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.

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. 

The game’s up for mutilation of birds in zoos

Yesterday we launched a new campaign to see an end to the cruel practice of pinioning birds in zoos. Pinioning is the partial amputation of one wing of a baby bird; forever preventing flight. The initial response from our supporters and members of the public when it was discovered that this was happening to thousands of captive birds in UK zoos and wildlife parks was shock, horror and the repeated question: “How did we not know this was going on?”. This was followed by anger, disgust and even guilt that many of us have been unknowingly complicit in this awful practice when visiting wildlife reserves where it is far from obvious that animals are being held captive.

The captive state of animals in traditional zoos is plain to see; there are walls, bars, fences, mesh and moats which delimit the animals’ territory and prevent them from escaping. Those parks which hold captive birds that have been pinioned present a different landscape. Birds wander round ponds and lakes in apparent freedom – not a fence or a cage in sight. Little did we know that many of them have been mutilated in order to keep them there and, even those of us that suspected, those of us that did question why these birds didn’t fly away, weren’t able to get straight answers.

During our investigation, our researcher asked a member of staff at one zoo which admits to pinioning all of its wildfowl and flamingos about the procedure. He was told that the birds weren’t pinioned, they were wing-clipped (a temporary procedure which removes feathers, not bone). This was untrue. At another centre belonging to the same zoo chain, the same question was asked. This time, he was told that all the birds were pinioned because it was illegal not to. This was also untrue.

Internet searches offer no more clarity. Search ‘pinion’ on most zoo websites and nothing comes back. Search the term on the website of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquaria (BIAZA) and the same thing happens.

In the last 24 hours, our supporters have been contacting major zoos around the UK asking the question: “Do you pinion?” and have been met with varying responses including “No, it’s illegal in Britain” (not true), “All of our birds are kept in aviaries” (not true for this particular zoo) and simple refusal to answer the question. As more people ask, we are interested to see if we are able to get to the bottom of the issue, though it’s not looking likely right now.

It would be easy to point the finger and suggest that this misleading information is the result of a deliberate cover up on the part of the zoo industry but the honest truth is I don’t think this is the case in this instance. I believe that the members of the zoo industry that continue to use this procedure simply don’t see it as an issue – if they did they would ensure that their staff were well-briefed and understood the welfare and ethical implications of what was happening. Instead, it seems that staff are being kept in the dark, which means that visitors are too.

It’s difficult to understand how something so violent, so permanent and so serious for the birds in question as amputation of part of their limb ever became something that wasn’t at the forefront of the minds of those responsible. It is astounding that someone came up with the idea in the first place.

But now the game’s up. People know and the word is spreading. Questions are being asked and explanations are being demanded. Join us – please contact your local zoo and ask the question “Do you pinion?” Tell us what they say. Make sure your voice is heard in the Fight for Flight by signing the petition. We can stop this. Please, help us to help them today.