National Antivisection Society
November 2007
29 November 2007
Defra’s Circus Working Group Report – a farce
Defra’s long-awaited report of their Circus Working Group (CWG) was published this week. What a muddle. This whole exercise has been an utter waste of time and effort. We are right back where we started 18 months ago.
The CWG Chairman, lawyer Mike Radford, advises that the Government cannot look to science to steer its decision because “science, on this occasion, provides no relevant guidance as to the appropriate principle to be adopted”. He warns that the conclusions of the report should not be regarded as establishing conclusively one way or another whether the welfare of non-domesticated circus animals is either compromised or of an acceptable standard.
Although Radford has stated, “the status quo is not an option”, he also contends that it any attempt to ban the use of certain species in circuses under secondary legislation may be subject to legal challenge, as he feels that the Government is obliged to follow the scientific evidence.
However, on the other hand, the Government is also obliged to stick to its undertakings in Parliament.
The CWG was convened after Defra minister Ben Bradshaw gave an undertaking in the House of Commons in March 2006 that a ban on the use of non-domesticated species would be brought in after the passage of the Animal Welfare Act.
Amendments to the Animal Welfare Bill, which would have put a ban on the face of the legislation, were withdrawn on the basis of a stated Government commitment.
The CWG was comprised of animal welfare and industry groups; each group nominated three experts to sit on an Academic Panel, which would review evidence put before it by the animal welfare and industry groups. This evidence would inform the Government’s decision-making.
ADI participated, but warned that Defra’s insistence on only looking at published scientific studies would result in too little evidence. This has not been an area of great academic interest and therefore the studies have not been commissioned.
We therefore submitted a huge amount of evidence – published studies of the effects of captivity and transportation on animals in other industries – in order to provide material that can be read across to the circus situation. All such material was excluded from the Academic Panel’s deliberations, on the basis that the “particularity” of the circus environment is such that it cannot be compared with zoos, animals in transport for other industries, etc.
There is also a great deal of empirical evidence including observational studies and video, that indicates that animals in cages on the backs of lorries, constantly travelling in deprived and unstable environments, compromises animal welfare. All of this was excluded as well.
As a result, the CWG’s report is not only inconclusive, but it is also contradictory and admits that huge amounts of evidence were simply not looked at.
And yet the Academic Panel has made the most extraordinary claim, (Radford): “on the basis of the evidence they were asked to consider, those experts have agreed that there appears to be little evidence to demonstrate that the welfare of animals kept in travelling circuses is any better or any worse than that of animals kept in other captive environments.”
Having excluded the evidence submitted on the effects of captivity and transport on animals in other industries, the Panel then compares the circus evidence with the evidence they have excluded.
Samantha Lindley, veterinary behaviourist and member of the Academic Panel has issued a statement, which she had asked to be included in the final report:
“It must be remembered that absence of evidence of suffering is not evidence of absence of suffering. It was inevitable that the academic sub group’s report would be inconclusive: there was never going to be sufficient rigorous scientific evidence to prove a case either way. “
Rumour has it that Defra felt it was too good a “soundbite” to remain in the report. Who knows! It’s just gossip.....
The fact is, that Defra’s request for evidence was so narrowly defined that the panel did not have enough to make any clear recommendations, other than to say that more research is needed.
Yet there are only 47 exotic animals in 4 circuses in the UK. The sample size is simply not large enough to commission further studies. Are they suggesting we put more animals into circuses so that they can be studied? Is this a serious suggestion, to conduct yet more research?
This strategy (setting up a working group and calling for evidence) as a means to inform the Government’s decision-making was an experiment – and as such it has been a complete failure – the same questions, and concerns about animal circuses remain.
Already, Defra has indicated that there are no plans to repeat this method for gathering evidence for the other issues that are due for regulations under the Animal Welfare Act, for example pet fairs. Thank goodness. But what now, for the circus animals that have waited so long for protection?
And what will it say about the Animal Welfare Act if it continues to allow an arthritic elephant to tour the country and spend its life chained by two legs, and bears, lions and tigers in tiny cages on the backs of lorries? The legislation that was supposed to revolutionise animal protection in the UK, enshrining a duty of care and recognising the environmental needs of other species, could be brought down at the first hurdle.
Defra is in danger of turning the Animal Welfare Act into a train-wreck.
Consistently, over the past decade 80% of the public have in polls supported an end to the use of animals in travelling circuses. They, along with animal protection groups, MPs and Lords have been badly let down.
Due to the perceived legal restraints on the minister’s use of secondary legislation, Radford recommends that the matter be returned to Parliament for debate, as a Private Members Bill or similar. Here, he submits, the strong public objection to the use of animals in circuses, the wider evidence including observational studies, field officer work and video diaries, as well as the will of Members of Parliament, can legitimately be taken into consideration.
At the end of the day, this issue needs a commonsense, practical approach:
Human society, through its legislation, lays down principles which should be upheld in the treatment of the other species that share our planet, and use for human gain.
Such legislation includes:
The UK’s Zoo Licensing Act lays down provisions for the welfare of wild animals in captivity, including space, environmental enrichment, companionship and socialisation, privacy, and so forth.
Radford contends that if independent regulation were decided upon, the simplest course of action may be to amend the Zoo Licensing Act to include circuses – despite some legal issues that would need to be overcome. Circuses would then be charged with responsibilities such as:
- Providing each animal an environment “well adapted to meet the physical, psychological and social neveds of the species to which it belongs”; and
- Provide a high standard of animal husbandry with preventative and curative veterinary treatment and nutrition.
- Maintain up-to-date records of animals
However, let’s not lose sight of the big picture – with the best will in the world, travelling circuses cannot provide this standard of facility.
That being said, we are supportive of this idea but the key criteria here would be that an animal in a circus should not suffer downgrading of its environment or welfare provisions, as compared to members of the same species kept in a zoo.
Animal transport regulations provide for rest periods, food and water, periods of time in containers, and a number of other welfare standards. However if an animal lives on its transporter, these provisions are not upheld – regulations get relaxed for circuses. Although it could be said that circus animals can become used to constant travel, as some animal behaviourists have pointed out, that does not mean that they are not stressed. They could be more stressed, and only proper studies could establish this.
Common sense tells us that long periods of travel are tiring and stressful, and remaining in a dark transporter for 30 hours, whether it is moving or not, cannot be a positive experience for any individual.
THE WAY FORWARD?
We have suggested that a way forward would be to put the onus of evidence on those who wish to use animals in circuses. The circus industry would identify which species they would like to use in travelling circuses and apply for a licence from the minister, with the application supported by published scientific papers to demonstrate that the welfare of the animals concerned would not be compromised. These papers should be species-specific and also, if relevant, specific to age and gender.
PUBLIC AND PARLIAMENTARY FEELING ON THE ISSUE:
Parliament:
EDM 787 Animal Defenders and Circus Animals 12.02.1998.
Joan Humble. 214 Signatures.
EDM 64 Circus Animals 01.12.1998
Norman Baker. 192 Signatures.
EDM 767 Cruelty to Animals 22.02.2000
Kerry Pollard. 61 signatures.
EDM 714 Cruelty to Animals 14.06.1999
Kerry Pollard. 76 Signatures.
EDM 468 Circus Animal Welfare 29.06.2005
Norman Baker. 87 Signatures.
EDM 1626 Animal Welfare 13.12.2006
Mike Hancock. 144 Signatures.
Local Authorities:
ADI surveyed 318 LOCAL AUTHORITIES:
- 39% had banned all animal acts
- 17% had banned just wild animal acts
- 22.5% continued to allow animal circuses
- 21.5% said they never received requests from circuses with animals
Public:
Mori Poll, 2005:
- 65% say ban all animal circus acts.
- 80% say ban all wild animal circus acts.
- Only 7% strongly opposed the calls for bans.
- More than twice as many people now visit animal-free circuses as opposed to those with animals.
- In the previous 5 years, attendance at animal-free circuses rose from 6% to 16%.
- Animal circuses remain slumped at 7% attendance.
The most popular forms of animal entertainment attended are:
- aquariums (50% of respondents)
- zoos (39%)
- safari parks (22%).
NOP Poll, 2004:
- 63% of the public wanted to see all animal acts banned from circuses
- only 8% disagreed.
To see ADI’s full response to the Circus Working Group report click here.
Link to Defra’s Circus Working Group Report
Please help us end the abuse of animals, please make a donation today…
action alerts