ADI: Defra's Circus Working Group report slammed
Wednesday, 05 Dec 2007 10:38
Animal Defenders International (ADI) today issued their response to the
government’s Circus Working Group report.
http://www.ad-international.org/admin/downloads/adi_resp_to_cwg_271107_fin.pdf
The key points ADI makes are:
ADI is dismayed at the inconclusive result of this exercise. 18 months after the Government announced that certain non-domesticated species would be banned under the regulations of the Animal Welfare Act, we are no further ahead.
ADI participated in the Circus Working Group, whilst expressing our concerns at the outset, since there is little by way of scientific studies on the use of animals in circuses. This has not been an area of great academic interest and therefore the studies have not been commissioned. We therefore submitted 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.
Amendments to the Animal Welfare Bill, which would have put a ban on the face of the legislation, were withdrawn on the basis of Government undertakings.
Samantha Lindley, a vet, animal behaviourist and member of the CWG Academic Panel, had wanted the following to be included in the Panel’s 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. “
The report also concedes that further studies will not help – with only 47 exotic (or wild) animals involved, there are not now enough animals left in the industry to provide robust data.
The CWG Chairman, 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.
ADI has 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.
ADI is also supportive of the idea of drawing circuses under the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act. The key criteria here would be that an animal in a circus should not suffer downgrading of environment or welfare provisions, as compared to members of the same species kept in a zoo.
ADI Chief Executive, Jan Creamer commented: “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 report is not only inconclusive, it is also contradictory and admits that huge amounts of evidence were simply not looked at. And what does 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 to be kept in tiny cages on the backs of lorries? Opinion polls over the last decade have shown consistently that 80% of the public have supported an end to the use of animals in travelling circuses. It is time for the government to step in and sort out this mess. Let’s see some common sense.”
ENDS
Local Authorities:
ADI surveyed 318 LOCAL AUTHORITIES:
39 per cent had banned all animal acts
17 per cent had banned just wild animal acts
22.5 per cent continued to allow animal circuses
21.5 per cent said they never received requests from circuses with animals
Banning the use of animal acts from circuses has been tested politically and enforced on local authority land. It is a popular move with the public.
Public:
MORI Poll, 2005:
65 per cent say ban all animal circus acts.
80 per cent say ban all wild animal circus acts.
Only 7 per cent 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 per cent to 16 per cent.
Animal circuses remain slumped at 7 per cent attendance.
The most popular forms of animal entertainment attended are:
aquariums (50 per cent of respondents)
zoos (39 per cent)
safari parks (22 per cent).
NOP Poll, 2004:
63 per cent of the public wanted to see all animal acts banned from circuses
only 8 per cent disagreed.
A 2004 NOP opinion poll for ADI revealed:
63 per cent of the public wanted to see all animal acts banned from circuses
Only 8 per cent disagreed.
ADI
With offices in London and San Francisco, Animal Defenders International (ADI) campaigns to protect animals in entertainment and experiments; worldwide traffic in endangered species; vegetarianism; factory farming; pollution and conservation. ADI involves itself in international animal rescues as well as educational work on animals, conservation and environment. Our evidence of the torment to animals has led to campaigns and legislative action all over the world to protect them.
www.ad-international.org
Disclaimer:
Press releases published on this page are from key opinion formers who promote their organisation's activities by subscribing to a campaign site within politics.co.uk. politics.co.uk does not endorse, edit, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases are wholly the responsibility of the originating company or organisation.