The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals seeks to ban something called "bear wrestling," which is apparently legal in Ohio, on the grounds that it's animal abuse. People for the Ethical Treatment of People by Animals--the group I started as an offshoot to another one-member group I started last June, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals by People in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (or PETAPPETA for short)--opposes bear wrestling for reasons altogether different: a 140-pound high-school senior is no match for a 650-pound black bear. Bear abuse? Try human abuse.

Dan,

If we're honest, I think we'll agree that what you call "human abuse" should really be referred to as "moron abuse."

Also, to justify the term "bear abuse": what else is euthanizing a 650-pound bear that lashes out at a 140-pound moron who gets paid to provoke him? (It's only a matter of time, if it hasn't happened already.)

I find it fascinating that adult bears are capable of playing with humans, at least if these guys in the articles claims are true.

I take it that the PETA types who scribble "circuses aren't fun for animals!" on the Ringling Bros. ads in the NYC subway tunnels don't believe this phenomenon is possible; or that it is at least unethical. I wonder if they think the domestic cat and dog should be returned to the wild somehow? THAT would be unethical, I think.

Isn't the ability to play an aspect of a more highly developed and dignified animal species?

I have no problem with reasonable attempts to preserve populations of wild animals in their natural habitats but at the same time I think some instances of humans and wild animals interacting with each other are useful for what they can reveal about both us and them.

Can we really say the high-school wrestler is being abused? It sounds as though he chose to wrestle the bear. This doesn't make it any less dangerous, but I wouldn't say it is abuse.