Memorandum submitted by Animal Defenders
International and the National Anti-Vivisection Society
The following is an extract taken from the Animal
Defenders International and the National Anti-Vivisection Society's
full submission
Animal Defenders International (ADI) and the
National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) understand that the Draft
Animal Welfare Bill proposes to consolidate and modernize legislation
on protection of animals, performing animals, pet animals, abandonment
of animals, fighting, animal boarding, riding establishments,
and breeding, amongst others.
Annex A
CIRCUSES AND PERFORMING ANIMALS
INTRODUCTION
1. ADI conducted an 18 month study on the
use of animals in circuses, which was published in our report
"The Ugliest Show on Earth" in 1998. Research and observations
took place from 1996 to 1998, including paper research back to
1995. Observations and recordings were made in 13 UK travelling
circuses and winter quarters, and five foreign circuses displaying
UK animals. This amounted to over 7,000 hours of observations,
and over 800 hours of videotape. The study looked at daily routines;
husbandry; animal health; accommodation; exercise; training; psychological
and physical effects; abuse; animal supply and international regulations.
2. In 1999, some of this evidence was used
to obtain cruelty convictions against Mary Chipperfield, her husband
Roger Cawley, and their elephant keeper, under the 1911 Act.
3. We found circus animals to be confined
in very small spaces, chained, tethered, and restricted in every
aspect of their lives. Because they are unable to express their
normal behaviour patterns, they become disturbed, and start to
exhibit abnormal behaviours. These include repetitive swaying,
bobbing, and pointless movements. Over the years this behaviour
becomes increasingly ingrained until the animal is literally out
of its mind. It becomes relatively unaware of surrounding events.
4. Severe confinement is not limited to
any particular species, it was across the board: horses and ponies
spent up to 96% (23 hours) of their day, tightly tethered, limiting
movement; the large cats spent between 75%-99% of their time in
small cages, on the backs of lorries; elephants spent between
70-98% of their time chained to the ground.
5. Frequently, animals spend unbearably
long hours spent shut inside transporters, for example a pony
spent 23 hours in a transporter, and a bear 39 hours, for a journey
of just five hours.
6. We have since provided Defra with two
additional reports: "Animal Circuses—Time for a Ban"
(2001-02), and "Animals in UK Circuses" (2003). The
latter included a census of animals within the UK circus industry,
and accommodation and husbandry.
Annex A of the Draft Bill outlines eight key
points on the recommendations for not banning the use of animals
in travelling circuses. We have listed these eight points below,
followed by our comments:
Point 1: Refers to the Association of Circus Proprietors
(ACP) voluntary Code of Practice (COP)
7. The ACP code has been studied and rejected
by ADI, the RSPCA, and Captive Animals' Protection Society. All
three groups met with Minister Elliot Morley and Defra officials
over two years ago, and advised the Government that, given the
circumstances, it is not possible for travelling circuses to provide
the facilities to adequately care for their animals, and keep
them healthy and happy.
8. The ACP's code was originally drafted
in order for Defra to circulate it to local authorities in England
and Wales. ADI objected and requested that if Defra circulated
the Association's COP, then ADI should also be given the opportunity
to include information. This request was ignored and the ACP's
COP was subsequently circulated to local authorities, many of
whom now believe that it is a Government document. Distribution
of this COP by the Government has caused the confusion that we
predicted.
9. ADI's examination of the code indicated
that it achieves nothing for animal welfare and is in fact, misleading.
10. We made the following points about the
ACP code:
(a) it is extremely weak and loosely worded;
open to interpretation and therefore difficult to enforce.
(b) it is mainly an impractical and rather
fanciful "wish list", in the light of the practical
and financial realities of the circus industry. More of a public
relations exercise than a serious attempt to protect animals.
(c) there are no mechanisms to set and enforce
standards. The ACP is a voluntary organisation and only a small
number of the circuses touring the UK are members.
The ACP does not have the infrastructure, financial,
or other resources necessary to make this code a working document.
There is no system of inspection to enforce the code, nor to ensure
that members comply with it.
(d) This is not the first code produced by
the ACP, and there is no reason to expect that it will have any
more effect than the previous code.
(e) When ADI investigated the circus industry,
we looked at the best establishments that the industry had to
offer, as well as the worst.
The company consistently reputed to be the best
in the industry, was Mary Chipperfield Promotions, suppliers to
circuses, the film industry (including Disney), advertising, and
public events, eg camel racing.
At the time of the ADI study, the directors
of Mary Chipperfield Promotions Ltd were members of the Association
of Circus Proprietors.
Yet in terms of animal abuse, this was the worst
establishment that we studied.
Point 2 . . . "licensing may lead to the
closure of some of the smaller and less well run run animal shows."
11. ADI would like to see the evidence that
informed this statement. The evidence that we produced in our
study does not support this. The circus operations where the worst
abuse was found during our study were the larger, wealthier organisations
(notably, Mary Chipperfield Promotions in Hampshire, Chipperfield
Enterprises in Oxford, Circus Harlequin (now the Great British
Circus)).
12. Our studies reported in The Ugliest
Show on Earth (1998) and Animals in UK Circuses (2003) have clearly
shown that confinement and deprivation are commonplace regardless
of the size of the circus.
13. In fact, it may well be that the larger
circuses are unable to manage and control their workers, and observe
what is happening to their animals.
14. It is worth noting that Circus Jolly
is probably the smallest UK circus operation (in terms of audience
attendance/turnover) yet has a menagerie of 44 animals (audiences
can be outnumbered by animals).
15. Our Animals in UK Circuses report also
revealed that "exercise enclosures" were being put up
as a public relations exercise rather than to actually benefit
the animals:
16. Spirit of the Horse (25 horses and ponies)
and Zippos Circus (8 horses and ponies) both erected exercise
enclosures that were not used for entire days, and furthermore,
there were insufficient numbers of enclosures to rotate the number
of animals so that all the animals had a turn in the enclosures.
This is a common occurrence—too many animals for too few
exercise enclosures. Frequently, it is the difficult animals which
lose out. In terms of audience share and turnover these would
be regarded as the larger circuses. We believe that, as with Mary
Chipperfield Promotions Ltd, this indicates that these "larger"
establishments may be better versed in public relations, but not
necessarily in animal welfare.
Point 3: Registration under the current Performing
Animals (Regulation) Act 1925.
17. Please refer to the section in our Ugliest
Show on Earth report, page 120, which discusses the operation
of the PARA. This Act is a simple matter of registration and has
no animal welfare provisions. However, it does entitle local authority
officials to inspect the registered premises, although our survey
of PAR registrations in the UK found that this was rarely undertaken.
ADI is in agreement that the PARA needs to be scrapped, and better
controls put in place.
Point 4: Intention not to introduce a ban, "due
to decline in the use and numbers of performing animals in circuses
. . ."
18. We find this reasoning odd. The decline
in the numbers of animals in travelling circuses is a result of
the exposure of cruelty to animals in circuses, and the general
public education campaign. This does not mean that legislative
action should not be taken to stop the use of animals in circuses.
19. It is mainly UK circuses that are under
discussion here, and we need to ensure that foreign circuses do
not tour the UK with performing animals in future.
20. In 1997 there were 16 elephants touring
the UK, today there is just one. However, there is nothing in
place to stop this situation arising again, especially from EU
circuses.
21. In 1997 there were 33 circuses touring
the UK (10 animal free, three with domestic animals only, and
20 with exotic animals).
22. In 2002 there were still 33 circuses
touring the UK, however the number of animal free circuses had
doubled (21 animal free, eight with domestic animals only, and
four with exotics).
23. This shows that the impact of a ban
on jobs will be minimal. With animal circuses at an all-time low,
this is the perfect time to deal with this issue and the opportunity
should not be squandered.
Point 5: "The preferred option would be to
extend the regulation to require that all performing animal acts
should be licensed and subject to regular inspection by a local
authority."
24. ADI strongly disapproves of Defra's
proposal that travelling circuses should not be banned, and that
they should be licensed. Defra could not have received a clearer
signal from ADI and the other groups involved in this issue, as
well as the weight of public opinion, that the use of animals
in travelling circuses should be banned.
THE CASE
AGAINST TRAVELLING
ANIMAL CIRCUSES
25. ADI and all other groups with expertise
in this field agree that animals cannot be properly cared for
in travelling circuses, due to the circumstances of travelling
from town to town, and restrictions on space and facilities that
travelling entails.
26. As mentioned earlier, ADI's study found
that severe confinement is not limited to any particular species,
it was across the board: horses and ponies spent up to 96% of
their day tethered; the large cats spent between 75%-99% of their
time in small cages; elephants spent between 70-98% of their time
chained to the ground.
27. The mobile/changing layout of circuses
and different inspectors for different locations, make these inspections
unreliable in terms of uncovering animal welfare problems. It
is easy to hide animals from inspections. ADI has presented video
evidence to Defra of a seriously injured lioness being concealed
from an RSPCA inspector.
PERMANENT TRAINING
QUARTERS (WINTER
QUARTERS)
28. Please see the discussion of permanent
quarters in our report (page 43) [not printed]. ADI recommends
that these facilities be required to provide the same standards
of accommodation and environmental provision as zoos.
29. ADI has recommended that travelling
circuses and permanent training (winter) quarters be treated separately
because they are quite separate business operations. Many so-called
winter quarters operate all year around. Some animals in these
facilities do not travel with circuses, but are taken on other
work. The permanent quarters frequently supply animals for film
and television, advertising, or personal appearances. For example
the Great British Circus supplies large cats for advertising.
Circus businesses simply cannot afford to have their animals unemployed
for several months of the year.
30. ADI has recommended that permanent quarters
be treated as zoos. The only real difference between the two operations,
from the point of view of the welfare of animals, is that one
(the zoo) is open to the public at least four days a year, and
the other is not.
31. We would be happy to discuss with the
Committee, a briefing we have completed on the Zoo Licensing Act
and circus training quarters.
32. Please also see our comments on the
Zoo Licensing Act in the Ugliest Show on Earth report, page 127
[not printed].
OTHER PERFORMING
ANIMAL SUPPLIERS
33. These suppliers should not be grouped
with travelling circuses. Firstly, the lives of the animals are
different from those with other performing animal suppliers.
34. The unique problem with travelling circuses
is that the animals live the whole of their lives on the
back of a lorry. The majority of the animals continue to live
in the cages that they travel in; the big cats stay in their cages;
performing dogs remain in a cage for the winter; ponies continue
to be stabled, but if they are lucky, they might go out into a
field. In addition, the extreme and unnatural tricks (elephants
on their hind and front legs, lions hind leg walking, camels pirouetting)
means that a high level of coercion is involved.
35. Travelling animal circus acts teach
nothing about the animals they display. They are not educational,
and do not contribute to conservation in any way. (Circus animals
are from mixed genetic backgrounds and are therefore of no value
to serious conservation programmes.)
36. Circus animal performances are low-quality
entertainment which gives a confused and often inappropriate message
to young spectators on the other species which share this planet.
37. Animal circuses/travelling menageries
can therefore be categorised separately from other uses of performing
animals.
38. Life for animals kept with other performing
animal suppliers is very different. They live in permanent accommodation
and are taken out to bookings.
39. ADI recommends that travelling circuses
and menageries be categorised separately from other performing
animal businesses.
DOMESTIC SPECIES:
HORSES, PONIES,
DOGS, CATS,
ETC
40. Our studies have shown that life for
domestic species within a travelling circus is very different
from racehorses, gymkhana ponies, or pet and show dogs. The latter
spend the majority of their lives in permanent accommodation,
only travelling with owners and keepers for events. The life of
a pony in a circus, boxed and travelling almost all of its time,
cannot be compared with the life of a pet pony, travelling with
a doting owner to horse shows each week. The animal's lifestyle
is quite different.
41. ADI recommendation: travelling
circus shows be treated separately from other performing animals
businesses, as well as racehorses, show dogs, and others.
Point 6: "Consideration is being given to
an 18 month licence (rather than the traditional 12 month licence)
to reduce the costs for both businesses and local authorities
as well as enabling inspections to take place at different times
of the year."
42. Licensing: This 18 month licence
has been recommended for: circuses and other performing animal
businesses; pet fairs; pet trading/breeding establishments; livery
yards; animal sanctuaries.
43. ADI completely disagrees with Defra's
reasoning for an 18-month licence. Setting aside animal welfare
for the sake of reducing costs goes against the fundamental aims
of the Bill. Adding a further six months to a licence increases
the risk of suffering. Inspections can be undertaken at different
times of the year, within a 12 month period.
44. Certainly in regard to the use of animals
in travelling circuses, the problem has not been registration
or licensing, but the fact that, given the circumstances of constantly
moving from town to town, local authority Environment Health Officers,
or Trading Standards Officers, have not been able to conduct an
inspection before a circus leaves their area. And when they have
inspected, the circus can leave their jurisdiction before action
can be taken.
45. Licensing vs Registration: We
disagree with the assertion of Defra that in some instances a
registration scheme could replace licensing as the latter might
be unnecessary, or, "burdensome." ADI recommends that
a clean, comprehensive licensing scheme will be easier for everyone
to understand, easier to operate, and raise standards to acceptable
levels. The fact that licensing might be a burden on smaller enterprises
should not be a factor—the bill is to protect animals from
suffering and the size of the operation concerned is not relevant.
46. "The cost of licensing a circus
is likely to be around £230 a year (based on two-thirds of
a typical zoo licence). ":
The figure of £230 suggested for licensing
is far too low, at just £50 more than a colour television
licence for the same period. ADI believes that this gives entirely
the wrong message and recommends that a licence for keeping animals
in a profit-making concern should be raised.
47. A scale of fees would seem appropriate.
A person with a small group of dogs being utilised for TV commercials
cannot realistically be compared to the animal-factory type operation
of Clubb-Chipperfield's Amazing Animals in Oxfordshire, with their
stock of lions, tigers, and hippos, through to monkeys, frogs
and snakes.
Point 7: " . . . raising animal welfare standards
to meet minimum licensing requirements . . ."
48. ADI believes that, setting aside some
failings in the current code for welfare of animals in zoos, if
this guidance is taken as the starting point for animal facilities
in a range of other industries, then animals should not be travelled
around the country with circuses and menageries.
49. The Secretary of State's Standards for
Modern Zoo Practice are, we submit, a good yardstick for permanent
performing animal training quarters (also called winter quarters),
for other performing animal training quarters, for pet animal
dealers and breeders, for sanctuaries, and small animal parks.
50. A variation for permanent performing
animal training quarters would only need the addition of provisions
for domesticated species.
Point 8: Right of entry for local authority inspectors
51. The mere fact of inspections does not
in itself prevent animal abuse. For example, there is already
a right of entry for local authority inspectors under the DWAA.
52. Local authority inspectors (vets) do
inspect circus permanent quarters (winter quarters) from time
to time, under the terms of licences held under the DWAA. One
such inspection took place during our investigation of Mary Chipperfield
Promotions, on which occasion the inspector did not see all of
the animals on the farm.
53. ADI fully supports the proposals for
a right of entry for local authority inspectors, but recommends
that a proper schedule of points to cover on each visit is a requirement
placed upon each inspector. This schedule should be standard and
cover all of the information that the inspector should obtain.
ADI is happy to provide information on what needs to be looked
for.
6 October 2004
| 
