Living a lie: What the zoo taught me about animals

I went to the zoo last week. That’s something that most people that know me well might be surprised to hear. As an animal rights campaigner, those close to me know how I feel about zoos. I don’t like them; I think animals deserve better than to be held captive for their lifetimes so that we can kill a few empty hours on a Saturday afternoon by looking at them.

No matter how hard you stare at a gorilla, he can’t teach you about conservation

Despite not being a fan of zoos, in my role as director of a charity which campaigns against the keeping of animals captive, I have probably seen the inside of more zoos than the average member of the public. I have seen endless photographs, hours of video footage, many transcripts of conversations and interviews, news articles, scientific papers and books published by and for the zoo community. I have, of course, also visited zoos over the years. From these various sources, I have learned an awful lot about the zoo industry. But what I have learned about animals in my lifetime so far, I did not learn from the zoo.

I don’t claim to be an expert on all things animal but I have spent the last ten years working with or for animals or conservation efforts. What I have learned, I learned from my own experience, books, papers, articles, photographs, documentaries and from others who have taken the time to share their knowledge with me.

One of the rebuttals to my objection to zoos often comes from the parents of young children (and the zoos themselves, on behalf of their visitors with young children), who claim that children couldn’t possibly learn about animals if they didn’t go to the zoo. My response is normally to point out what a child cannot learn from looking at animals in the zoo.

No matter how hard we stare at a tiger, we will not learn about his natural habitat, the vital role that he plays in his native ecosystem and the dire need for in situ conservation efforts if he and other members of his species are to survive beyond the next few decades. We could look all day at a polar bear and learn nothing of global warming and melting ice caps. We can admire orang-utans and come away non-the-wiser about palm oil plantations. We can marvel at chimpanzees and learn nothing of human-wildlife conflict and the bush meat trade. Of course, zoos can provide signs, guidebooks and talks to describe these things but what we can actually learn from looking at the animals themselves, beyond their size and shape, is debatable. And yet, animals are held captive for their entire lifetimes in zoos; purportedly so we can learn from them.

I know what we cannot learn from zoos but perhaps, I pondered, I was not giving this multi-billion pound industry enough credit. When I visited the zoo last week, I decided to see what I could learn. I wanted to see exactly what it was that the zoo could teach me, rather than focusing on what it couldn’t. So, somewhat helpfully following the same route as a couple of young families where the parents were talking about the animals to their children as they passed from exhibit to exhibit, I spent the day trying to understand exactly what it is that children might learn on a day out at the zoo.

Here’s what I learned on my day at the zoo…

A lone gibbon sits on the ground at the zoo

Every primate that I saw at the zoo was sitting on the ground; something which is essentially alien to predominantly arboreal (tree dwelling) species such as orang-utans, gibbons and spider monkeys. The natural food source for these animals is high in the trees and many will spend the vast majority of their waking hours foraging for food high in the rainforest canopy. In the zoo, they sit on the floor, take the occasional wander around their barren climbing frame made of dead trees and stare dolefully at patches of ground, or pick at patches of their own skin. One macaque walked back and forth across a small bridge between his indoor and outdoor enclosure and twisted his head violently as he reached one end or the other. Head twisting in primates is considered a stereotypic behaviour which suggests psychological distress.

One chimp sat on a raised platform in an indoor room. The mother of a young child standing next to me told her excited young daughter that the “monkey was having fun playing on the swing”. The ape was, in fact, demonstrating a disturbing behaviour indicative of mental trauma. He was repeatedly regurgitating (vomiting) his food into his hand before eating it all over again. He continued to do this for the ten minutes I stood and watched him.

One lone gibbon sat on the ground on a patch of grass on a tiny island. Gibbons do not live on their own in the wild. In fact, private owners of primates in England can be prosecuted for keeping such social animals without any company of their own kind. At the zoo, I learned that these incredible aerial acrobats sit, hunched over, with their long arms wrapped tightly around their slender legs, staring sadly out at the people staring back, day-in-day-out.

This little otter stared silently out of his small enclosure. The sign next to him tells visitors how sociable otters are.

The zoo taught me that otters live alone, need very little room and require barely enough water to swim a body length. Confusingly, the sign on the otter enclosure said that otters lived in big noisy groups and loved to communicate with each other. The otter I saw at the zoo was silent as he stared out of the glass window of his small enclosure.

At the zoo, I learned that penguins can live in small groups, with a small pool of dirty water to swim in. I learned that it was ok for children to pat the penguins on the head, as the barrier was just high enough for them to reach over and touch the birds.

The zoo taught me that the African Plains look like a wasteland, with no greenery and the odd dead tree dotted around. Giraffes eat dry hay from baskets and zebras live in pairs on desolate, muddy ground.

At the zoo, I learned that tigers live in groups of three in spaces that can be crossed at a run within seconds. The sign told me that tigers love to swim, but the tigers in the zoo had little more than a dirty puddle to wet their paws in.

The playground for children is larger and more complex than the permanent home of the orangutans

I learned that the play area for children in the zoo is granted more space, and better climbing equipment, than the enclosure in which the neighbouring orang-utans would spend their entire lives.

I learned that elephants and gorillas could live in the cold European climate and that they don’t need access to heat for most of the day. I knew this must be the case because the animals were locked out of their indoor enclosures during the time I was there.

I learned that snakes can live in tiny glass rooms, with painted backdrops and fake rocks. I learned that bats could live in brightly lit rooms. I learned that tapirs, who are primarily nocturnal and native to the tropics, live in glass fronted rooms, sleeping on piles of hay during the day. If they venture outside, they can take advantage of their muddy, featureless outdoor enclosure with no greenery and a concrete pit full of water.

Okapis, wolves and African hunting dogs live in barren fields.

The zoo taught me that parrots live in cages, that flamingos only have one and a half wings and that hornbills live in brick buildings.

I learned that elephants live in sandpits, that red pandas live on climbing frames in a space hardly bigger than the back yard of my terraced house in the north of England.

I learned that sea lions could live in a swimming pool and that male elephants live on their own.

The African Plains are a muddy waste ground littered with dead trees

My trip to the zoo last week brought home to me that, not only are we failing to teach children important lessons about conservation, empathy and respect for other living beings by taking them to the zoo, we are also presenting them with confusing and often downright false information about animals and their needs.

I have long argued that zoos deliver a damaging educational message to children but I have never walked around the zoo trying to put myself in the shoes of a child; in the shoes of someone that has not already learned from so many other, much more reliable sources. What I learned from the zoo last week did nothing to teach me more about animals, but taught me a huge amount about our treatment of them for our own amusement.

For those that are interested, the zoo I went to last week happened to be Dublin Zoo; the most successful visitor attraction in Ireland. Though I firmly believe that the lessons learned that day could be just as applicable to any number of other captive animal businesses.

Zoo killings: We all need to ensure that we are not part of the problem

In the last few weeks, the zoo industry has been subject to scrutiny in a way that we have rarely seen before. For once, this scrutiny has not come about as a result of an exposé or undercover investigation by an animal protection organisation, but as a result of a number of very public admissions by members of the zoo industry.

Longleat bred, and killed,
lion cubs to ensure a steady
supply for paying visitors

First Copenhagen Zoo killed Marius the young giraffe, before publicly dissecting him and feeding his body to the lions. Next Jyllands Zoo announced that they too may kill a healthy giraffe to make way for a breeding female (a plan which now appears to be on hold for the time being). Days later and a spokesperson for EAZA admitted that around five large mammals were killed by each of the zoo industry body’s members annually; meaning that thousands of animals are deliberately killed in European zoos each year. Yesterday, it was announced that Longleat Safari Park had allowed breeding of their lions to get “out of control” to the extent that animals were killed on more than one occasion. The breeding, it was confirmed, was carried out in order to ensure a steady supply of cute cubs for zoo visitors to look at.

The news has, rightly, caused outrage amongst members of the public who, for so long, have been told that the zoo industry is vital for the survival of species and that animal welfare is its top priority. Disillusioned and angry, compassionate people are looking for a way to bring these zoos to justice. Petitions to oust the Director of Copenhagen Zoo sprang up immediately after Marius died. Then another to stop Jyllands Zoo from killing the second Marius appeared. Now Longleat and EAZA have been targeted as people demand answers and action.

These petitions do serve an important purpose – they let the zoo industry know that killing healthy animals is not acceptable. They warn these businesses that they will not be supported and they allow people to come together to raise awareness and spread the word. But we must remember that Copenhagen, Jyllands and Longleat are not alone in their actions. The killing of healthy animals is rife across the entire zoo industry – the zoos that have “gone public” in the last few weeks are the messengers, but not the only culprits.

With deliberate breeding programmes, a limited gene pool within captivity, confined living conditions, unnatural social groupings and the ongoing demand for zoos to display baby animals to the paying public, the killing of animals in zoos is not only likely, it is inevitable.

Please do sign petitions, please do attend demonstrations and please do demand answers and action. But please also remember that giving any zoo your custom makes you complicit in the suffering of animals like Marius and the family of lions killed at Longleat. Let us take what we have learned in the last few weeks and use it to ensure that we are not part of the problem going forward. The solution is simple: do not visit the zoo.

Want to help?
 
Whilst it is too late to save poor Marius and the family of lions, you can still help raise awareness of his plight and that of the thousands of other animals in zoos, during Easter Weekend when CAPS will be holding the annual Zoo Awareness Weekend. We will release more information shortly but for now please let us know if you want to be involved and we can send you materials to help. Thank you.

When zoo babies pass their sell-by date

We all love baby animals. Even the hardest of hearts will melt at the sight of a litter of puppies or kittens taking their first shaky, uncoordinated steps in the world. The gangly gait of calves and foals is a delight to see and the interaction between patient parents and boisterous youngsters reminds us that maternal and paternal bonds are not just the domain of humans. Perhaps at the pinnacle of baby animal appreciation are those baby animals born in zoos. Those that we know will grow up to be imposing ungulates or dangerous predators all start life as vulnerable babies. Our obsession with baby animals in zoos is perhaps exemplified by the worldwide (and extremely damaging) practice of using zoo babies as “photo props”, where people pay hundreds of pounds at a time to pose with a lion cub on their lap or a tiger cub nuzzling their ear.

Not all zoos allow visitors to handle their baby animals but, without known exception, the captive animal industry knows all-too-well how to cash in on the pitter patter of tiny paws. Zoo births are the holy grail of publicity with institutions sharing their delight with the press and zoo-going public about the birth. These stories to press generally share a combination of predictable components: 

1. Cute pictures of the babies
2. Adorable anecdotes about how the babies are exploring their home, loving the attention of being on show to the paying public or developing their own individual characters
3. Proud testimony as to how the mother is coping brilliantly with her young
4. The all-important statement about how the birth is not just great news for the zoo but is making an important contribution to the survival of the species.

Copenhagen Zoo welcomes a baby giraffe in 2012

Cue the pitter patter of visitors’ feet and the ringing of cash registers as people pay their entrance fee to come and see the new arrivals. It’s a tried and tested publicity stunt which the media is all too keen to endorse (a google search for “baby born at zoo” brings up tens of thousands of stories within seconds).

But what happens to these animals as they get older and they lose their newborn appeal? What happens when they just become another member of the pride, troop or herd?  

As the tragic death of Marius the giraffe has shown us, not all zoo babies get the chance to grow up.

When a baby giraffe, thought to be Marius but unconfirmed by the zoo (which never formally names its animals, according to the director), was born in 2012, Copenhagen Zoo was quick to promote the new arrival to their visitors. The zoo published an album of photographs on their social media page to “welcome” the little giraffe to the zoo. The photos had the desired effect, with members of the public posting below that they were looking forward to visiting.

Just over eighteen months later and Marius’ corpse was publicly dissected and fed to the lions.

In October 2009, Royal Zoological Society Scotland, which owns Edinburgh Zoo proudly announced the birth of two red river hog piglets, saying on its website: “We are pleased to announce that two red river hog piglets were born on the 14^th August. Red river hogs have been at Edinburgh Zoo since 2004 but this is the first year they have bred successfully. Young adults, 5 year old Belle and 3 year old Hamish are now very proud, first time parents to a boy named Sammi and a girl named Becca!”

Just over a year later and the zoo killed the piglets because, like Marius, they were deemed useless for breeding purposes.

Shockingly, the zoo kept breeding these animals, and three months before Sammi and Becca were killed, the zoo was celebrating the birth of three more piglets. With a spokesperson announcing:

“We are delighted that for a second year our adult pair has produced piglets. At almost a month old they are really playful and have been chasing each other around their enclosure. At this age they are particularly cute so it’s a really good to see them.”

The birth of white lions is a great photo opportunity

Predictably, just over six months after the zoo shared its delight at their birth, the three youngest little pigs were threatened with death as Edinburgh Zoo admitted that, they too, could be surplus to requirements. Following a public outcry, the zoo promised to try to rehome the hogs but their eventual fate remains unclear.

At West Midland Safari Park, the birth of white lion cubs always provides a perfect photo opportunity (despite the fact that there are very serious welfare concerns surrounding the keeping and breeding of white lion cubs in zoos). The zoo states on its website that: “The pride of White Lions at West Midland Safari Park has been deemed as one of the Park's greatest animal exhibits in its 37-year history”. 

However, like giraffes and red river hogs, it seems the “aah factor” of white lion cubs has a sell-by date as, in 2010, four cubs were sent by the zoo to a well-known circus trainer. The lions were trained up and sent on to a Japanese circus where all but one remain today. The other, said to be suffering from an illness which caused his mane to fall out, was moved to another zoo.

When the "aah factor" was gone, so were the lions

Of course, not all animals in zoos are killed, and not all animals in zoos are sent off to join the circus, but nor are animals in zoos (with very, very few exceptions) ever released to the wild. Is it better to live a short life and be prematurely put out of your misery, like Marius, or to endure decades of life in captivity? The fact that neither of these options sounds in the least bit appealing suggests that the problem is the zoo industry itself.

While there is demand to see animals, whether newborn or otherwise, in captivity, the zoo industry will supply those animals. If you do not want to be complicit in the ongoing suffering of animals in zoos, please do not give the zoo industry your custom.

Visit www.captiveanimals.org to find out more.

We all need to look at the bigger picture when it comes to "zoo surplus"

Having been travelling over the weekend with no internet access, I was caught on the back foot when I received a call from a journalist asking for my views on the killing of a young giraffe in Copenhagen Zoo and an entire family of lions at Longleat Wildlife Park in the UK. I spent the evening when I returned home trying to make sense of the decision to kill seven apparently healthy animals who had been deliberately bred and put on display to the paying public.

Young Marius was killed yesterday in Copenhagen Zoo

I tried to make sense of the claims of the need to preserve genetic diversity (in the case of the little giraffe who was killed with a bolt gun on Sunday and then dissected in a macabre public display for zoo goers before being fed to the lions). I tried to make sense of the arguments that lions have to eat meat anyway, so why not feed them the baby giraffe? Indeed, to do anything else would be a waste. I tried to understand the arguments that giraffes die all the time in their natural habitat and surely this is a kinder end than starving to death or being eaten alive by predators.

I tried to make sense of the decision to kill an apparently healthy family of lions to prevent fighting. Fighting which, we are told, occurs when numbers in zoos increase due to increased breeding.

The director of the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA), Leslie Dickie, suggested that people would “see the bigger picture” if they were aware of the facts. This somewhat patronising statement suggested that any concern over the fate of the animals was simply misguided – that if only the paying public understood the clever, complicated science behind captive breeding programmes, they would support these actions wholeheartedly.

But after reading all the excuses, the pseudo-scientific explanations and the suggestion that, if only we really understood the difficulties of managing animals in captivity, we would accept the fact that Marius the giraffe, Henry the lion and his entire family had to die, my feeling of disgust remained the same.
As Ms Dickie rightly suggests, rather than focus on these individuals, it is perhaps better to look at the “bigger picture”. But in looking at the bigger picture, rather than concluding that the zoo industry was correct in its actions, I hope that people might instead realise that the reason for the deaths of these innocent animals was not due to complicated genetics or unpredictable violent behaviour at all. Their untimely deaths were a direct result of their captive situation. In short, the zoo industry itself is to blame.

Marius was never destined to be released to the wild and nor were Henry, his mate or her cubs. They were bred to spend their lives in unnatural, manmade surroundings because zoos make money from showing off exotic animals to people who like to see them. If there was overcrowding at the zoo, it was because the animals were not given enough space. If there were fears over inbreeding at the zoo, it was because the zoo had not taken measures to prevent that happening.

Animals in zoos being considered surplus to requirements is a common occurrence. Edinburgh Zoo admitted killing almost 40 animals between 1992 and 2011 and, in 2010, a German zoo was criticised for killing tiger cubs deemed to be “genetically impure”. In 2011, Knowsley Safari Park came under fire for culling animals. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

A CAPS study carried out in 2003 found that at least 7,500 animals – and possibly as many as 200,000 – in European zoos are ‘surplus’ at any one time.

We should mourn the death of Marius, Henry and his family. We should be angry and demand change. But boycotting Copenhagen Zoo or petitioning Longleat will not be enough. Whilst the zoo industry maintains the support of the general public, animals considered to be surplus to requirements will continue to be killed.

There are many possible arguments and debates surrounding the finer details of these sorry stories but whether detailed analysis is necessary is debatable. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should all look at the bigger picture. If we are concerned about the protection of animals, the conservation of habitats and want to prevent further needless deaths, the answer is simple. Do not visit the zoo.

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.

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.