Old records show that history of animal suffering is repeating itself in zoos

Last week, the Daily Mail reported on the sale of a “dusty old ledger” book which revealed the fate of zoo animals at Manchester’s Belle Vue Zoo between 1938 and 1971. The article had a decidedly whimsical air as it described the demise of some of the unfortunate animals who lived out their days there, with the headline exclaiming “No wonder they tell you not to feed the animals!” (before describing how some animals had died by being overfed by the public). The black and white photos which accompanied the story left readers with the impression that events of the type described are now consigned firmly to the past. But, on reading the article, it was disappointing to see that many of the sad stories outlined could just as easily have been reports discussing events at zoos in the last few years.

THEN: Many big cats recorded in the ledger book arrived from or went to other zoos and circuses.
NOW: CAPS supporters will know that in November last year, a joint investigation with Lion Aid showed that lion cubs born at West Midland Safari Park had been sent to a notorious circus trainer and ended up in a travelling circus in Japan. In 2009, a CAPS investigation showed another UK zoo breeding tigers for a well-known circus owner.

THEN: “Polecats and coypus were killed by vandals, while nine cockatiels and eight Barbary doves were presumed stolen, the latter from the children’s zoo” the story continued.
NOW: A horrific attack on animals in a zoo in Tasmania was reported last year with some birds being killed and others stolen or released. In 2009, rabbits and chickens died at a zoo in Oxfordshire after it was vandalised.

THEN: “Some were listed as ‘killed by dog’” the article stated.
NOW: 2011 saw the deaths of two deer in Clissold Deer Park in London after a dog gained entry to their enclosure. One deer died from being attacked and another from haemorrhaging, reported as being brought on by stress.

THEN: “Twenty-four grass snakes meet [their] end in 1961 by being fed to a cobra” we were told.
NOW: Despite some claims to the contrary, it is still legal to use live vertebrate prey in zoos despite the serious welfare and ethical concerns over the practice.

THEN: “overfed by the public” was the cause of death for some animals
NOW: A hippo died at Dublin zoo in 2002 after eating a tennis ball thrown into her enclosure. A CAPS investigation in autumn last year showed drunk festival-goers at Port Lympne safari park throwing food and other objects into the primate enclosures and carp ponds. Other reports from around the world have described animals dying after ingesting rubbish and even drugs thrown into their enclosures.

The zoo industry claims that zoos are centres for conservation and education but the accounts of animal suffering that continue to come to light bear a worrying resemblance to those stories outlined in the “dusty old ledger” dating back up to 75 years. To be sure that you are not contributing this outdated and archaic entertainment at the expense of the animals, please, do not visit the zoo.


For the full Daily Mail article, see here.

The big white lion whitewash

The long-awaited response to repeated queries over the investigation by BIAZA into the West Midland Safari Park (WMSP) lion cub scandal was finally received by the investigating organisations, CAPS and Lion Aid, in the last days of December. It was confirmed that the zoo will retain its BIAZA membership and apparently suffer no consequences as a result of its actions. The news was met with incredulity by CAPS supporters who called move “disgraceful” and “sickening”.

The letter included a statement outlining the current situation, as follows:
“BIAZA takes animal welfare very seriously and strives to ensure that its members work to the highest standards. Following the claims make against West Midlands Safari Park, BIAZA has carried out a full investigation into the matter.

Our members are expected to comply with our Animal Transaction Policy to ensure that animals are only transferred to facilities with the appropriate housing, resources and expertise to ensure the animals’ welfare.

West Midland Safari Park’s CEO, Ivan Knezovich, has confirmed in writing that the park had no knowledge that these animals would be moved from Heythrop to a circus. However, when the animals were moved from the park, there was no specified condition to ensure that their ongoing destination would meet required standards. This constituted a breach in the BIAZA Animal Transaction Policy. We have worked with West Midland Safari Park and additional measures have been put in place to ensure that future transactions fully adhere to BIAZA policy, including setting up an independent ethics committee to scrutinise all future animal transfers to non BIAZA/EAZA collections.

West Midland Safari Park is an active member of BIAZA. It does excellent education and research work and makes a major contribution to the conservation of animals in the wild, but they fully acknowledge that on this occasion they fell below the expected standards. We are satisfied that they have taken firm action to address the issue”.

Serious cause for concern…

The letter itself and the statement on the situation raised a number of specific concerns:
1. The reason for the delay in providing the results of the investigation was blamed on the need for discussion and approval from BIAZA’s Membership and Licensing Committee. Listed as a member of that committee in BIAZA’s most recent annual report is Bob Lawrence. Lawrence is the Head Keeper at West Midland Safari Park and the man allegedly responsible for delivering the cubs to the trainer. No explanation has been provided on how the committee reached its decision and how the very clear conflict of interests was dealt with, if at all.

2. The only clear consequence for the safari park is that they have been asked by BIAZA to set up an ethical committee to scrutinise further transfers.  Implicit in this is the suggestion that WMSP will continue to send animals to “non BIAZA/EAZA collections” going forward, presumably meaning that more animals born there may end up being trained to perform tricks in the television and film industry, even if they do not end up in a circus.

In addition, asking the zoo to establish an ethics committee is an essentially meaningless sanction for the simple fact that all large zoos should already have an ethics committee, according to Government standards. In fact, West Midland Safari Park had been criticised by Government inspectors in 2008 for its poor ethical processes. In the 2008 inspection report, it was stated that: “Although an ethical process is in place this is not transparent. We would recommend that records of the agreed outcomes of any Ethics committee meetings whether these be held formally or by internet conference be kept “. By 2011, the zoo was still not up to scratch with the inspector making similar comments. To find that, in 2012, the only apparent sanction imposed on the zoo by BIAZA was to ask them to do something that they should already have in place (and have been explicitly warned about) simply compounds concerns that this issue is not being taken seriously at all.

3. BIAZA recognises that the breeding of white lions can create serious welfare issues for the individuals involved and serves no conservation purpose. As such, CAPS and campaign partners had asked what action BIAZA intended to take against its members that continued to engage in the perpetual inbreeding of these animals. No answer was provided to this question, other than to confirm that BIAZA had published a paper on the issue. It would appear, then, that no action will be taken at all.

Incidentally, the paper on white lions and the welfare and conservation concerns with the breeding and keeping of them in zoos has been moved behind the “membership wall” of the BIAZA website in the last few weeks, meaning that it can no longer be accessed by members of the public wanting to learn more.

4. Finally, the letter closed by raising opposition to the suggestion made by CAPS that both BIAZA and the zoo had attempted to “bury” the issue of the lion cub sale. However, it is difficult to understand the basis for this opposition given that no apology has been issued by the zoo, no public statement on the decision following the investigation has been made by BIAZA and, at the time the story broke, the zoo dealt with the news by deleting reference to it on their social media feeds and asking people to write directly to their head office. It is unclear whether complaints made to the zoo (or BIAZA) at this time have received any response.
We firmly stand by our concerns that the way in which this case has been handled has been more about avoiding and mitigating bad publicity and less about getting to the bottom of the very serious animal welfare issues at stake.

What now…?

As neither the zoo nor BIAZA are public bodies, the sad truth is that we are likely to remain very much in the dark about what really went on during the course of this investigation. Despite this, there are some things we can be sure of:

We can be sure that four young lion cubs, deliberately inbred to ensure unusual colouring, were sent to a world-renowned circus trainer by a major UK zoo. There they were trained to perform meaningless tricks then sent on to a travelling circus in Japan to perform in the sort of shows that our own Government has pledged to outlaw in the coming years. The zoo has suffered no apparent punishment and made no apology. 

In light of the above, the closing remark of the BIAZA statement on the matter: “we are satisfied that they have taken firm action to address the issue” rings rather hollow, doesn’t it?

If you want to make sure that your actions do not cause suffering to animals in captivity, the solution is simple: do not visit the zoo.

Visit www.captiveanimals.org to find out more