Elephant polo: kind or cruel?

[Guest guest]

Lot of fire spewing from all sides and the chances of burning one's fingers

are great. Nonetheless, I will try to address some issues in order:

1) A journalist writing about the apparent delight of elephants playing

polo: there is good reason to be sceptical about this. For one, the

journalist covering the event might not have had animal welfare at the top

of his agenda and was unaware of what actually happens, before, during and

after an elephant polo match. If a general reporter covers an animal

entertianment event, chances are that he will describe it as delightful,

maybe to keep the organisers happy. There are scores of examples of this

kind of reporting, starting from animal circuses to elephants ringing bells.

Speaking in favour of elephant polo might just be another event to cover

regardless of animal welfare concerns.

2) The Thai King's concern about animals: One has good reason to be

sceptical about welfare schemes run by royals, since by their very nature,

royals are not a democratic institution. Any apparent welfare scheme by

royals can be construed as an attempt to preserve their elitist and very

often exploitative status. A good example is the British royal family who

are patrons of the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations but

supporters of hunting. A royal scheme to protect animals is likely to be a

fad rather than a genuine concern. Whilst it would seem appealing to gather

whatever morsels that are forthcoming from so called royals, for all you

know, the same people would not hesitate to support hunting or animal

exploitation if it catches their fancy. This is particularly true of Mark

Shand who hails from a family of hunters. The question revolving around

elephant polo reveals a clash of interests regarding animal rights and

welfare or conservation. It would seem all right to 'humanely' use elephants

in games like polo for welfare activities but the animal rights position

would rule out such a stance since even if the spectacle is humane, which

obviously it is not, it involves domination of one creature by another

whereby it is the riders and mahouts who are calling the shots and not the

elephants.

3) Comparison with circuses and temple elephants: This is purely an issue of

peer identification. The kalandars who make bears dance could claim to carry

on their animal business by making bears dance without the nose ring as a

humane animal welfare measure. Elephant polo, circuses and temples abuse

elephants. To speak out and campaign against specific institutions and

activities at the cost of others will only end up revealing the weakness of

the campaign. " They do it, so why can't we? " could become a catchword.

Supporting elephant polo whilst campaigning against circuses and temples

would thus be dangerously flawed.

4) That elephant polo is an elitist game and a hobby of a select few is

evident just as it is evident that elites can still get around many forms of

animal and human abuse. Animal rights is similar to social justice movements

where rights to life and liberty are inviolate. If making an animal perform

by a kalandhar doing it for his living is cruel, so is a so called sport to

entertain the elite. During the Jaipur match last year, it was brought to my

attention that kalandhars had protested the match on this ground. A movement

that seeks to bring justice to animals or people can not progress if it is

elitist no matter how much the fringe benefits are, such as donation of

money from elephant polo to elephant conservation. Many companies indulge in

this kind of greenwash. In the words of the Indian philosopher Jiddu

Krishnamurti, " We rape the world and throw back a few pennies and we call

that charity. " It is much more difficult to fight for animal rights than

animal welfare since animal rights questions the very existence of abuse

whereas animal welfare accepts the abuse and tries to mitigate the suffering

rather than eliminating it. This is also a weakness of the animal rights

movement, since it is seen by many as an elitist fad rather than a movement

to eliminate suffering of sentient beings. Elephant polo is an endeavour by

royals to desperately hold on to the lewd pleasures of the past such as

hunting and animal circuses. They are certainly doing it differently, sugar

coating it with ostensible animal welfare and conservation objectives to

cling on to a status that is verily under threat of collapsing. Any elitist

activity that seeks to address genuine welfare or rights is bound to be out

of context with reality and therefore only end up dead in the water.

 

5)Even if one were to accept the fact that elephant polo is a cruelty free

activity, which it is not by any stretch of the imagination, the very

spectacle of an animal doing something that is not innate to its nature

makes a mockery of the creature's evolutionary abilities and makes him

appear like a fool slaving for human pleasure. The noted ethologist Desmond

Morris has commented on this with regard to abolition of animal circuses and

entertainment in the introduction to the book, 'The Rose Tinted Menagerie'

by William Johnson. I am attaching his message.

Lastly, I want to say this : I will respect those who disagree with me on

any issue. 'ANIMAL PEOPLE' is a good and authoritative newspaper that makes

you think and rethink your stance on animal issues. Precisely the reason

that makes me feel very disapppointed and nonplussed about their support for

an activity that has almost universally been condemned by experts and laymen

alike. I am sorry to express that ANIMAL PEOPLE's support to elephant polo

has made significant damage to efforts aimed at bringing animal

entertainment to an end. Taking a cue from Desmond Morris, I say, let us

turn our backs on the travesty of nature that is the performing animal. Let

the human circus survive with all its thrills, spills and excitements, and

its colourful traditions. But let elephant polo join animal circuses, bear

baiting, cock fighting and bull fighting in the dustbin of antique animal

abuses that no longer entertain us.

 

http://www.iridescent-publishing.com/rtm/morris.htm

Introduction

Desmond Morris

 

 

As a professional zoologist I have become increasingly uneasy about the way

our species has been treating the other animals with which we share this

small planet. Despite our greater understanding of the behaviour and needs

of animals, there are many areas in which there has been remarkably little

reduction in their exploitation and persecution. One such area is that of

the performing animal, and it is this topic that William Johnson has been

investigating with painstaking attention to detail. His report on the modern

menagerie should be read by anyone who cares about the welfare of animals.

 

Recently I felt compelled to outline a new Bill of Rights for animals and

formulated ten commandments that we must obey if we are to show true respect

for other species. Two of those commandments are relevant here. One states

that 'No animal should be dominated or degraded to entertain us,' and

another adds that No animal should be kept in captivity unless it can be

provided with an adequate physical and social environment.'

 

It is hard to think of a performing animal act that does not break at least

one of these two rules and it is high time that we re-examined this whole

subject with a more critical eye.

 

In carrying out this re-examination there can be no better guide than

William Johnson. After you have read his words you will find it difficult to

rest easy until major improvements have been made in this area.

 

I have long argued that if wild animals are to be confined in captivity as a

means of keeping the human population in close touch with nature, then their

conditions must, of necessity, be as natural as possible. Unless they can

perform their usual behaviour patterns, their captive state provides a

distorting mirror that is of little use to anybody. It tells us nothing

about nature because it is so artificial. And nothing could be more

artificial than the performing animal carrying out silly tricks in the ring,

on the stage, or in the dolphinarium.

 

A great deal has been written about the cruelty involved in the training of

performing animals, but in my view cruelty is not the central issue. Of

course, when it occurs, it is an abomination, but even if it can be shown

that only kindness is involved in the preparation of a particular act, that

still does not excuse it if the result is a ridiculously unnatural routine

for the species concerned.

 

To see a magnificent wild creature wearing a comic hat and carrying out

quasi-human actions is demeaning to the animal, even if it can be proved

that it is enjoying the process. It degrades it because it makes it into

something it is not. It reduces it to a caricature of humanity.

 

I have met many circus people and some of them have impressed me by the

concern they have shown for their animals. Not all of them are cruel, by any

means. But in the end all of them are involved in presenting a spectacle

that is completely outdated in its central concept. The idea that it is

funny to see wild animals coerced into acting like clumsy humans, or

thrilling to see powerful beasts reduced to cringing cowards by a

whipcracking trainer is primitive and medieval. It stems from the old idea

that we are superior to other species and have the right to hold dominion

over them. The first flowering of this concept was to be seen in the

slaughters of the Roman circus and it has since been kept alive by religious

teachings that have insisted on setting mankind above and apart from all the

rest of creation.

 

We must rid ourselves of that earlier arrogance and recognise that we, too,

are part of nature and must respect it in all its forms. If we fail to do

this, our own future on this planet is seriously at risk. A start must be

made by trying to change the way people think about animals, and persuading

them to look at each species form its own point of view. One of the first

steps will be to turn our backs on the travesty of nature that is the

performing animal. Let the human circus survive and flourish with its

thrills, spills and excitements, and its colourful traditions. But let the

animal circus join bear-baiting, bull-baiting and cock-fighting in the

dustbin of antique abuses that no longer entertain us.

 

*DESMOND MORRIS*

 

Oxford, 1990.

 

 

 

On 11/25/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote:

>

>

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

>