Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by John Dineley, BA. Hons, FZS
Preamble
I have been involved in the care of wild animals for over 40 years in zoos and wildlife parks both in the United Kingdom and Europe. This includes duties of zoo keeping, animal training and head of animal behaviour and zoo manager. I also spent a number of years teaching animal management in further and higher education.
Currently, I am an international zoological consultant, a member of the International Marine Animal Trainers Association and a Fellow of the Zoological Society of London. My academic background is a degree in psychology with biology.
I have never directly worked in the circus but I am familiar with a number of trainers and owners of animals in various circuses in the UK and Europe.
It has always been my contention that circuses should have regulation of their care and handling of animals as is the case in many European countries, which now includes the United Kingdom. However, I have never supported a ban of animals in circuses, as from the scientific evidence (and from personal observation) this seems both unnecessary and unfair to responsible circuses that do take their welfare obligations towards their animals seriously.
Response
Section 2—The arguments against the use of wild animals in travelling circuses
15. The use of wild animals in travelling circuses reflects a traditional, but outdated, view of wild animals. Travelling circuses are no longer one of the only ways to see and learn about wild animals. Other settings, such as modern and well managed zoos, offer greater assurance of respect for the intrinsic value of the specimen and species, and for the natural environment.
1.It should be noted that there are now more “performing” (eg trained for public display) wild animals in zoological collections in the UK than have been displayed in circuses for many years.
2.Whilst accepting that these zoo demonstrations certainly are used to promote a positive educational message this misses the point: these are wild animals being tamed and trained for public entertainment. The animals themselves are not aware of their role in these matters whether they are in a zoo or circus.
3.Further, circuses now have legally binding regulations for the welfare of the animals they used by the introduction of the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012.
4.Moreover, direct contact with animals even in the context of entertainment is not necessarily a negative experience for the observer. Professionally trained animals can display both physical and mental abilities that can impress the public even in a circus environment.
16. Captive wild animals have much the same genetic makeup as counterparts in the wild and retain their wild nature and natural instinctive behaviours. Their wild nature and innate value should be recognised and respected. Using wild animals solely for circus performance is unbefitting to their wildness and potentially harmful.
5.It is scientifically more appropriate to state that domestic animals have much the same genetic makeup as their wild counterparts.
6.Animals entered human domestication for many and varied reasons but they still fundamentally retain many if not most of their wild genetic make-up.
7.In her research on circus animals, Kiley-Worthington (1990) devoted a chapter to this issue of the erroneous assumption that wild animals are fundamentally genetically different to their domestic counterparts. The committee would be wise to review this information.
8.My direct experience with training wild animals is that there is no fundamental problems that differ with them from domestic animals. Clearly, some animals may be possibly dangerous due to their size and strength but the same could be said for domestic animals such as large dogs and farm animals such as bulls.
9.Most circus animals are born within a captive environment and have had direct contact with human handlers from a very early age. This environment is an important component in the taming and training process.
10.An animal’s behaviour is not exclusively ruled by its genetic make-up although an awareness of the limitations this may bring on the behaviours that they can be asked to do has to be acknowledged. Scientists such as Breland and Breland (1961) have pointed this out and professional trainers have been aware of this situation for many years.
11.In addition, animals such as camels, which are used in UK circuses, are domestic animals in other countries were they are used for food, transport and sport; the domestication of camels has been dated from 3000 BC (Zeder, 2008). In fact, the majority of camels surviving today are domesticated aside from a small population of Bactrian camels of the Gobi Desert.
12.A further point of concern with this bill is how appropriate or fair the legislation has been drafted as to defining domestic animals to only include: “wild animals not normally domesticated in Great Britain”.
13.If the bill is passed unrevised a situation will exist of animals such as llama, alpaca, reindeer, water buffalo and even birds such as rhea will continue to be kept in the UK freely and without a license. Further, these animals can be trained, transported and displayed at attractions such as agricultural and pet shows but circuses will be banned from keeping and displaying these animals.
14.The final statement that circus performance could be unbefitting to an animal’s wildness and potentially harmful is somewhat puzzling. We already have the acknowledgement from the government that the welfare of animals in circuses is no more compromised than other animal keeping enterprises and therefore should not be banned on these grounds.
15.Moreover, with the introductions of legally codified animal welfare standards for circus animals putting these animals in harmful situations has now been fully addressed.
17. There is little or no educational, conservational, research derived from wild animals in travelling circuses that might justify their use and the loss of their ability to behave naturally as a wild animal. The public can still attend numerous successful circuses that do not use wild animals and continue to enjoy the experience and the varied and exciting acts.
16.Whether there is “little or no educational, conservational, research or economic benefit” in wild animals in a circus is irrelevant. The most important criteria is animal welfare and this has been deemed by the government as not to be an issue with the keeping and displaying of circus animals.
17.The fact that circus-skill shows without wild animals can be enjoyable misses the point that these shows are fundamentally not a traditional circus.
18.With this in mind, it is reasonable to advocate that it should not be the government’s role to dictate what is or is not aesthetically or culturally acceptable to some as regards the use of animals in circuses when by their own admission no animal welfare issues are involved.
19.Furthermore, circuses that still display animals remain very popular despite high profile and vociferous campaigns by various animal-rights groups. If circuses with animals were so unpopular they would be unable to operate a successful business and close due to lack of public support.
20.It has been stated that 94.5% of the public want a ban on animals in the circus; this based on an online survey undertaken by DEFRA in a consultation in March 2010.
21.However, this was a self-report survey and these are statistically dubious. In addition, various lobby groups campaigning against circuses also produced pre-printed postcards for supporters to send to DEFRA further biasing any meaningful results.
22.To demonstrate the problem with such an above survey the animal-rights lobby group Animal Defenders International commissioned polling company Ipsos MORI to undertake a Circus Animals Survey in September 2005 across Great Britain. The results of this poll revealed of those questioned 65% (all animals) and 80% (wild animals only) wanted a ban. Interestingly, when asked if for circus animals to perform effectively it is necessary to whip or beat them only 6% agreed with the statement and 90% disagreed.
23.In appropriate conditions circus animals do behave “naturally”. If they could not express important natural “needs” their welfare would be compromised. Once again the governments own findings state there is currently insufficient evidence of irredeemable welfare problems in travelling circuses with wild animals to justify a ban on welfare grounds
18. If a captive wild animal belongs to an endangered or threatened species or habitat (few of the species used in circuses do) then there is an even stronger argument only to use such an animal—if it must be used at all—for the greater end of conservation, education and/or the greater good of the species and/or natural environment. Such animals should not be used solely or primarily for entertainment and spectacle.
24.The question already answers itself by pointing out that few species of animal used in circuses belong to endangered or threatened species. In fact, no animals currently displayed at the time of this submission fall into this category.
25.Further, the overwhelming majority of animals in circuses are captive bred and have not been removed from the wild to the detriment of their wild co-species.
26.Moreover, endangered and threaten animals species are subject to CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) and with its various Appendices this would prohibit or control such animals being displayed in circuses purely on the grounds of entertainment. The European Council Regulation 338/97 applies the CITES agreement in law in the EU.
Observation and Conclusion
As stated in my preamble in my professional opinion a ban on wild animals in circuses is unnecessary in that given the right conditions these animals welfare is not compromised. This was the position of the Kiley-Worthington report written in 1990 and The Report Of The Chairman Of The Circus Working Group—Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses in 2007. It should be noted that Kiley-Worthington’s research still remains the only empirical long-term research undertaken on animals in UK circuses.
The government by its own admission could not ban wild circus animals on welfare grounds and introduced welfare regulations but with the caveat that it would ban wild animals on ethical grounds something this proposed Bill addresses.
As someone who has chaired ethics committees for zoological collections under the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, I also feel that what is presented in this Bill is not an ethical review. I cannot find evidence of any recognised process being involved just a series of statements of opinion.
Animal welfare is a science, we can now make good judgements on detecting and alleviating the unnecessary suffering of animals and as far as circus animals are concerned it is clearly admitted their needs can be met. Therefore, I do not think the reasons put forward to ban wild animals on “ethical grounds” in this Bill are compelling and that continued evolving welfare regulation would be more fair and appropriate.
References
Breland, K and Breland, M (1961). The misbehaviour of organisms. American Psychologist. 16. 681–684.
Kiley-Worthington, M (1990). Animals in circuses and zoos: Chiron’s world? Pitsea: Little Eco Farms Publishing.
Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (2012). DEFRA
The Report Of The Chairman Of The Circus Working Group. Wild Animals In Travelling Circuses (2007).
Zeder M A (2008). Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(33)
May 2013
