Definition Essay — skyblue

Training is the New Torture

When we attend circuses or zoos to see all the beautiful animals and admire them we think of just that. We gaze at their beauty falling more in love with the animals themselves. Little do we know that attending zoos or circuses is actually hurting the animals. We see the caged animal calm and docile, that is not how they are born to act in the wild. While we are stuck gazing at the beautiful animals we rarely consider how they got to be so docile. Zoo and circus animals are trained using abusive tactics to become that docile. Elephants are broken to perform a certain way for the circuses. If we thought of going to see broken animals in a show, instead of beautiful majestic creatures, it would not be an enjoyable show.

To most training is thought of in a positive light. For instance, when you train a dog you positively reinforce them to go to the bathroom outside. Dog trainers stand behind the idea of positive reinforcement. They explain it as, “trainers who use positive reinforcement use rewards to encourage the dog to repeat a specific behavior. Rewards can be treats, affection or a toy. As soon as the dog does the desired behavior, the reward needs to be given” (Jorgensen 2015). The dog trainers praise the dog with love and affection when they do something correctly. With elephants training is extremely negative all the time. Owners bring a wild animal into the domestic lifestyle, the elephants are not performing any wrong behavior within their nature. Even when the Elephant correctly performs a trick they are not praised. Elephants are only punished when not performing correctly. Elephant trainers shine a whole new light on the term training.

In order to hold a successful circus show or zoo the elephants have to endure an extensive amount of pain and suffering. If elephants have to go through all that pain to be considered “trained” for the shows they are not being trained they are being tortured. They are taken away from their homeland, ripped from their mothers, isolated, and physically injured. Those are forms of torture to get the animals to perform the way the circus or zoos want them to perform. Howard Chua-Eoan comments on the training in his article The Elephants Take A Bow, “What more and more people saw as the years went by– was the use of bullhooks. To keep the elephants marching in single file up to the park, trainers whacked them with the ugly metal talons” (Chua-Eoan 2015). This torture does not benefit the animal or make the animal a better elephant in any way shape or form, it in fact injures the elephants. By training, or torturing the animals in this way it takes away from what makes them beautiful and what we admire so much, their habitat, compassion, wild, and free animals.

Recently the owner of the Ringling Bros., Kenneth Feld, released the elephants would be eliminated from all circus shows by 2018. Them removing the acts is a way of them acknowledging the wrong they have done to these innocent animals. When Feld was asked about the removal this was his comment, “When we did so, we knew we would play a critical role in saving the endangered Asian elephants for future generations, given how few Asian elephants are left in the wild. …This decision was not easy, but it is in the best interest of our company, our elephants and our customers” (Jones 2015). From his statement above, Kenneth Feld shows remorse for the shrinking elephant population. His comment hints that the elephants from the show die from being “trained”, contributing the the endangered elephants.

Many come to these zoos and circuses for a happy and peaceful outing. Supporting these organizations are only hurting the animals which we go to admire. Little do we know the torture and abuse these animals are put through just to benefit the zoo or circus owners. The people that can recognize what trauma the animals are put through are the ones that realize the misuse of the word; when the owners say they “train” the animals, it can be better said as torturing. Admiring elephants when they are forcibly in an environment that is not natural is not healthy for the elephants. What is better, is to admire the animal when it is in a healthy, non-abusive, and loved environment, where they are happy, in the wild.

Works Cited

Chua-Eoan, Howard. “The Elephants Take A Bow.” Bloomberg Businessweek 1 Mar. 2015. Print.

Jones, Charisse. “Ringling Bros. Eliminating Elephant Acts.” USA Today. Gannett, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.

Jorgenson, Amy. “Positive Reinforcement & Negative Reinforcement for Dog Training.” Dog Care. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.

This entry was posted in X Archive. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Definition Essay — skyblue

  1. skybluecomp2's avatar skybluecomp2 says:

    1. Should I include actual quotes?
    2. Does my essay provide an adequate idea of what the definition is?
    3. Does the essay stay on topic?
    4. Is there any obvious grammatical errors?
    Thank you for your time! Feedback requested.

    Feedback provided. —DSH

    Like

  2. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    Thank you for asking specific questions, skyblue.

    1. Yes, at least one direct quote would be helpful. You’re making a lot of serious allegations without any support beyond additional allegations. If you have a quote from a reliable source, preferably one that does not have a specific axe to grind, readers will find it persuasive. Best would be something remorseful from a circus insider who now acknowledges that they could no longer justify their training techniques. Also good would be a complaint from an outsider about the secrecy surrounding training: “There was evidence of mistreatment that the circus could have mitigated, but instead they stonewalled our efforts to investigate why so many animals were getting injured.” Anything along those lines.

    2. You’ve done a good job rhetorically of arguing that what circuses call “training” is more akin to torture. Don’t hesitate to research dog training techniques a little further. The experts might have very useful things to say about the relative effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcement. You touch on the topic here, but it all sounds like personal opinion.

    3. A little too much, perhaps. Because you’re depending on just a few allegations to make your entire argument, you repeat yourself. An example. In P2, you say:

    Elephants are taken away from their mothers immediately after birth, left alone in single pens for extended hours on end with no room to roam, and beaten with bull-hooks in order for them to learn tricks and behave during circus shows

    In P3, you say:

    They are taken away from their homeland, ripped from their mothers, isolated, and physically injured.

    These are very powerful claims that you toss off as if listing them were sufficient. Just yesterday I recall reading that the baby elephants and “broken” by having their legs bound together and being kept in isolation 23 hours of every 24. I don’t know how long this abuse goes on, but it’s obvious if you spent a paragraph investigating that claim, you could really create sympathy in readers. Two questions: would we accept that treatment of any other intelligent being under any circumstances? (Death row inmates in solitary confinement: universally recognized as the cruelest punishment.) What makes anyone think we SHOULD break an elephant if that’s what it takes to do so?

    4. You commonly write runons and comma splices: sentences composed of two independent clauses forced together without appropriate punctuation. There are several in your essay that follow the pattern of this one, which is actually two sentences fused together with a comma. Illegal behavior. Find them all and kill them.

    Those are forms of torture to get the animals to perform the way the circus or zoos want them to perform, it does not benefit the animal or make the animal a better elephant in any way shape or form.

    You didn’t ask for rhetorical advice, but I have some to offer. Since we know circuses (and to some extent zoos as well) have to break elephants to get them to behave “appropriately” for human audiences, why not refer to them as “broken animals.” Would we feel good if the circus advertised that they had broken animals for us to enjoy?

    One more. Don’t ask rhetorical questions, skyblue. They’re weak. You use two of them in your introduction that should be replaced by clear claims instead. We rarely consider how the animals were trained (because we don’t like to contemplate the awful truth). It’s clearly not OK to abuse the animals even for our own joy; you don’t have to ask.

    The writing here shows real heart, skyblue, and considerable talent. It won’t be hard to fulfill its potential, but it will require at least one more significantly revised draft. Good luck.

    Like

  3. skybluecomp2's avatar skybluecomp2 says:

    Thank you very much for your time and always helpful feedback! I will take these comments into consideration when writing my second draft.

    Like

Leave a comment