Exploiting one animal to save another. A call for companies to consider the impact of their advertisements

Pet food company, Whiskas, has recently launched a new advert to highlight their partnership with the WWF in order to raise awareness and funds for tiger conservation. Whilst I have my reservations about some of the work of WWF (mainly because of this sort of thing) and Whiskas (mainly because of the wider work of its parent company, Mars), the principle behind the advert makes a lot of sense; using people’s love of domestic cats to support the conservation of one of the most critically endangered animals in the world.

The tiger cubs featured in the newest advert were filmed at their home in a French zoo. Again, the very fact that these cubs are in a zoo sits uncomfortably with me. But if they were filmed doing what comes naturally to them, if they were not interfered with and if they were not trained or otherwise manipulated to get the footage, then the ad itself has not necessarily made their sorry situation any worse than it already is. Indeed, the WWF is not opposed to captivity in principle and so filming in a zoo was presumably deemed acceptable. Even so, the charity does realise that “having captive populations of animals does not solve underlying problems of habitat destruction, which are often one of the key causes of the species’ decline” so, even by their own standards, the use of captive tiger cubs to promote in situ tiger conservation was perhaps not the most fitting of choices. Having said this, I risk going way off track here, so will leave the rights and wrongs of filming in a zoo for now as the purpose of this post isn’t about captivity per se.

 

No, what bothered me about this new initiative relates to another ad released by Whiskas in the last few months. The production in question depicted a leopard padding around an urban garden and then transforming into a domestic cat as he passes through a cat flap. The idea behind both the leopard and tiger adverts appears to be to show that big cats and little cats have lots in common. The focus of the leopard advert is specifically on the natural behaviour of cats, stating that “small cats share the same instincts as big cats” before going on to claim that the Whiskas brand of pet food “gives your cat everything they naturally need”. The recognition that animals have natural needs and instincts forms the foundation of the production.

With this in mind, it was disappointing to learn that Whiskas chose to use a performing animal business, Hollywood Animals, to provide the leopard in the first production. Ironically, this advert which appears to be celebrating all that is natural about felines has used a captive animal which has had all opportunity to live a natural life taken away. 

It has been recognised that the use of wild animals in performances can seriously compromise the welfare of the animals involved; not just during production itself but over their entire lifetimes as they are held captive, trained and transported both nationally and internationally (and in the case of those used by Hollywood Animals “from Africa to Australia”). Furthermore, these animals are kept in physical and social environments that bear no resemblance to those that they are naturally evolved to inhabit. 

Many businesses enter into agreements with performing animal companies through ignorance of this industry. Thankfully, an increasing number of brands and agencies are committing to avoid the use of live performing animals in the future thanks to schemes such as www.animalpledge.org and the work of campaigning organisations around the world.  But still these performing animal businesses which exploit animals for commercial gain continue. And they will keep going whilst there is still demand for seeing big cats on leashes to advertise fashion brands, chimpanzees dressed in human clothing to promote recruitment companies and monkeys in TV studios to sell coffee. In some cases, and because of the nature of some of the businesses which have animals for hire in this way, the animals used in these commercials are the same individuals that are used in circuses. Sadly, there is still a long way to go before a large part of the general public, and the media industry, make the connection that the use of wild animals in circuses - a practice which is increasingly rejected globally - is no different, from the point of view of the animals, to the use of wild animals in film and TV. 

Whilst it would be great if the Whiskas/WWF partnership can help to raise funds which will truly make an impact on tiger conservation, Whiskas and other companies like them must take their responsibility to animals seriously. After all, exploiting one wild animal whilst working to save another can hardly be considered to be a sound basis for conservation, let alone in the interests of the animals involved.

Have a look at www.animalpledge.org for more information on the use of wild animals in the audiovisual industry. If you work in the media industry then please consider taking the pledge.

Suffering of animals in circuses must be stopped, not simply displaced

A news report yesterday confirmed that a group of lions and tigers, likely to be those that have been used for a number of years in Tom Duffy’s Circus in Ireland, are destined to join a new circus in England. This comes just six months after campaigners celebrated the apparent end of use of big cats in English circuses as the last performing lions and tigers to be used by the UK-based Great British Circus were sent to Ireland to join Courtney Brothers Circus. It was heralded as the end of an era when Duffy’s announced that the big cats would be leaving the show but there is little to celebrate now we know that the animals will simply be moved across the Irish Sea to continue in the same existence.

Tiger in in Tom Duffy's circus in 2012. (c) CAPS/C.Redmond

Any victory is somewhat hollow if suffering is simply displaced from one country to another. In the long term, the more individual countries that ban the use of animals in circuses, the less demand there will be for those animals and the fewer will be bred in future to endure impoverished and unnatural lives in the big top. It goes without saying that we must continue to strive for national bans as part of the long-term campaign. In the meantime, though, we will continue to see animals being shifted from pillar to post and a tiger in a circus in England will suffer equally to a tiger in a circus in Ireland while the respective Governments continue to stall. This is why it is so important that the UK and Ireland close the door on this practice once and for all. 

Concern is not limited to wild animals (c) CAPS/C.Redmond

It is also vital that we don’t forget the other animals. As Duffy’s announced that they would no longer use big cats in their shows, they promptly replaced them with dogs and birds. This means more animals will be spending their lives performing meaningless tricks for circus audiences. Whilst none of the legislative measures in discussion in the UK and Ireland are currently considering banning the use of domesticated animals in circus shows, we firmly support an end to the use of all animals in circuses.

It’s not all doom and gloom, though – far from it. Irish Ministers from Dublin and Belfast have recently appointed a team to consider the situation of wild animals in circuses. England has committed to ban (although we continue to urge the Government to ignore the ill-advised recommendations of the select committee on this matter). Scotland is due to consult on the issue in the coming year and Wales has shown commitment to ban. 

Local grassroots action has been vital in driving down visitor numbers to animal circuses and shows have dropped animal acts in response to protests and negative feedback from customers. This has to continue for the horses, dogs and other domesticated animals which will not be protected by banning legislation.We are moving in the right direction and we will succeed. It will just take more hard work.

If you live in England, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, you can help.

If you live in ENGLAND, please write to Lord de Mauley today on demauley@parliament.uk and demand that the ban on all wild animals in circuses is implemented as soon as possible.

If you live in the REPUBLIC of IRELAND, please contact Minister, Simon Coveney, on simon.coveney@oir.ie to request an outright ban on the use of wild animals in circuses.

If you live in NORTHERN IRELAND, please contact Minister, Michelle O’Neill, on dardhelpline@dardni.gov.uk with the same request.

Government must stick to its promise: It’s time to put an end to the circus policy circus

Since 2005, the current political process towards securing a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses has been pursued tirelessly by animal protection organisations, individual campaigners and activists and a host of sympathetic cross-party MPs.

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

But then, on Tuesday of this week, the report released by the EFRA select committee charged with scrutinising the draft bill put forward by Government made the recommendation that the ban should only be applied to elephants and big cats. This recommendation was based on the committee’s belief that the public have no real concern for racoons, snakes, zebra and camels. It was furthermore suggested that the only reason that there was concern for elephants, tigers and lions was that the public mistakenly believes that these animals are still used in large numbers in English circuses.

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

The committee may be confused on this matter but the public are certainly not. Indeed, the public have spoken out clearly, along with experts, animal protection campaigners and MPs time and time again.

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

It's all just some good harmless fun, right? The real lives of the photo prop animals in our daily "cute" fix

Reading the news can be something of an emotional rollercoaster at the best of times. Social media and internet allows the reading and sharing of stories at the click of a button. 24 hour news channels cater for our desire for access to information at any hour, day or night. Our ability to access the news is without bounds.

  

And so much of it seems to be bad; war, crime, recession, poverty, homelessness, violence - all there for the reading. Good news can often seem in short supply and I am sure that, like me, you read a heart-warming story of victory, success or triumph with pleasure. As a charity campaigner, I know that when we report good news to our members, it is met with an influx of enthusiastic responses all saying more or less the same thing: “It’s so nice to read some good news for a change!” It delights us to report it, and it delights our supporters to read it.

And the national press is no different; it needs its fair share of good news, light relief and fun. It is common for that light relief to be delivered via a heart-warming story about an animal doing something funny, cute or downright wacky. Exotic animals doing something funny, cute or downright wacky is great. Baby exotic animals doing something funny, cute or downright wacky is even better. Children and baby exotic animals doing something cute, funny or downright wacky is the gold standard. If it causes a laugh, a smile or a general feeling of “things can’t be that bad if there is such cuteness/fun/wackiness in the world” then the story has achieved its aim. And it’s all just good harmless fun, right?

Not really, no.

Just yesterday, an article ticking all of the boxes for cute was featured in the Daily Mail:

Screenshot: Daily Mail 11th May 2013

Cute little girl? Check.

Cute young orang-utan? Check.

Staged picnic scene where the ape drinks out of a cup, just like a human? Check.

The article was lamenting the fact that the little girl, Emily, would no longer be able to hang out with her best “pri-mate” (the newspaper's pun, not mine) because Rishi the orang-utan was getting too big and dangerous for her to play with. What the article failed to mention is that Rishi is owned by a business called T.I.G.E.R.S. Institute; a company which hires out animals for the entertainment industry, stages the type of circus style performances that are due to be banned in this country in the coming years and uses animals as photo props for paying visitors. In reality, being separated from Emily would appear to be the least of Rishi’s problems.

Just weeks before, a series of photographs of a baby monkey sitting on the back of a lion cub at Guaipo Manchurian Tiger Park in China were featured in national news around the world. The coverage of the photos released by the zoo has been an incredible PR coup for the business and, on the surface (and dependent on your view of zoos) it might appear to be another example of good harmless fun. But scratch beneath the surface and an internet search reveals photos of an endangered Sumatran tiger cub being exhibited in a city centre on a leash by zoo staff. The photo opportunity was part of a publicity stunt to mark the opening of a “real estate project” in 2010. The extent of the zoo’s use of animals in this way is unclear but scrutiny of animal welfare at these establishments seems to fall by the wayside when a cute photo is concerned.

And a week before that, an article entitled “Pimp my chimp” showed a capuchin monkey kept as  a pet in the United States showcasing a series of “wacky” outfits, ranging from cowboy to pirate to disco dancer. What the article failed to mention was that the monkey in the photos would not only have been removed from her mother as an early age to enter into the primate pet trade but her canine teeth appeared to have been removed; something which some owners do to evade the dangerous bites of the wild animals. It failed to mention that this monkey should be living in the forests of South America with her family troop, not in a domestic home in North America where her complex needs can never be met.

And it is not just the welfare of the individual animals used in these stunts that is at risk, but research into the portrayal of chimpanzees in situations such as the photo shoot using Rishi and Emily has suggested that it could be damaging to conservation efforts too. It was found that “In 2008, survey data revealed that the public is less likely to think that chimpanzees are endangered compared to other great apes, and that this is likely the result of media misportrayals in movies, television and advertisements”.

Those outlined above are just a few examples of many of these "light relief" stories that are being put into the public domain on a daily basis by a whole host of media outlets. 

Whilst not done with malice or intent to harm, surely it is time that we all started to look beyond the cute photos and silly stories to understand what this moment of fun for us might mean for the animals?

The AnimalPledge.org scheme was established in 2012 by a group of animal protection and conservation organisations to raise awareness within the media industry on its use of wild animals. If you work in the media, or for any company that uses the media (advertising or promotions) as part of your work, please check out the site and consider taking the pledge.

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.

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

Justice has not been done and there will be more suffering to come

On Friday, a “guilty” verdict was delivered in the trial of circus owner, Bobby Roberts, over the cruel treatment of Anne the elephant, exposed last year by ADI.  Whilst the verdict itself was welcomed, the sentence of a conditional discharge, no fine and no ban on keeping animals sends a clear message that the infliction of serious violence on an animal in a circus will simply lead to a slap on the wrist. Hardly a deterrent for those minded to engage in these awful practices.

Of course, deliberate acts of cruelty and the day-to-day provision of welfare are two different things. Anne did not have to be beaten with a pitch fork in order to suffer in the circus.

It was suffering enough that she was taken from the wild as a youngster.

It was suffering enough that she was held captive (sometimes quite literally in shackles) for her lifetime in this unnatural environment.

It was suffering enough that she had no company of her own kind for so very long.

It was suffering enough that she was hauled up and down the country for months on end each year.

It was suffering enough that she was forced to perform degrading tricks for paying customers.

The sadistic pitch fork beatings served to add insult to injury in what was already an impoverished and miserable existence. Anne’s welfare needs could never be met in a circus. Nor can those of the other animals that are still there.

On the 20^th January 2013, the Government’s new licensing regime for wild animals in circuses will come into force and will serve to legitimise the continued use of wild animals in circuses in England. The strongly opposed regulations are to be introduced under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That’s the same legislation under which Roberts was tried and convicted, then walked away without receiving any meaningful punishment.

During the recent debate in the House of Lords, which saw vehement opposition to the licensing proposals, the Minister responsible for the regulations said:
“… we are confident that these regulations, combined with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, will provide significant protection for wild animals in travelling circuses.”

If she could speak, I imagine that Anne may well beg to differ with this view.

We have maintained from the beginning that licensing the use of wild animals in circuses will not work and Friday’s verdict only goes to reinforce that view. Significant protection for animals currently being held in circuses will never be delivered by licensing, but by protecting them from use in the circus altogether.

For all of those animals still being exploited in circus rings here and in other countries, justice has not been done. Only a ban will do.