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. 

On breeding and pandas

breed·ing  

/’brēdiNG/

Noun The mating and production of offspring by animals. The activity of controlling the mating and production of offspring of animals.

Around ten years ago, I was on a bus on the way home from work, heading back to the area of East London where I lived at the time. A group of young lads, a few years younger than me, were sat behind me having a loud and, for the most part, inoffensive conversation about a girl they all liked. Apparently she was beautiful and they were all vying to take her out. After a while, and just as I was arriving at my stop, the banter started to go from complimentary to derogatory. As I got off the bus, one of the boys began talking about wanting to “breed” the girl they all had their sights on. From what I could gather, he didn’t want to have children with the young lady but was using “breed” to describe the act of sex. It’s a phrase which really stuck with me and it was the one thing that that I found genuinely offensive in an otherwise quite childish conversation.  It gave the distinct impression that this young lad saw sex as something you did to someone else, not with them. It implied objectification. It implied non-consent. 

Of course, as the dictionary definition of “breeding” states, this is exactly the way in which the term is understood when it comes to non-human animals. People “breed” animals all the time - it is accepted that breeding is something that we do to animals in addition to something which happens naturally between them. However, when this same use of term is applied to humans, as it was during that conversation on the bus ten years ago, I believe many people would find it as objectionable as I did.

This was brought to mind for me yesterday when I heard that Tian Tian, the female panda at Edinburgh zoo had failed to mate naturally with Yang Guang, the resident male panda. Now we can never know what motivation Tian Tian might have had for choosing not to mate with Yang Guang. We don’t know what a panda thinks or feels when she chooses a mate. The zoo claimed that Yang Guang was doing all the right things to elicit mating and his advances were spurned by his unwilling partner.

Perhaps putting normally solitary animals on display for zoo visitors to stare at day-in and day-out had an effect on Tian Tian’s willingness to mate. Perhaps living in a confined and unnatural zoo enclosure meant she was less receptive. Perhaps she felt that Yang Guang was simply not the right panda to father her young. Perhaps it was something entirely different; we will never know, because we cannot ask Tian Tian how she feels about it. We can perhaps assume though that, judging by her actions, becoming pregnant now is not something that is right for her. 

Sadly, the zoo’s desperation for the pitter patter of tiny panda paws meant that they did not simply accept that the time wasn’t right and instead they chose to sedate Tian Tian and artificially inseminate her. In this instance, “breeding” is not something which has happened naturally between two animals who have selected their mates but is something which is being done by the zoo to Tian Tian. 

It’s not just pandas that are “bred” in this enforced manner. Elephants in zoos have been manipulated in the same way, as have rhinos. Zoos argue that this is necessary to protect the species but animals born in zoos rarely go back to the wild. In fact, only two pandas born in captivity have ever been released to the wild. The first, Xiang Xiang, was killed and the second, Taotao, was released late last year. It remains to be seen if he will survive. If Tian Tian does fall pregnant and her baby survives, he or she will be the property of the Chinese Government and must be sent to China after two years. And so the cycle will begin again.

I have long been against the panda deal. The money, the political undertones, the shameless promotion of every last detail of the pandas’ lives and the dubious conservation claims all leave a bad taste in the mouth. Notwithstanding my overall opposition to zoos, the panda deal stands out as a particularly objectionable example of how animals are exploited for monetary gain. After all, the Scottish Government admitted that this was not, as the zoo claims, a conservation project but was “primarily a commercial transaction”. Given the precedent already set, and of course the fact that the zoo has been taking every last opportunity to talk publicly about their plans for panda cubs, I was not surprised by yesterday’s news, but I was saddened.

That final piece of control that Tian Tian had over her life which, for all we know, she may have exerted knowingly or consciously has now been taken away from her – just as any chance of ever living in freedom, without thousands of prying eyes on her every day, has already been taken from her.

If Tian Tian does turn out to be pregnant, I can see little reason to celebrate.

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 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.

Old records show that history of animal suffering is repeating itself in zoos

Last week, the Daily Mail reported on the sale of a “dusty old ledger” book which revealed the fate of zoo animals at Manchester’s Belle Vue Zoo between 1938 and 1971. The article had a decidedly whimsical air as it described the demise of some of the unfortunate animals who lived out their days there, with the headline exclaiming “No wonder they tell you not to feed the animals!” (before describing how some animals had died by being overfed by the public). The black and white photos which accompanied the story left readers with the impression that events of the type described are now consigned firmly to the past. But, on reading the article, it was disappointing to see that many of the sad stories outlined could just as easily have been reports discussing events at zoos in the last few years.

THEN: Many big cats recorded in the ledger book arrived from or went to other zoos and circuses.
NOW: CAPS supporters will know that in November last year, a joint investigation with Lion Aid showed that lion cubs born at West Midland Safari Park had been sent to a notorious circus trainer and ended up in a travelling circus in Japan. In 2009, a CAPS investigation showed another UK zoo breeding tigers for a well-known circus owner.

THEN: “Polecats and coypus were killed by vandals, while nine cockatiels and eight Barbary doves were presumed stolen, the latter from the children’s zoo” the story continued.
NOW: A horrific attack on animals in a zoo in Tasmania was reported last year with some birds being killed and others stolen or released. In 2009, rabbits and chickens died at a zoo in Oxfordshire after it was vandalised.

THEN: “Some were listed as ‘killed by dog’” the article stated.
NOW: 2011 saw the deaths of two deer in Clissold Deer Park in London after a dog gained entry to their enclosure. One deer died from being attacked and another from haemorrhaging, reported as being brought on by stress.

THEN: “Twenty-four grass snakes meet [their] end in 1961 by being fed to a cobra” we were told.
NOW: Despite some claims to the contrary, it is still legal to use live vertebrate prey in zoos despite the serious welfare and ethical concerns over the practice.

THEN: “overfed by the public” was the cause of death for some animals
NOW: A hippo died at Dublin zoo in 2002 after eating a tennis ball thrown into her enclosure. A CAPS investigation in autumn last year showed drunk festival-goers at Port Lympne safari park throwing food and other objects into the primate enclosures and carp ponds. Other reports from around the world have described animals dying after ingesting rubbish and even drugs thrown into their enclosures.

The zoo industry claims that zoos are centres for conservation and education but the accounts of animal suffering that continue to come to light bear a worrying resemblance to those stories outlined in the “dusty old ledger” dating back up to 75 years. To be sure that you are not contributing this outdated and archaic entertainment at the expense of the animals, please, do not visit the zoo.


For the full Daily Mail article, see here.

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.