A month ago, CAPS launched the Fight for Flight campaign to see
an end to the cruel practice of pinioning (partial amputation of the wing) of
birds to prevent them from escaping from zoos and wildlife parks. The news that this barbaric practice was being carried out up and down the country was met with horror by supporters and the general public. The campaign quickly fostered support with people calling for pinioning to be abolished.
The Wildfowl & Wetlands
Trust (WWT), became a major focus of the campaign for two reasons:
- The WWT was, to its credit, one of the few organisations which had admitted to pinioning its captive wildfowl and flamingos. Shockingly, in five centres in England alone the WWT currently holds around 5,650 mutilated birds.
- The WWT is generally known for its conservation work and wildlife reserves rather than for operating a chain of zoos. Many people that would refuse to set foot in a zoo would happily visit a WWT centre in the mistaken belief that there were no animals held captive there.
The WWT don’t make a song and dance about the
practice of pinioning. For example, searching 'pinioning' on the trust's website throws
up no results and a statement published in direct response to the CAPS campaign
a month ago was available only to those that had the weblink. However, as mentioned above, the organisation did admit that it engages in the practice.
Furthermore, the WWT has been honest about why its birds are pinioned. CEO, Martin Spray, told a parliamentary committee that it was to “bring people close to birds, close to wildlife”. In short, it seemed that birds were being permanently disabled so that people could get a better look at them. As the Fight for Flight campaign was launched, this stance was reiterated by the not-quite-public statement referred to above which said: “The majority of the captive birds visitors see at our centres are there to help engagement, to connect people with wetlands and wetland wildlife”. At no point, as far as we were aware, had the WWT claimed that pinioning was carried out for conservation purposes.
Furthermore, the WWT has been honest about why its birds are pinioned. CEO, Martin Spray, told a parliamentary committee that it was to “bring people close to birds, close to wildlife”. In short, it seemed that birds were being permanently disabled so that people could get a better look at them. As the Fight for Flight campaign was launched, this stance was reiterated by the not-quite-public statement referred to above which said: “The majority of the captive birds visitors see at our centres are there to help engagement, to connect people with wetlands and wetland wildlife”. At no point, as far as we were aware, had the WWT claimed that pinioning was carried out for conservation purposes.
Indeed, the
trust would be hard-pressed to argue that conservation had anything to do with it considering
that 86% of the pinioned birds in their centres belong to species which are not
threatened in the wild. And to risk stating the obvious, a bird with half a
wing missing can never be released
to the wild. It therefore seems safe to conclude that there is no possible
argument that pinioning is being carried out for conservation purposes.
Since the Fight for Flight was launched, pressure has been
building for zoos to be held to account over this cruel practice. Perhaps as a
result of this pressure, it seems that the WWT have now concluded that zoo
visitors getting close to birds offers scant justification for permanently
disabling thousands of animals. A public statement
published yesterday on the WWT website makes little mention of zoo visitors
getting close to birds, or birds helping engagement, but now appears to suggest that the justification
for pinioning is rooted in conservation.
I am aware that I am repeating myself but, to reiterate: 86%
of the pinioned birds in the WWT centres are not threatened in the wild. Birds
with one and a half wings can never be released to the wild. By default, birds
involved in release programmes must
be full-winged.
There is no feasible
argument which justifies pinioning for conservation purposes.
The tendency of the zoo industry to explain away holding
animals captive for their lifetime with the word “conservation” has long been
accepted by the general public. But animals do not need to be held captive,
much less deliberately and permanently mutilated, to support conservation efforts.
All animals are adapted to form part of a complex ecosystem
and it is work which seeks to preserve these animals as part of these ecosystems that truly conserves and protects them.
If you are concerned about the conservation of exotic birds, or any other
animal for that matter, please find out about projects working to protect them in
their natural habitat and support those projects directly.
Conservation does not happen
in zoos and conservation efforts are certainly not furthered by the mutilation of captive animals.
Conservation happens in the wild.