
Ringling Bros. circus to close after 146 years - jdoliner
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national/apnewsbreak-ringling-bros-circus-close-after-146-years/xvF7F5yxPt6yICFGIGcXFK/
======
nommm-nommm
>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still an outdated sideshow act.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
I 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
Modern 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
> 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.

~~~
exhilaration
Back at the beginning of of 2016 my circle of friends in their 30's was
excitedly forwarding each other links to a 50% off Groupon [1] for this
circus. We all have small kids, ages 4-10 and probably never considered the
circus before - I don't think most of us went as kids. The excitement died
pretty quickly after someone found the PETA website with videos of the animals
being abused [2] and that was the end of that.

[1] [https://www.groupon.com/deals/gl-ringling-bros-and-barnum-
ba...](https://www.groupon.com/deals/gl-ringling-bros-and-barnum-bailey-
presents-legends-24)

[2]
[http://www.ringlingbeatsanimals.com/](http://www.ringlingbeatsanimals.com/)

~~~
Esau
Personally, aside from something passive like a zoo, I don't care for anything
that relies on animal performance for entertainment. That includes dog racing,
horse racing, and things like circuses and even Seaworld.

I know many people don't care but it bothers me.

~~~
wavefunction
Zoos are inhumane for many animals in my personal opinion. Many animals should
be ranging a territory in the wild, not confined to a tiny plot of land to be
gawked at.

I don't find the 'conservation' excuse all that acceptable either. What if the
millions spent on Zoos were instead spent to conserve the native territories
of the animals and to improve the lives of the people who live near them so
they won't resort to poaching or habitat destruction.

~~~
CuriouslyC
Yes, some animals get stressed out living in zoos. That being said, it is
probably the least stressful way that people can appreciate animals in real
life. There is some value in bringing people face to face with animals, I
think it reconnects us with the basis of our humanity, and leads us to treat
animals better overall. Does the moral math work out in the end? I don't know,
but it isn't a one sided issue.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
This is my thinking as well. Zoos are kind of a necessary evil so we don't
completely concrete all jungles, etc.

Humans are horrible caretakers of this planet.

------
dcwca
Step 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-
anima...](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/amazing-animal-free-
circuses/)

~~~
troymc
I 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
I 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.

~~~
ryanbrunner
I would say that cirque markets itself to both adults and families, while
Ringling Bros. and traditional circuses market themselves solely to families.
We took our 3 year old to Cirque and he was talking about it for days. There's
plenty of packages / concessions / etc. when you go to a Cirque show that are
obviously targeted at kids.

~~~
nommm-nommm
That's awesome they do both. I only ever even heard of them as an adult so I
didn't know.

(I wanted to go to a show but my other half vetoed....)

------
in_cahoots
All 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
> 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/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch_that_dial.html)

~~~
nightcracker
First (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...

------
ChuckMcM
I'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-
ringmast...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ringling-brothers-woman-ringmaster-
first-kristen-michelle-wilson/)

~~~
VLM
"an abomination if that animal is not allowed to run free in their original
habitat"

So I'm abusing my kids if I don't air drop them in the Rift Valley in Africa
and hope for the best.

~~~
ChuckMcM
That is of course the logical extreme of the argument. I too don't agree with
it, and wonder what will happen when we discover a species that has evolved to
live only in EPA Superfund sites, do we destroy its habitat by cleaning up the
pollution or do we preserve the species and leave the planet polluted?

Both arguments speak to the futility of arguing staticism in an evolving
world.

------
puddintane
Should 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
That 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_ex...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierpark_Hagenbeck#Panorama_exhibits)

~~~
bane
If 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.

------
yardie
That'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.

------
woodruffw
One 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
They could make them animatronic.

~~~
fennecfoxen
The 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
Royal 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_Amie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_de_luxe_%C3%A0_Amiens_en_2005.jpg)

~~~
astrodust
Precisely. You can celebrate the animal without keeping them captive.

------
tritosomal
At 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.

~~~
EGreg
Perhaps 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

~~~
icebraining
Perhaps we should, but what does have to do with the topic at hand?

~~~
EGreg
It is a response to the grandparent comment. Sending kids to institutions that
are substantially in the same mod as when they were founded in the 19th
century. In the case of school, they are forced.

[http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damag...](http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damaging_our_kids/)

If you still don't believe me, read the comparison between school and prison
by none other than Paul Graham in his essay "why nerds are unpopular". That
should get me some upvotes lol.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)

~~~
icebraining
It doesn't matter what I believe. The topic at hand is circuses, not all 19th
century institutions.

~~~
EGreg
The topic of that comment was 19th century institutions that kids are sent to
today.

------
freshyill
There'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.

~~~
hashkb
Go to Africa or India and see an elephant or lion where it lives. The zoos are
only slightly less horrible than the circus.

~~~
nostrademons
It'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.

~~~
hashkb
Sure, 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
Not 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/storie...](http://www.mnn.com/earth-
matters/wilderness-resources/stories/why-it-so-hard-create-national-park)) 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.

------
gnarbarian
Shame. 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
Not really. The animals don't deserve this treatment.

~~~
gnarbarian
"The animals don't deserve this treatment."

That sounds an awful lot like an opinion stated as fact.

~~~
marricks
I'd be interested to know what an animal could do to deserve to be beaten to
preform tricks and then ferried around in small cages for human entertainment.

~~~
gnarbarian
fairly certain they don't beat them anymore.

~~~
marricks
Well certainly now that they're out of business.

They did at least 8 years ago[1], though. Not sure how anyone could believe
that they could make animals do unnatural tricks day in day out without
coercion.

I can see why someone would want to believe though. Tf you don't think about
it, it'd probably be more enjoyable.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww8YQKpTu-4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww8YQKpTu-4)

~~~
gnarbarian
>PETA

Going to need a better source than a group who considers pets "animal
enslavement"

~~~
marricks
If you're claiming there's context to the beating of the elephants in the
video, I find that hard to believe.

If you're claiming it's staged, pretty sure Ringling would have had a field
day with that.

A conversation is pretty much done when a side doesn't have anything
reasonable to say and resorts to ad hominem attacks.

------
Animats
Sad. 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
There's always politics.

------
losteverything
We 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
Yes, 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
<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)

------
sergiotapia
This 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
10/10 pun

------
noobermin
I'm not sure if anything is as indicative of changes in these modern times as
this.

------
RichardHeart
That's a really long time. I'm curious what other really long running shows of
any type are still going out there.

~~~
sympodius
The Mousetrap by Agatha Christie has been running for almost 65 years (it's
been running continually since it opened in 1952).

------
georgeburdell
This 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
There 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
If 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.

------
tranv94
What happens to all the animals?

~~~
nommm-nommm
>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.

------
sizzzzlerz
The 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
>"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."

------
ebaustin
The 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.

------
socialist_coder
I 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 =\

------
AngelicaAurora
Could have evolved into a 100 youtube channels. Failed opportunity.

------
encoderer
If you're ever in Sarasota, FL check out the Ringling museum. The circus was a
remarkable moving city.

------
nkkollaw
This is good news.

There's no reason to treat animals like they do, in 2017. Do a VR one.

------
kowdermeister
VR will pick up on this space :)

------
trelliscoded
We've gone from a time where entertainment was one size fits all, to a world
where all sizes try to fit you.

~~~
losteverything
I'm stealing this one.

------
eltoozero
It's just the shakeout of a shifting entertainment marketplace.

All markets are cyclical.

Though I'm sure PETA will take plenty of credit.

------
stOneskull
Fuck 'em.

------
aaron695
Lol, 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.

------
EGreg
_In 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.

