My research question is should animals be used in the circus. My interest in this research topic is because of my concern for animals and the belief that animals cannot be happy in an environment like the one the circus provides. This research question is directly related to my values. Animals like tigers and elephants should be respected. Not made to wear funny hats and perform tricks for our entertainment. I believe that all animals should have happy lives considering how happy they make us. I do not believe that we should use them as objects for entertainment, like the circus. I did enjoy the circus as a kid. It was fun to see such exotic animals like elephants and tigers move so close to where I was. The tricks they did helped me see their grace and mobility that you could never see at the zoo. However, those are tricks and animal should not be forced to jump through a ring of fire or be forced to do a handstand. Animals should be respected. We should teach kids from the beginning that we should respect animals and showing them off in such a humiliating manner is disrespectful. It does not encourage respect for animals. I am qualified to write about this because of my development of both sides of the argument. 

For my first source, Tyke Elephant Outlaw is a documentary featuring an elephant in the circus. This documentary claims that the life of an elephant in the circus drives them to violence. Tyke, the elephant in this documentary, lost her temper one day and attacked her groom during the circus' performance. When the elephant trainer stepped in to protect the groom from Tyke he was mauled to death by Tyke.  This documentary does not state that they want to make it illegal for wild animals to be in the circus, however, they imply it heavily. They do this by shining a light on a legal case that took place after the incident with Tyke. The legal case would have made it illegal for circuses that had animals performers to perform in Hawaii. The documentary provides first-hand accounts of what Tyke was like in the circus industry and who unanimously agree, she should not have been in the circus. This documentary's biased does stem from the fact that everyone who spoke agreed on the stand that animals should not be in the circus but one man. The one man who spoke for animals in the circus was presented as a bad guy and he did not get as much screen time as the others. 

My second source, "Cruel? No, elephants love the Circus  --  and I should know, says Dea Birkett, I use to ride them in the big top.", is an article from a newspaper written by a previous show girl who worked with the elephants in the circus. This article states that elephants are happy and treated like pets in the circus. The main argument is that the author worked with elephants in the circus for her entire career. She is increasingly concerned about people working to make it illegal for animals to be in the circus. She repeats that the animals were like pets for her and the people she worked with. However, the fact that this article is a primary source means it suffers from tunnel vision. The author did not take into account that there are other circumstances in different circuses around the world. The other issue is the circus that the author worked at did not travel like the other circuses. I do believe that the author could have been so involved with her goal, to keep animals in the circus, that she may have glossed over the truth. 

For my third source, "This is how Cirque du Soleil reinvented the circus", is an article in a financial magazine that analyzes the benefits of not using animals in the circus. The article shows evidence for how Cirque du Soleil created a new standard for the circus. It states that Cirque de Soleil has created a more elegant atmosphere so that people of all ages can enjoy the circus like never before. Cirque du Soleil took all of the expensive aspects of the circus like the animals. Cirque du Soleil focuses on the classic acrobatic acts instead of exploiting animals. This was written by two professors which establish ethos. The article had two additional sources which added to the credibility. However, this article praises Cirque du Soleil to an extent that you second guess their bias. The authors admire Cirque du Soleil based on their business stance but it praises Cirque du Soleil for their dependence on human performers instead of animals.

My research question is arguable. It has two sides of the argument, animals in the circus or not in the circus. Both sides are supported on the internet. Both sides have valid points, animals in the circus offer entertainment and suggest that animals can be happy in the circus industry. On the other side, they argue that no animal can be happy in an environment such as entertainment. In addition, they say that us asking animals to perform for our entertainment is cruel. I can see the point of keeping the animals in the circus. It is ab interesting way to see the animals up close, but there are zoos for that. The fact that people suggest that animals can be happy in the circus is very subjective. These observations are also very dependent on the situation, which is something the law cannot easily regulate. It seems like keeping animals out of the circus is the easier solution. Especially considering the fact that elephants and tigers are threatened in their own environment that we should focus on supporting them there. I do believe that my research question will remain the same. 
