In April of this year, after a number of false starts
(remember the news that the Defra Minister was “minded” to ban back in early 2011?), a number of false claims (remember the non-existent court case in Austria?) and a number of high-profile opponents (remember the allegations of
coercion against PM David Cameron's office by Mark Pritchard MP?), the draft bill to ban
the use of wild animals in English circuses was finally published. The ban would not be implemented until 2015,
mind, but the long-fought battle appeared to have been won and widespread
celebrations ensued.
 |
| Why do zebras deserve less protection than tigers? Photo: CAPS |
It seems that the committee were unaware of (or perhaps choosing to ignore) the 2009/2010 public consultation on the subject of wild
animals in circuses which asked the question of the general public “Do you
think that there are any species of wild animal which it is acceptable to use
in travelling circuses?” and which saw a resounding 95.5% of respondents
answering “No”.
 |
| Camels are no more suited to circus life than elephants. Photo: CAPS |
If Government does choose to follow the committee’s advice
then, by banning animals that have already been removed from the circus, and
failing to prohibit those animals that are still being used, the ban
would save zero animals from continued exploitation. That certainly is not what
we have all been working so hard towards for so long.
Thankfully the Government is not bound by the select
committee’s advice and can choose to continue to pursue the ban that we all want to see implemented. But we must remind officials that we were
listening when Lord de Mauley made the promise that:
“This legislation will end the use of wild animals in
travelling circuses in this country. It will also help ensure that our
international reputation as a leading protector of animals continues into a new
global era”.
Not only were we listening, but we will continue to hold
them to that promise.
Please join us in taking urgent action today by writing to
the Defra minister, Lord de Mauley, to ask him to reject any suggestion of
narrowing the scope of the ban and deliver on his promise to prohibit the use of all
wild animals in travelling circuses in England.
Please don’t delay – this quick and easy action will help to
demonstrate that the public want a ban on the exploitation of all wild animals
in travelling circuses.
Email Lord de Mauley: demauley@parliament.uk
Thank you
Find out more about the progress of this campaign by visiting www.captiveanimals.org
Look Love why don't you go save something that ACTUALLY needs saving or is that too difficult?
ReplyDeleteYou Libbers, Animal Activists or whatever you call yourselves are just self righteous ignorant morons.
Have you acrually been to a circus RECENTLY that has animals or are you like the rest of the opinionated big mouth idiots who have not evolved for 50 years?
Circuses with animals ,all around the world are licensed business that have to follow & adhere to very strict conditions set by THE GOVERNMENT & are regularly inspected by people who's job it is to make sure circuses aren't mistreating their animals.
So sweetheart go save a whale or better still save a child, or just do something selfless that doesnt require you to write a blog so you feel all important and you cvan strokie your keyboard ego.
Dear Vickie,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry my blog has upset you so much but please be aware that any further abusive comments will be deleted. In response to your questions, our organisation has carried out numerous investigations into animal circuses in the UK and Ireland, with the most recent being last year. As such, I am aware of the current situation with regard to animal circuses and my view is based on this information, a number of years of research and my fundamental ethical opposition to the use of animals in this way.
With regard to licensing, whilst there is a licensing regime in place in England, the regime has been heavily criticised by all leading animal welfare groups working on this issue, along with a host of MPs. This criticism is based on the fact that the complex needs of wild animals simply cannot be met in a travelling circus environment and that the legislation itself is unenforceable. It's not true to say that circuses all around the world are licensed businesses as few countries have such schemes in place.
The purpose of the post above was to highlight that, when this issue was put to public consultation, the vast majority of respondents agreed that there is no place for wild animals in travelling circuses. It is clear we don't share the same view, and are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this, judging by your comments.
Liz
The proposed law is seriously flawed and open to legal challenges from every quarter. It is discriminatory against the people who work in Circuses and does not guarantee that any animal will receive a better life.
ReplyDeleteWhat is to stop the same people who work with Camels in Circuses today, from using the same animals, with the same training methods, the same transports and the same facilities from driving to and entering "Camel racing"? The Camels would basically be doing the same behaviours as they currently do now; run. The only difference would be if the owners arrived at a venue and were proclaiming themselves as a Circus, they would be performing a criminal act.
The Government have announced that they were unable to amass scientific evidence which would enable a ban based on welfare purposes. Instead, they intend to pursue a ban on "ethical grounds". Is Camel racing any more ethically acceptable than Circuses? How unethical is keeping a Llama in your back garden (Providing it meets any welfare needs the animal has) compared to keeping a Llama in a Circus? One would be legal if the proposed ban comes into force - the other wouldn't. Should the main reason for declaring the keeping of animals "Un-ethical" be that they are kept in a Circus - regardless of the welfare conditions?
Then there is the question of the animal's welfare itself. Although the Government has found "Insufficient evidence to pursue a ban on welfare purposes", one hopes that the intention is to improve the animal's welfare conditions. The proposal does nothing to address what would happen to the animals in the case of a ban. There have been assumptions that Zoos/Parks would be willing to adopt all the animals, and another assumption that the Circuses would be willing to co-operate with the organisations that have destroyed their way of life, but the fact is most Zoos would be very reluctant to adopt a Circus animal - especially one as common as a Camel - and Circus animals owned by individual trainers would simply move to another country to continue to live the life that they see as a good life for their animals as well as themselves.
Animals in Circuses have been abused. However, the cases of abuse are surely no higher than in any other animal husbandry situation. Certainly the fact that there have been more cases of Horses being killed and whipped in full public view while racing suggests that there is a much wider problem within that industry than in the Circus environment.
Why do we treat other animal owners as individuals when cases of neglect or abuse occur, yet assume that abuse and neglect is widespread in Circuses (Despite Government findings) and seek to destroy a way of life based on the acts of a very small minority of trainers - based on "Ethical grounds".
How "ethical" is that?
Dear Ingo,
DeleteThanks for your comment - you make some valid points - I personally would agree that camel racing should not be allowed either. However, I disagree with the implication that as long as you can find another activity that is equally as undesirable (and which remains legal) then you should do nothing about circuses. There are, regrettably, a great number of anomalies in the law. For example, the fact that birds in zoos can legally have half of their wings amputated whereas birds in farms cannot. That it would be illegal to de-beak a chicken outside of a factory farm environment but it is perfectly legal in mass production units. That you could not carry out painful experiments on a live family pet but, under licence in a lab, the most awful animal suffering is caused in vivisection etc etc. It is far from ideal but I believe that changes should be made where possible.
It should perhaps be noted that the use of llamas would not, as you suggest, be outlawed by a ban as a review by Defra resulted, in 2004, with llamas and alpacas being removed from the schedule of animals classed as “wild” in the UK.
You state that “there have been assumptions” that zoos/parks would be willing to take the animals but that this is unlikely to happen in practice. In fact, there are long-standing and well-publicised commitments from a number of organisations to find homes for each and every one of the wild animals currently used in English circuses. You say that circuses may not want to collaborate with these organisations, which is a fair point, but the option is there for any circuses willing to take up the offer in the interests of securing the best possible future for the animals.
You focus on welfare in your argument but, as you rightly note, the ban is not being introduced on welfare grounds. The alleged paucity of evidence to demonstrate whether welfare needs can or cannot be met in a circus environment is a subject that has long been disputed. All leading welfare groups have convincingly argued that the evidence is there but the circus working group’s frame of reference was narrowed to such an extent that a huge amount of evidence was omitted from consideration. However, this is not the place to go into those arguments given that the ban is not being introduced on these grounds, but on grounds of ethics.
As with the previous commentator, it is likely that we are not going to see eye to eye on this but, personally, I agree entirely with the government’s view as follows:
- It is not necessary to use wild animals in travelling circuses to experience the circus;
- wild animals are just that and are not naturally suited to travelling circuses and may suffer as a result of being unable to fulfil their instinctive natural behaviour;
- we should feel duty-bound to recognise that wild animals have intrinsic value, and respect their inherent wildness and its implications for their treatment; and
- the practice adds nothing to the understanding and conservation of wild animals and the natural environment
Notwithstanding the above, my original post was not, in fact, intended to discuss the arguments for or against the use of wild animals in circuses (arguments which are covered in detail in other posts, articles and documents published over a number of years). Instead, it was considering the fact that the EFRA committee have opposed the measures based on an apparent belief that a complete ban does not have public support. This view flies in the face of evidence.
It remains to be seen if Government take heed of the EFRA advice or not. I’m sure you will be as interested as I am in these developments.
Liz