Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by European Circus Association
Introduction
The European Circus Association (ECA) is a non-profit organization established in 2002 to unite Europe’s circuses and promote and preserve circus arts and culture as part of Europe’s cultural heritage. The ECA represents more than 130 circuses, festivals, animal trainers and artists in 29 countries, including nearly all renowned European circuses and associated members worldwide. The work of the ECA is funded by member fees and additional donations.
Among ECA’s members are circuses of all different kinds. Many of them present animals in their shows, some of them only domesticated animals and some don’t present any animals at all. It is the strong belief of the ECA that it is the artistic choice by the circus directors whether or not they want to present animals in their shows. The European Circus Association fights for their right to make this choice.
The ECA has always promoted clear and controllable regulation on animals in circuses. In fact, several years ago the ECA drafted a model regulation and provided it to politicians and governments throughout the European Union, as well as DEFRA, as an input for their own discussions and regulations. The ECA therefore congratulates the Government in England on the licensing system for animals in traveling circuses that was introduced as of January 2013. This is exactly what ECA had always proposed and it is encouraging for the whole circus community to see governmental regulation that is transparent, workable and effective concerning the keeping and training of animals.
As anywhere else, the ECA clearly opposes a ban on animals in travelling circuses in England for the following reasons:
1. No scientific evidence
As laid out by HM Government in its introduction to the new draft Bill, the “Radford Report” found in October 2007 that “there appears to be little evidence to demonstrate that the welfare of animals kept in travelling circuses is any better or worse than that of animals kept in other captive environments”. The Government confirms that this continues to be the case.
Given this absence of scientific evidence for any kind of animal welfare problems, the ban that the Government intends to pursue through primary legislation appears only to be based on ethical grounds or opinion.
2. Domesticated vs. non-domesticated animals
The term “wild” as used in the Government’s draft Bill concerning animals does not mean anything. Only the question of whether or not a species of animals has been domesticated over a longer period of time does make a difference. Of course, it does not matter where these animals have been domesticated. In times of European Union and globalization it seems nonsensical to define “wild animals” as “any vertebrate animal of a kind which is not normally domesticated in Great Britain”. For example, camels, lamas and the like have been domesticated for centuries in their home countries. They have adapted to living with humans. Thus there is no reason why they shouldn’t live well together with humans elsewhere, including England.
Furthermore, animals have been living and trained in circuses for decades. These animals breed regularly in an unforced way within the circus facilities showing that animal accommodation standards are currently entirely compatible with their nature. As a consequence, it is possible to consider the classical dichotomy between “domesticated animals” and “wild animals” in circuses as obsolete, because in the circus community all animals are domesticated as they have been living with men for generations. Therefore, from a practical and ethical point of view, the distinction between indigenous and exotic animals is not compelling.
As a consequence of this kind of reasoning, the evaluation of animal presence in circuses should be based on the same parameters that lead the public opinion and the Western people to think that the keeping and the use of millions of animals in farms, stables, racecourses, zoos, parks and private homes is legitimate.
No ethical-juridical discrimination should be applied to circus animals.
3. Nature, a cultural misunderstanding
A ban of non-domesticated animals in circuses assumes that these “wild” animals should only live in the wild. It is not to be forgotten, however, that this standpoint is based on a cultural misinterpretation: seeing nature as a total entity in which everything ends in a harmonious and painless way. In times when natural environments become endangered, humans are obliged to take charge of animals in every way possible, including taking them out of their natural environment in order to keep them well and their species alive. Two examples:
The natural environment for tigers in Asia has shrunk by 40% from 1995 to 2005 alone. Only about 3000 to 5000 tigers are left living in the “wild”, the whole species is endangered. While every effort must be made to preserve their habitats, etc., keeping and breeding tigers in human care will ensure their survival.
African elephants are being “culled” every year, because their natural environment is shrinking and cannot accommodate them all. Without doubt an elephant kept healthy in human care is much better off than his African cousin that gets killed, because nature cannot accommodate him or her.
In fact, nature means fighting, contradictions and stress to animals; all these concepts must not be forgotten when evaluating animals in travelling circuses that receive stimulation and positive reinforcement in daily training as well as in performance.
4. The estrangement of humans and animals
The ongoing discussion about animals in human care is caused by two factors. On the one hand, our era seems to be strongly characterized by the distance, the almost absolute separation between the world of men and the world of animals (pets are considered another proper universe, a limbo that is not subject to the strict protocol of the freedom theory implemented by a certain kind of activism). This means that almost nobody any longer is actually familiar with the animal world, all the more the latter is celebrated and deified. In this framework, training of animals becomes rare and hard to understand because it entails the maximum sharing between trainers and learners, between “tamers” and tamed.
On the other hand, much of the ongoing discussion is strictly related to the human point of view and the simple but wrong assumption that animals would feel like humans. But, as mentioned above, the slogans that focus on the sadness of “prisoners behind bars” in zoos and circuses pay no attention to welfare or scientific evidence of animal conditions; on the contrary, these messages only express the exclamatory argumentation that is born from the sensitivity of observers and that operates for the increase of immediate consent.
The modern training of animals in circuses is based on natural instinctive behaviors of animals, trying to show up their natural capabilities and beauties. To train animals for entertainment and spectacle means to allow them a good standard of life, share the daily life with them, teach the audience about the natural behavior and produce a performance that is aesthetically and culturally relevant.
5. Circus is a place for healthy animals
Whatever the size of the confinements, human care can never replicate nature. On the other hand, non-domesticated animals, like any other animal, have the ability to adapt to changing environments. If an elephant doesn’t have to walk for miles to find the next watering hole, he doesn’t need an area of several square miles to live in. Further, threats to animals’ well being from predators, disease, scarcity of food, etc. are removed for animals in facilities managed by humans.
When animals rely on humans for their care, the question arises how to keep the animals “entertained”, physically and mentally stimulated and worked out, if the stress that comes with nature is missing. This is where the circus comes in. Better than any other form of keeping animals in human care, the circus offers education and stimulation for the animals. They do enjoy the changing environments offered in the travelling circuses, they enjoy the “work” in the performances as a substitute for the challenges that nature provides to their cousins in the “wild”. The circus actually enriches their life.
To conclude: England should build on the newly introduced licensing system and refrain from a ban of wild animals in travelling circuses that is so obviously based on opinion rather than scientific evidence or even ethical grounds.
May 2013