There can be no justice without truth: How can the zoo industry be accountable when it refuses to be truthful?

I spent the last few days at a conference organised by the Born Free Foundation and Vier Pfoten/Four Paws in Brussels. The discussion was focused around captive wild animals and whether or not they are protected effectively by the law in the various European Member States. It was interesting, at times challenging, but ultimately really valuable. The conference had an ambitious agenda; the organisers effectively managed to facilitate useful and meaningful discussion between the captive animal industry (there were zoo representatives there), the animal protection lobby (yours truly and a whole host of other NGO reps) and Government officials from the various states. I would be lying if I said there wasn’t some heated discussion but, on the whole, for groups of people who may often find themselves on different sides of the fence, it was great to see such a willingness to engage.

Newly released guidelines from ABTA

I had been interested, and delighted, to hear as part of one of the presentations that ABTA, the UK travel association, had released new guidance to members on responsible tourism and animal welfare.  Whilst I am not 100% in agreement with absolutely all of the standards, the use of animals in tourism is something which has long  been overlooked and so I was really pleased to see this being addressed at industry level. I hope that this scheme will complement the Right Tourism project established last year by Care for the Wild. It seems between the two then both industry (the ABTA standards) and tourists themselves (the Right Tourism project) are now being educated on this important matter. I sincerely hope that it will have an impact on the huge numbers of animals that are exploited as a matter of course in the global tourism industry.

I was particularly interested to see that ABTA had outlined certain practices involving animals in tourism which were deemed to be simply “unacceptable”, as well as offering more general advice and outlining best practice.  Whilst not legally binding, it was made clear that those operators signing up to the guidance would be expected to take their provisions seriously. Having just been released in the last few days, it is unclear at this point specifically how relationships between tour operators and tourists attractions will be dealt with but it seems that those businesses which persist in carrying out "unacceptable" behaviours (bullfighting, for example), will not be supported by ABTA operators in the long run.

The one “unacceptable” practice which stood out for me from the list presented was “mutilation” for non-medical purposes. It was used throughout the discussion as an obvious example of something that the tourism industry should not accept. Nobody in the room disagreed as they presumably pictured tigers in a far flung place being de-clawed or monkeys having their canine teeth pulled out so they don’t pose a danger to punters when they are used as photo props in sunny climes. Two seats away from the ABTA rep was a spokesperson from Chester Zoo in the UK. She was also there to form part of the same panel discussion. 

So I had to ask: How does ABTA intend to deal with the leading zoos in the UK and the rest of Europe (which are presumably promoted by ABTA members to potential tourists) that carry out mutilation on animals in their thousands as a matter of course via the procedure of pinioning (partial amputation of a bird’s wing to render her permanently flightless). And did the representative from Chester Zoo have anything to add, given that her zoo carries the procedure?

It stands to reason that, following the release of the new guidance, ABTA members should not support these zoos whilst the practice persists. And, in my view, they should be applauded for doing so.

I expected the question to cause some discomfort but was surprised when the Chester Zoo rep informed me, and the 100-odd other delegates, that the procedure was perfectly legal and that Chester Zoo did not pinion birds in any case. I say I was surprised because this claim was untrue – just two months ago, Chester Zoo admitted that it pinioned birds in a statement to the national press which confirmed: “Where possible we keep our birds fully winged in large enclosures. To maintain exotic bird species in captivity then, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we must prevent them from escaping, as it is an offence to release exotic species into the wild. We thus limit pinioning to two bird groups, flamingos and cranes, as these birds are kept in large open enclosures”.

According to the Chester Zoo website, this means that over 200 birds have had part of their wing surgically removed in this way at this zoo alone.

The zoo rep's response essentially diluted the question and she was supported by another speaker who was closely linked to the zoo industry. The suggestion was that there was nothing to worry about and that, in any case, few zoos do it and it's well on its way out. The ABTA spokesperson followed the lead of the zoo reps, the question went unanswered and the discussion moved on.

On speaking to a colleague afterwards, he suggested that it was to be expected that the zoo rep would bend the truth in order to progress her own agenda. I disagree. If you are in a media interview and you have been pitched against an opponent, then I accept that the zoo industry will bring its PR machine into play. It’s part of the game of publicity – it’s what makes the news story interesting. However as a speaker on a panel where there is a stated common goal of identifying problems and working together to seek common solutions, I believe that the PR spin should be left at the door.

At CAPS, we have been calling for an independent review of the practice of pinioning to be carried out by Defra following the launch of our Fight for Flight campaign. This incident simply serves to highlight the vital need for the UK zoo industry to be held to account on this issue.

A wiser person than me said “there can be no justice without truth” and this rang true in this instance. If the zoo industry will not be honest about its practices, then there can be no debate. If there can be no debate, then the industry is not accountable; either to its own visitors or to the animals themselves.

If you want to find out more about the Fight for Flight and help to put an end to the cruel practice of pinioning, please have a look at the main campaign page and get involved.

If you're heading off on holiday, make sure you have a look at the Right Tourism website before you do.That way you can make sure that your few days of fun in the sunshine is animal friendly.

Q: Why don’t you campaign on [insert issue of choice here]? A: Why don’t YOU campaign on [insert issue choice here]?

It’s always really exciting when a campaign that you have worked on for months, researched thoroughly and invariably lost some sleep over finally goes public. The CAPS Fight for Flight campaign was launched almost three months ago and has already taken strides forward in both publicising the cruel practice of pinioning birds and also exposing illegal practice in zoos up and down the country.

The vast majority of feedback has been hugely supportive  but, as with any campaign, there are always some people who are not in agreement with us. As campaigners, we expect this – if everyone agreed with us already then our work would be somewhat redundant. One reaction which we always hear, regardless of the subject matter of the campaign, is “Hey! Why don’t you campaign on this instead?”

In the last few years, I have heard the following examples of the “Hey! Why don’t you campaign on this instead?” reaction:

“Why don’t you campaign on wildlife poaching?” (in response to the pinioning campaign).

“Why don’t you campaign about the Grand National?” (in response to the circus campaign).

“Why don’t you focus on something that really matters, like human suffering” (in response to almost every campaign I have ever been involved in).

And just so it’s clear, this question is never delivered in a: “Hey! I saw what a great job you did with that last campaign and I think you should take on this one next  - I’m sure you’ll make a great success of it!” kind of way.  It’s delivered in more of a “Hey! Stupid! Why are you wasting your time on this drivel when you should be focusing on this instead!” kind of way.

Birds - my big thing right now, what's yours?

I always find this a strange reaction to a group of people who are seeking to improve the lives of animals in some way.  This to me is the equivalent of stomping into a hospital and demanding to know why the oncologist is wasting his time with cancer because I have concluded that his working life would be better spent carrying out brain surgery. Personally, I think the oncologist, who has probably (hopefully) spent a long time honing his skills, perhaps has a very specific interest in caring for his patients, should stick to what he’s good at. And the brain surgeon, well she should carry on as she is too. As long as they are not harming anyone, then both the oncologist and the brain surgeon have every right to decide what is important to them and pursue their passion.

Thankfully the world of campaigning is not limited to a hierarchical list which someone else writes up for us and whose entries we must tackle one by one, in order of importance, in a huge coordinated mass; ticking off issues as we go. World hunger “check!”, child poverty “check!” etc. Because if it was done in that way you could guarantee that animals would fall way down the list. Way down. And so would all of the other small, yet vital, campaigns that are being carried out around the world at any one time.

Instead, campaigning is driven by the passion of those people who give of their time and effort to achieve something better than we have now. It could be that this person’s driving passion is their local community and their campaign will establish a community garden. It may be that this person’s driving passion is to contribute to the campaign to end world hunger and they spend their time working on that problem in one small community in one particular part of the world. It could be that this person’s driving passion is animal protection and they feel that birds should not have their limbs amputated so that zoo visitors can look at them. As long as they are not hurting anyone else, each of these campaigns is as valid as the others.

What’s important to me may not be important to everyone, and the campaigns that I work on may not change the whole world. But if we can stop zoos hacking off the wings of birds, then we can certainly change the world for those birds, and all the future generations of birds that won’t be subjected to the same treatment. I think that’s worth fighting for.

So I have a suggestion: If you hear about someone else’s efforts to try to help someone else (be that someone animal or human) and your genuine reaction is: “Why the hell aren't they focusing on [insert an issue you are passionate about here]?” then why not focus your energy on being the person that does do something about your issue? 

Look for information on community gardens, wildlife poaching prevention, world hunger or child poverty and then do something about it. 

Every action, however big or small, can make a difference. We just need people to get active.