If you are already a member simply log onto our website to download your copy or, if you have elected to receive your magazine by post, keep an eye out over the next few days.

Our edition for Spring 2012 includes important updates on our campaigning work for a world without cages as well as two exclusive interviews; one with comedian, Ricky Gervais, and the other with Mark Devries, Director of the new documentary, Speciesism.

If you are not a member yet, don’t miss out. Join up today to receive your copy, and to help us to continue our vital work for the animals.

Thanks and hope you enjoy the magazine!

It was apparently in pursuit of this ideal that Edinburgh Zoo sent their group of meerkats to Twycross Zoo some five years ago. A source at the zoo told CAPS in the last few days that the reason for this decision was that the animals were of no conservation value. However, this explanation rings rather hollow when we learn that Edinburgh has now decided to reintroduce meerkats to their collection in spite of their recognition that keeping the animals in captivity will do nothing for conservation. CAPS called the zoo to question the decision to ship the new family of small mammals in from Cologne, Germany.

Ironically, the same source that explained the reasons behind the decision to get rid of the previous group of meerkats told us that the new animals are being brought in for a very simple reason: the visitors wanted to see them.

The plight of this particular species is something that has been of great concern to CAPS for quite some time now, with the rising popularity of meerkats resulting in a growing exotic pet trade and new exhibits of the animals springing up in zoos around the country.

This sad state of affairs just goes to show how animals are used by zoos on a whim – picked up and discarded as visitor interest and curiosity waxes and wanes. It is shocking to think that a comment made in a feedback form or a request to a member of staff at a zoo can result in sentient animals being subjected to a life in captivity but it would appear that, in this instance, this is exactly what has happened.

Your support is more vital than ever. If you are not already a member of CAPS, please consider joining us. Your membership will mean you are kept up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, support our work campaigning for captive animals. Click HERE to join now. Thank you.

You might have seen yesterday that we, along with all of the other leading welfare organisations working on the circus ban campaign confirmed that we will not be engaging with the Government’s consultation on proposals to license the use of wild animals in circuses. There are numerous reasons for this boycott but, ultimately, it boils down to one very simple one:

Licensing will not protect animals from suffering – only a ban will do.

Over the past few months, we have done all we can to get to the bottom of the plans for licensing and understand why the Government is proceeding down this path when a ban is now deemed possible. No matter how hard we tried though, we seemed to be blocked at every turn. In response to our concern that Government papers suggested that the proposed temporary licensing regime appeared to be designed to be very much more permanent than we had been led to believe, a senior Defra official said: “I am not aware we have ever suggested that the licensing scheme would be a ‘temporary’ measure...”.

To say this response set alarm bells ringing would be an understatement: it was clear that the Government’s stated intention to ban and its proposals for licensing were completely at odds with one another. One approach told a hopeful story of animals being free from circus suffering within three years and the other saw them languishing in the big top, with a government seal of approval, for at least the next ten years.  Which were we to believe?

We had been kept waiting for months to secure a meeting with the Minister responsible for the circus issue and were finally given a slot at the “eleventh hour” – just two days before the end of the consultation period. So it was that, yesterday afternoon, Gavin Grant, CEO of the RSPCA, Harvey Locke, former president of the British Veterinary Association, Will Travers, CEO of the Born Free Foundation and I attended the long-awaited meeting with Lord Taylor. We were all hoping for some straight answers on the ban.

I have to admit, given the failure of Government to give us any satisfactory answers to date, I didn’t go into the meeting feeling particularly optimistic. I am, however, pleased to say that we all came out feeling that there is hope and I wanted our supporters to be the first to know what was discussed.

Reason for hope #1: The Minister confirmed that licensing will be temporary and that there will be ban before the end of this Government’s term. With the general election likely to happen in 2015, it is two or three years longer than we (or the animals) would hope for, but is better than a ten-year (or permanent) licensing system.

Reason for hope #2: The Minister confirmed that the ban will apply to all wild animals in circuses. There will be no “grandfather” clause allowing animals already in circuses to remain. From the date of the ban, it will be illegal for wild animals to be used in the travelling circus environment.

Reason for hope #3: Importantly, we had been concerned that asking the circus industry to invest significant resources into meeting licensing regulations only to make the practice illegal two years later would be open to challenge and would create new obstacles to a ban. The Minister’s simple answer was that it would be the circuses’ choice to invest or not, that the industry has been forewarned and so makes any investment in the full knowledge that it is for a limited timeframe. We hope that this important clarification will lead the circuses to consider retiring the animals now, rather than make investment for the sake of just a few more seasons.

There were, however, things we couldn’t agree on:

Reason for concern #1: The Government proposes a ban via primary legislation. Whilst we are not opposed to this approach per se, primary legislation will take a long time to implement and we argued that a ban under the Animal Welfare Act would speed up the process drastically, reducing the suffering for the animals. On this point though, it seems that Government will not be moved.

Reason for concern #2: We stand by our opposition to licensing. It won’t protect the animals and is a complicated and expensive short-term stop gap which takes focus away from work towards the ban. On this point too, it seems the Government is determined and that licensing will go ahead regardless of its lack of support.

On the whole, it was a productive discussion. I believe that everyone in the meeting felt a small step forward had been taken and some of the confusion had been cleared up. I won’t go so far to say that I am ready to celebrate just yet though. It is undeniable that there have been some seriously mixed messages coming out of the Government department as well as a failure to properly engage with key stakeholders. We maintain our view that the consultation is fundamentally flawed and the licensing regime will not work. We still have two or three years before we see animals safe which is two or three years too long. None of these points give us reason to celebrate, but continue to offer serious cause for concern.

On the other hand, and the most important point that I took from the meeting, is that I do now believe that the intention to ban is genuine. What remains to be seen, of course, is that ban being put into practice. We have offered Government our full support in working towards achieving this aim and, until it happens, we will continue to do all that we can to ensure that we hold the Minister to his word.

We will, of course, be keeping our supporters fully up to date with developments as and when they happen.

How you can help:

Write to Defra to show your support for the ban and to ask them to prioritise its introduction by clicking here.

Sign up to our online mailing list to stay up to date with our work. You’ll find the sign up button in the top right corner of every page of this site.

Make a donation to CAPS to support our vital campaigning work for animals

CAPS, along with the Born Free Foundation, RSPCA, ADI, Animal Aid, Four Paws, OneKind and PETA have all committed to boycotting the licensing proposals and are instead asking supporters to write to the Minister responsible to demand a firm commitment and timescale for a ban. The announcement confirming the position of the groups, who have repeatedly raised concerns over the licensing proposals comes on the morning of an “eleventh hour” meeting to be held with some of the groups and Lord Taylor of Holbeach in a bid to make the Government see sense.

A statement was issued by some of the welfare groups today and others have written directly to Government to confirm support for the boycott.

Said Liz Tyson, Director of CAPS:

“We have never supported the Government’s plans for licensing but neither did we take the decision to boycott the licensing plans lightly; we did all that we could to try to engage with the process and communicate effectively with officials to make our concerns clear. We will be meeting with the Minister later today to confirm our stance in person and to ask for some straight answers on the ban”.

The statement issued this morning can be found in full below:

Animal Welfare organisations refuse to participate in ill-conceived consultation on wild animals in travelling circuses

Statement on animal circus consultation from:
Animal Defenders International, Animal Aid, Born Free Foundation, Captive Animals Protection Society, Four Paws, OneKind, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

The undersigned leading animal protection and welfare organisations are dismayed at the Government’s continued pursuit of an inspection and licensing regime for wild animals in travelling circuses despite the clear wishes of the public expressed in Defra’s 2010 consultation, when 94.5% supported a ban. MPs passed a motion in 2011 directing the Government to introduce a ban.  The majority of elected politicians have indicated a ban is the reasonable and practical way forward.

The same Defra public consultation gave respondents the option to support either a ban or inspections – only 29.5% supported inspections.  This new consultation does not provide that option and is therefore badly designed.

While we welcome the Government’s long-term commitment “to pursue a ban on the use of [wild] animals [in circuses]” we cannot understand how an expensive and ill-conceived licensing regime can be justified, in place of a ban. Responsible animal welfare groups cannot endorse measures that we believe will fail to protect the welfare of animals and are likely to lead to continued, and perhaps increased, suffering of vulnerable animals for years to come.

We have considered the Defra consultation and formed the same opinion – that we will not be taking part in the public consultation on the draft proposals, as we believe they would be a step backwards for animal welfare. Furthermore we are urging our supporters to contact Defra and let the Government know they will not accept such an approach.

Our major areas of concern include:

The Government is starting from the wrong place and independent legal opinion is that a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses can be introduced under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

The Government has received independent legal opinions from a number of lawyers and animal welfare organisations stating that powers provided in s12 are wide enough to introduce secondary legislation to ban an activity where to do so would promote animal welfare.  Animal welfare organisations have provided scientific evidence showing that the welfare of these animals is compromised in such environments.  The Government is relying upon a flawed report, which had previously been set aside.  There is a respectable body of scientific opinion that animals suffer in travelling circuses; there does not need to be a scientific consensus on the degree of suffering, or that animals in circuses suffer more than animals kept for other purposes.

The Defra proposals are ill conceived and will not prevent animal suffering nor promote good welfare. In fact they may lead to an increase in suffering due to an unjustified sense of public confidence in an expensive and inadequate regime. Given the circumstances of constant travel, with animals contained in a variety of vehicles and cages, travelling circuses cannot provide wild animals with the facilities and environment they need to maintain health and welfare.

In the UK such inspections have failed to pick up on animal husbandry deficits and cases of abuse. Sick and injured animals have been hidden from inspectors; excessive chaining, water restriction and abuse have all gone undetected.  The failings of inspection regimes for constantly travelling shows are highlighted in the U.S., in the 2010 Inspector General’s USDA APHIS Audit Report, including: reliance upon broadly-worded guidance causing difficulties with interpretation; difficulty in finding circuses and with inspections and re-inspections; communication between inspectors, etc.

The Government’s consultation and Impact Assessment documents do not include clear provision supporting the commitment to introducing a complete ban.

Indeed the IA does not contain any reference to such a ban being the ultimate aim of Government policy. We believe that any response to the consultation could be seen as tacitly supporting the provision of licensing, especially when no clear cut off date for a ban is provided, and this is clearly not the position of the organisations listed here.

The Government does not provide a timetable to introduce a ban.

The Government’s statement on 1^st March indicated, “work to set out the ethical basis for a ban will proceed alongside the development of a licensing scheme.”

The cost of the licensing scheme is excessive and a wasteful temporary solution

Defra’s IA (2009) advises that the associated costs for the potential regulator are £7,680-£11,500 per year and for the circuses, £129,000-£190,000 one-off improvement costs. The latest IA advises that one off costs will be £75,600 and annual costs £19,400. Thus, costs over ten years would be £269,600. Considering the economics of the travelling circuses, there are concerns that the taxpayer will incur greater costs than indicated.

We strongly urge that the Government sticks to its declared intention to pursue a ban and bring this in sooner rather than later.  In pursuing a poorly drafted licensing regime that sets standards at far too low a level (less than the poorest zoo), it is ignoring the views of the majority of welfare organisations, the public and elected politicians.

This issue can be solved through regulations developed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Government should follow the lead taken by other countries including Austria, Greece, Portugal, Croatia, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, the Czech Republic and Sweden.

Animal Defenders International, Animal Aid, Born Free Foundation, Captive Animals Protection Society, Four Paws, OneKind, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

23 April 2012

[Note:  The Defra public consultation on regulations for animal circuses will close on 25 April 2012]