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.

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

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

  

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

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

Not really, no.

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

Screenshot: Daily Mail 11th May 2013

Cute little girl? Check.

Cute young orang-utan? Check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.