Species conservation is vital, but the individual is important too.

Human life is important. The tragedy of a child’s death will invariably be met with a feeling that this little person had his or her whole life ahead of them. The knowledge that all of those years will now not be lived makes an already terrible loss all the more poignant. Conversely, whilst we may be bereft at the passing of a much-loved elderly friend or relative, the blow of their death may be softened by the feeling that they had “a good innings” (as my dad would say). These feelings stem from the universally accepted premise that being able to live a long, happy and healthy life is something which many, if not all of us, aspire to for ourselves and hope for for our loved ones. We don’t tend to question this premise. We don’t need to justify our reasons for feeling this way. Life just is important. Would you agree?

But when we talk about animals (perhaps with the exception of a beloved family pet), the simple suggestion that animals might, just like us, like to keep on living life until they reach the end of a “good innings”; that they might relish in having experienced a lifetime of family, friends, victories, defeats, gains and losses sometimes appears difficult for us to accept at face value.

I read an article this morning which highlighted the awful practice of “trophy hunting” of lions. For those unfamiliar with trophy hunting it is, as the name suggests, the practice of killing an animal in order to take his or her carcass (or part of it) as a prize. 

I should say from the outset that I am 100% behind work being carried out to bring an end to trophy hunting (have a look at IFAW or LionAid to find out more about this important issue) and I have no desire to detract from the vital efforts of the organisations that are working so hard to this end. So whilst I fully support the efforts being made, my interest in this instance is in the way that the argument against trophy hunting was presented in this particular article. The approach was not uncommon and similar examples could be found, I'm sure, in numerous other pieces on the subject of people, wildlife and their interactions with one another.

One question posed by the author of the article in question asked: “Why on Earth are we still allowing this animal [the lion] to be killed for "fun" when it's in danger of disappearing from the wild in our lifetimes?”

For me, the question should have ended after the word “fun”. By continuing to qualify the query by reminding readers that lions are threatened seemed to confuse matters. Rather than simply questioning the validity of a senseless and barbaric act in the name of “fun”, the reader is left wondering if the author believes that there may be circumstances whereby it might be okay to shoot lions for “fun” if they didn’t belong to a threatened species. 

Later in the article, the author states: “There are several reasons why trophy hunting is so bad for lions, beyond the obvious one that it kills healthy members of an imperiled species”.

Once again the tragedy of the lion’s death is given credence by virtue of his membership of a species in danger of extinction. It’s as if the self-serving actions of the hunters when they kill him to take his head to mount on a wall and boast to their friends of their prowess is not reason enough to object; that the lion’s loss of life, pure and simple, is not enough to warrant our opposition.

The article is clear that trophy hunting does have an effect at a species level; often as a result of infanticide as a new male takes over and seeks to rid the pride of all those young sired by his predecessor. But any discourse relating to the individuals, outside of the parameters of the discussion on species conservation, is overlooked.

Personally, I believe that the life of that individual lion, and the lives of the other 600 or so that are killed every year during trophy hunts, are important not just because that lion belongs to a species that we are fast driving to extinction, but because his life is his own and he will have been right in the middle of living it when it was brought to an abrupt and brutal end by a hunter. 

Having worked in and with in situ projects for around a decade myself, I appreciate and understand the importance of conservation efforts to save species and habitats. I am well aware that species form vital parts of the natural ecosystem that they have adapted to inhabit and their loss can have devastating effects on other members of the same system. I also understand that iconic animals such as lions can be put forward as “flagship” species in order to raise awareness and funds to support work which will have the effect of protecting entire habitats, and all the other life found within them. I understand that species being recognised as endangered can further their protection under the law and this is one of the key aims of the campaign which the article in question was discussing. I support this campaign wholeheartedly. Whilst I recognise the validity, indeed the necessity of this work, I think we too readily forget that species (whether endangered or thriving) are also made up of individuals. So, in the case of trophy hunting, my opposition to the cold-blooded killing of an individual (regardless of species membership) does not need to be justified using only species conservation arguments to make it viable. If lions were the most abundant species that walked the planet, shooting them to take their heads would still be wrong. Because their lives are important.

Species conservation is vital, but the individual is important too, and I think it is important to ensure that we recognise that in its own right.

Of course the problem is that, if we begin to accept that animal life, like human life, is important in and of itself then it begins to present serious conundrums for many of us in our day-to-day lives. After all if belonging to an endangered species is not the litmus test to decide whose life matters and whose life doesn’t, then how can factory farming or vivisection possibly be justified? Is there a logical reason to conclude that a lion is more important than a chicken, or a rat or a dog? If not, what consequences does that have for us, and our society? I suspect that many of us aren’t ready to face that conundrum.

Is all life important, or just some life? What do you think?

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

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.