answering questions here, lol. Meat eating is not a weakness. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans are naturally omnivorous, so our bodies are meant to have both meat and vegetable matter. This also makes sense in light of what the the Word of Wisdom has to say about meat eating, too.

Philosophically I would like to live a vegetarian lifestyle, but practically, going without meat makes me anaemic and sickly. So I eat some meat, mostly fish or chicken, a few times a week. I once read a book by David Suzuki where he made the point that if we are going to eat meat, we should do so with thanksgiving to the animal that has lost its life. If anyone makes the mistake of looking at slaughterhouse footage, it becomes abundantly clear that animals that are killed for meat live their final moments in fear. With that in mind, I think it's utterly selfish of us to mindlessly shovel meat (especially the fast food kind) into our mouths when a living animal suffered a fearful death so we could eat it.

Ethically, I try to be responsible when it comes to animal products. I buy only organic, free range eggs, beef and chicken. I'm also careful with the fish I purchase, since, for example, you can buy large, delicious fillets of Nile Perch quite cheaply. Unfortunately the Nile Perch comes from Lake Victoria in Africa where the people have sold their environment for a 'mess of pottage' to be frank. The Nile Perch is a huge predator fish that has eaten almost everything in what was once a thriving lake environment...the time will come when the local people can't farm the Nile Perch any longer and they'll be left with nothing but a devastated environment and dire poverty to show for a short-term economic boost. I also don't buy beauty or chemical products that are not labelled 'cruelty free' or 'not tested on animals'. Nevertheless I know there are probably many areas I can improve in this area.

Spiritually, I think the WoW makes it clear eating meat is ok as long as it's done sparingly and with thanksgiving. That's the approach that I take, but I know others interpret the same scriptures differently.

Did I answer the question? lol

[MsQwerty]

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. Thank you for the explanation.

I'm different from you.

We attend the Barnum and Bailey circus every winter and I am a patron (through donation and service) of a zoo that cage and showcase animals.

We have 3 different morphs of ball pythons, 1 western hognose, 1 african gray bird, hamsters, african soft-furred rats, and several cichlids in addition to my dog at home.

I believe I am ethical.

I have 2 sons under 8 and they are both active in exhibits showing their snakes in school presentations, scouts presentations, impromptu neighborhood kid visits, etc. etc. all on their own with me and my husband doing nothing but transporting animals and help with crowd control. I will tell you that their efforts have saved snakes through education (neighborhood kids are less likely to whack the southern banded water-snake passing through the backyard with the shovel). One thing I noticed, most kids are not scared of snakes, especially when they see my younger son holding one. It is the adults that are phobic. It would be cool if even just half of these kids would grow up with respect instead of fear for snakes.

All this because I finally said Yes, they can have a snake in the house, or two, or three, or four...

With my African Gray, I have learned the benefits of not clipping bird wings in captivity and can advocate to friends and acquaintances the advantages of it. Free-flight is awesome although, I'm not expert on it.

I put Kangaroo boxing on the same level. It shows people a natural action of a Kangaroo (hey, to tell you the truth, I didn't know Kangaroos box! It's cool how Blue Jay gave us all this information.) that would eventually lead them to curiosity and education.

This is the same thing to me as Shamu in Sea World teaching me and my kids the natural instincts of a Killer Whale. Where it not for Sea World and their animals in captivity, we wouldn't have known that dolphins are a playful bunch and can make conscious art using bubbles. It gives us extra respect and appreciation for these wonderful creatures.

Where it not for the Australian Zoo and their animals in captivity, we wouldn't have half the stuff we know about crocodiles. My children were fans of Steve Irwin (it started with Stever Irwin's collaboration with the Wiggles when they were very very small) and when he died they became fans of Bindi. I love it when Bindi points to a komodo dragon and says, isn't he beautiful?

That's what kangaroo boxing is all about for me.

Granted, there are tons of those who abuse animals - lots of circus performers do, lots of pop-up side shows do, Michael Vick, heck, they have malnourished iguanas being sold on the side streets of Asia and 20-foot reticulated pythons stuck in a 12 foot chicken-wire-floored cage devoid of temperature gradient for show! Kangaroo boxing, though... not in the clip that I saw. Maybe the guy does abuse the Kangaroo. I don't know enough about him to make that kind of judgement.

Keeping exotic animals is not at all my thing, but it sounds like you take good care of the ones you have. I do dislike circuses that use animals because of the small areas and conditions they are kept in, and the training methods used. Having said that, I don't have an aversion to a zoo where natural habitats are duplicated, it's more like an animal sanctuary and animals are comfortable enough. The point you make about education is an important one. I don't believe large animals like killer whales and elephants should be kept in captivity though - we can be 'educated' plenty without seeing them in captivity. Same goes for dolphins, there's always been plenty of books, tv and documentaries about them - we don't need Seaworld for that, even though it might be fun for people to see a dolphin up close.

Australia Zoo has excellent facilities for its animals and does provide important educational services. However A. Zoo is not the reason we are more educated as a society about crocodiles and snakes, it's because we had Steve Irwin's tv series on our screens almost non-stop for so many years. Since he became hugely popular, people wanted to go to his zoo...without that it would just be one of the many 'animal sanctuaries' we have here where people like to go for a nice family outing and to be 'educated' about wildlife at the same time.

[MsQwerty]

Hi, MsQwerty.

Calm down! You’re blowing this way out of proportion.

Alrighty then! Stop blowing and I will!

It certainly wasn’t my intention to accuse you of ignorance, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. I suppose it didn’t help my cause when I responded to a few of your peripheral comments with my irritable keystrokes. I’ve made a large number of such mistakes in a number of settings over the last couple of weeks, and I very sincerely wish I could redo the entire week, but alas, time only runs in one direction for me.

No worries. I also reacted less than patiently. Please forgive me too.

I added that last section about other cases you should spend your time on in the hope that you would realize that I’m not antagonistic to animal rights, and am not your enemy, but just somebody who disagrees with you on the importance of one minor case study. Since it obviously had the opposite effect from what I intended, I wish I could take it back and try a different approach, but it’s too late for that now.

That's a lot clearer than what you said before, thanks for the the clarification. We are not enemies. Check.

I am a biologist, by the way, and I have spent a lot of time studying animal behavior: I am kind of speaking from expertise here. Granted, my experience is mostly with spiders and insects, but I have experience with mammals and birds, too.

You would probably enjoy where I live at the moment. Spiders and insects galore. Currently we have Huntsman Spiders that crawl out of our drains so they can take up residence in our house. I've become quite expert at catching them with a bucket and broom and releasing them into the vacant bushland next to our fence. We also have Redback spiders living in the folds of the garage door and next to our outside taps (faucets?). I can show you a picture of a Redback we found on a pile of laundry in a washbasket I was folding from once...fortunately I saw it before I put my hand down or I'd have been in for a world of hurt.

A neurosis is a malfunction of the brain. Anything with a brain can have a neurosis. The signs of a neurosis are abnormal behaviors, which, for chickens, includes pulling out feathers, tics and twitches, over-alertness and excessive belligerence. (I’m not a chicken psychologist, but I did consider poultry science as a major in college).

I know what chicken neurosis is. Thank you.

If the kangaroo had gone on a rampage, attacking everybody in its reach, you could easily make the case that the kangaroo was suffering from a neurosis. But, since it only attacked one person, and was otherwise very calm and peaceable, it’s clear that this kangaroo’s behavior was not abnormal. This shows that the kangaroo has not really been adversely, lastingly affected by this boxing performance. The only thing going on here was a kangaroo learning to associate the trainer and his boxing outfit with the group of things that need to be attacked. This is not neurotic behavior: it’s just learning.

I disagree on more levels than I can express. But I see where you are coming from.

This is an appeal to emotions. Appealing to emotions is, by definition, not logical, MsQwerty. In logic, it is considered a type of red herring (irrelevancy) fallacy. I am somewhat trained in formal logic, too, by the way.

Indeed it is a red herring

My argument was not an appeal to emotions, but an appeal to you to recognize that you don’t really know the kangaroo psyche. It is folly for you to conclude that the kangaroo’s behavior is a tragic result of abuse. I didn’t make a value judgment about the kangaroo based on its emotional capacity (or lack thereof), and I don’t perceive animal cruelty to be a less noble cause than sweatshops in India because of difference in emotional or sentient capacity between sweatshop workers and kangaroos.

In fairness you don't really know the kangaroo psyche either, do you? I've been around kangaroos all my life, it's not at all folly. But you are entitled to your opinion.

I only attempted to make you understand that animal behavior is different from human behavior, and that anthropomorphization or emotional appeals are not the best methods for pursuing animal rights. Just because it bothers you doesn’t mean it’s unethical: the "shock factor" is not a meaningful analytical tool for diagnosing animal cruelty (or almost anything else, for that matter).

Of course emotional appeals and shock factors are fantastic for furthering animal rights - they are the best advertising techniques for garnering support for a cause. But that's not why I made the comments I did - I genuinely believe the kangaroo is being mistreated.

You don't believe this is the case. No problem. Its all hypothetical anyway.

Thanks for the response, I do appreciate your thoughts. And I'm happy to know the other side of your views that is reasonable and not at all patronising - and I'm sorry if that comes across like I'm a pompous git :)

[Guest]

However A. Zoo is not the reason we are more educated as a society about crocodiles and snakes, it's because we had Steve Irwin's tv series on our screens almost non-stop for so many years.

I'm mainly referring to all the contribution Steve Irwin has made to the research in the preservation, care, transport, etc. of crocodiles. His TV Show is jut a way to fund that and get the people educated on crocs, etc. Without the research facilities, equipment, expertise, etc. of the Australian Zoo, his research could not have gone as far as it did. Educating people cannot start unless somebody has done all the research necessary to know everything there is to know about crocs!

The thing about it is - it takes money to do all this research. It takes money to educate people. Setting up observation posts in the middle of the northeast pacific basin to research killer whales, for example, is cost prohibitive - more so than having a killer whale in a tank at Sea World where you can have a controlled environment. Sea World's main purpose is not the theme park. The theme park funds all the things that happen inside of Sea World and provides an education outlet. This guy who used to work with me, for example, houses bird rescues for Sea World in his backyard. Nobody gets to see those birds except those he invites to his home. He does it all for free. He incurs all the cost for housing, feeding, and caring. Sea World provides medical treatment costs and training.

The bulk of Sea World's work is behind-the-scenes. Advancements in the understanding of animal's genetics, habitats, behaviors, physiology, psychology, etc., etc., does not happen on the Shamu show. All this research serves but one purpose - to preserve Killer Whales and provide an environment of balance. If we think about that instead of just the poor Shamu stuck in a tank, we will learn to gain an appreciation for these methods. We can then sift through everything that is happening in animal care and be more knowledgeable when fighting against abuse so that we are fighting the "truly" bad guys.

Animal testing, for instance... I hear this all the time - oh, it is so cruel to test on animals. Okay, you have a product - say, a brand new medicine that is supposed to cure cancer. You know it can kill cancer cells but you don't know how a body would react to it. There is only so much you can do on the computer. You will have to put that product into a body to test it. What do you do - put the product in a human being without knowing what reaction you are going to get? Or put the product on a monkey that has a similar physiology as a human? Even though I am an animal activist, I do not blanketly condemn animal-testing, not when it's use has made a big contribution to the advancement of medicine.

Another one - backyard breeders. It's almost like saying the F-word in the animal activist circles. This is another one of those that need much thought before condemnation. There are puppy mills and there are backyard breeders - 2 totally different things. Breeding a dog in a certified backyard would be preferrable than commercially mass-breeding a dog, in my opinion. People who breed in their backyards are much more attuned to their pets and have the ability to provide the "pack" care more so than the big breeders. So, one might think - oh, but these people just care about the money... hah, maybe at first. But one will soon find out that unless you truly care about dogs, the effort and cost required to breed dogs (or any pet for that matter) is not worth the measley paycheck it makes. So, in this case, going through a certification process to get a license to breed pets in your backyard would be enough to discourage the quick-cash types.

On a personal note, yesterday, I was talking to a friend and we happened to start talking about snakes. I mentioned I have a ball python. And she said - Are you crazy? Snakes are "poisonous"! Oh, and those get so big they will end up eating your kids! They have it on the news all the time! Sigh.

[Bluejay]

Hi, MsQwerty.

All right, we're square.

I think we've both made our case, and we've provided enough information that any onlookers can also make informed decisions for themselves. It's not worth making enemies over, so I'll stop here.

Have a good day.

-----

P.S. I don't think I would be interested enough to see a kangaroo boxing event, anyway; so, even though I'm not morally opposed to it, they wouldn't be getting any support from me. That ought to make you happy. :)

P.P.S. I've seen redback spiders in a zoo before. We have black widows here (same genus, and just as dangerous). And, yeah, Australia's pretty famous for its bugs. At least, in my professional circles it is. :)

P.P.P.S. I was recently educated about the way to make a smiley with its tongue sticking out. Even though the smilies legend on the right says to use a capital 'P', you have to use a lower-case 'p' on this web-site. Like this: