When the chips are down, shout “CONSERVATION” and hope for the best

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

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. 

On breeding and pandas

breed·ing  

/’brēdiNG/

Noun The mating and production of offspring by animals. The activity of controlling the mating and production of offspring of animals.

Around ten years ago, I was on a bus on the way home from work, heading back to the area of East London where I lived at the time. A group of young lads, a few years younger than me, were sat behind me having a loud and, for the most part, inoffensive conversation about a girl they all liked. Apparently she was beautiful and they were all vying to take her out. After a while, and just as I was arriving at my stop, the banter started to go from complimentary to derogatory. As I got off the bus, one of the boys began talking about wanting to “breed” the girl they all had their sights on. From what I could gather, he didn’t want to have children with the young lady but was using “breed” to describe the act of sex. It’s a phrase which really stuck with me and it was the one thing that that I found genuinely offensive in an otherwise quite childish conversation.  It gave the distinct impression that this young lad saw sex as something you did to someone else, not with them. It implied objectification. It implied non-consent. 

Of course, as the dictionary definition of “breeding” states, this is exactly the way in which the term is understood when it comes to non-human animals. People “breed” animals all the time - it is accepted that breeding is something that we do to animals in addition to something which happens naturally between them. However, when this same use of term is applied to humans, as it was during that conversation on the bus ten years ago, I believe many people would find it as objectionable as I did.

This was brought to mind for me yesterday when I heard that Tian Tian, the female panda at Edinburgh zoo had failed to mate naturally with Yang Guang, the resident male panda. Now we can never know what motivation Tian Tian might have had for choosing not to mate with Yang Guang. We don’t know what a panda thinks or feels when she chooses a mate. The zoo claimed that Yang Guang was doing all the right things to elicit mating and his advances were spurned by his unwilling partner.

Perhaps putting normally solitary animals on display for zoo visitors to stare at day-in and day-out had an effect on Tian Tian’s willingness to mate. Perhaps living in a confined and unnatural zoo enclosure meant she was less receptive. Perhaps she felt that Yang Guang was simply not the right panda to father her young. Perhaps it was something entirely different; we will never know, because we cannot ask Tian Tian how she feels about it. We can perhaps assume though that, judging by her actions, becoming pregnant now is not something that is right for her. 

Sadly, the zoo’s desperation for the pitter patter of tiny panda paws meant that they did not simply accept that the time wasn’t right and instead they chose to sedate Tian Tian and artificially inseminate her. In this instance, “breeding” is not something which has happened naturally between two animals who have selected their mates but is something which is being done by the zoo to Tian Tian. 

It’s not just pandas that are “bred” in this enforced manner. Elephants in zoos have been manipulated in the same way, as have rhinos. Zoos argue that this is necessary to protect the species but animals born in zoos rarely go back to the wild. In fact, only two pandas born in captivity have ever been released to the wild. The first, Xiang Xiang, was killed and the second, Taotao, was released late last year. It remains to be seen if he will survive. If Tian Tian does fall pregnant and her baby survives, he or she will be the property of the Chinese Government and must be sent to China after two years. And so the cycle will begin again.

I have long been against the panda deal. The money, the political undertones, the shameless promotion of every last detail of the pandas’ lives and the dubious conservation claims all leave a bad taste in the mouth. Notwithstanding my overall opposition to zoos, the panda deal stands out as a particularly objectionable example of how animals are exploited for monetary gain. After all, the Scottish Government admitted that this was not, as the zoo claims, a conservation project but was “primarily a commercial transaction”. Given the precedent already set, and of course the fact that the zoo has been taking every last opportunity to talk publicly about their plans for panda cubs, I was not surprised by yesterday’s news, but I was saddened.

That final piece of control that Tian Tian had over her life which, for all we know, she may have exerted knowingly or consciously has now been taken away from her – just as any chance of ever living in freedom, without thousands of prying eyes on her every day, has already been taken from her.

If Tian Tian does turn out to be pregnant, I can see little reason to celebrate.

Don’t want to wait two years to end circus suffering? The power remains in our hands

After yesterday’s wonderful news that the Government finally appears to be coming good on their promise to ban wild animals in circuses, there was great cause for celebration. But, like many of our supporters, to see that the long-overdue ban would not be coming in until December 2015 dampened our spirits a little. This long delay has the potential to have very real connotations for the animals. Put simply, it could mean two more years of suffering under the big top. We know that many of you felt the same.

But let’s not forget, this work to end exploitation of animals in circuses has always operated on a number of fronts. The political lobbying has only formed one part of it with grassroots activism underpinning the whole campaign. Let’s not forget that we have never had a legislative ban in this country but there are fewer animal circuses than ever before. There are fewer animals in those circuses than ever before.

Government documents released last year showed that visitor numbers to wild animal circuses had more than halved in just five years. This year two long-standing animal circuses are not touring. Last season another animal act left the country as the audiences rejected the cruel spectacle. Why? As a result of public awareness-raising, education, peaceful demonstrations and on-going pressure from compassionate people all over the country. This progress is not down to Government bans, it’s down all of us who are working to see an end to the cruelty.

Of course, the outright ban is vital and we will continue to work hard to make sure that it is implemented as soon as humanly possible. The ban will ensure that the cruelty can never return but, in the meantime, we are far from powerless. If you, like us, don’t want to wait two years, then get involved today.

There are so many useful ways that you can help bring about the end of animal suffering in circuses; and not just for wild animals, but the horses, dogs and ponies that still need you to be their voice. You can organise or attend a demo, you can ensure that you let CAPS know if you see an animal circus coming to your town, you can write to your local newspaper or the circus venue, you can order and distribute leaflets.

CAPS has always been proud to work alongside grassroots campaigners and a significant part of our resources go towards facilitating and providing vital materials for local demonstrations each year. We know that this action is working. If you cannot attend a demo, please consider supporting our work in this area by donating today to the urgent circus fund appeal.

The power remains in our hands, we just need to make sure we use it.