Draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill

Transcription

1 House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill Written Evidence Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry Draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill are included.

2 List of written evidence 1 Jolyon Jamieson 1 2 Andrew Lewis 2 3 RSPCA 5 4 Captive Animals Protection Society 10 5 Born Free Foundation 12 6 Trading Standards Institute 13 7 John Dineley 15 8 Fédération Mondiale du Cirque 20 9 Feld Entertainment Inc Dr Ted Friend European Circus Association Animal Defenders International Classical Circus Association Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain Alexander Lacey and Martin Lacey Jnr Rona Brown s Movie Animals 52

3 Written evidence submitted by Jolyon Jamieson As a British citizen I am very concerned about the attempt to ban 'wild' animals in circuses. I think many of the arguments being used are wrong. I also feel that the attempt could be challenged in various courts for a variety of reasons 1) The Government has already stated that it cannot ban the use of animals on a welfare basis. Many studies have shown this. The Government now wants to try to ban it on 'Ethical' grounds. What is meant by this? The dictionary definition of Ethical is A) Pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. B). Being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession: If you use definition A, I would ask what is immoral about the use of animals. Who decides morality? MPs? Using this could allow many problems to arise in future. Imagine a group of Paedophiles managing to be elected. They could then use this to abolish the age of consent saying that it is morally wrong to restrict children in this way. If you use definition B then the new regulations would ensure that a standard of conduct is adhered to. DEFRA has spent time and money producing these regulations which has resulted in the two circuses who applied and these regulations should be given time to see how they work. 2) Animals in Circus are a tradition that many people love. Circus without animals is nothing more than a variety show. If people think it is wrong they will stay away. Those who do go enjoy the spectacle and children can learn much about animals from their visits. Although animals can be seen on TV and in zoos you are much closer in the circus. You see the size, the smells etc in a way you cannot in a zoo. Also most zoos are not affordable to a great many people. 3) Circuses do not normally use endangered species. CITES ensures that. All animals are captive bred and usually from many generations. A great deal of wild instinct has been lost. Many of the animals, such as camels, are considered domesticated in most parts of the world. 4) A ban, would surely, breach the free trade laws of Europe. It would mean that a trainer from the UK could work in Germany but a German trainer could not work in the UK. Any ban like this must be infringing these trade laws. 5) MPs keep claiming that over 90% of British people want a ban. They claim that this is the result of a survey. This survey was conducted in a manner that Circus Supporters were unaware that the poll was taking place. The Animal Rights groups were aware and had all their supporters vote. Also, if you study the results you will be surprised how many times Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck etc voted. Also a great many of the votes came from Animal Rights supporters around the world. Not from the UK. The survey only produced just over 10,000 replies and there are over 62 million people in the UK so the figures MPs quote are hardly 90% of the UK public. While you are considering what action to take please bear these points in mind. April

4 Written evidence submitted by Andrew Lewis I find myself writing to you after the news that MPs will scrutinise legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in England as of 1st Dec I maybe should point out, that I have never been employed by a circus but I am a circus enthusiast, with a keen interest in circus generally but also in animals and I love spending time on the various circuses, more so, the proper animal circuses. I love being around the animals in their stables or their exercise facilities, interacting with them, watching them at play as well as at work, because at the end of the day, they are working animals, just as in the same way as racehorses or police dogs for example. I wonder just how many of the MPs who will scrutinise this legislation have actually been anywhere near a traditional circus to see things for themselves? The answer is probably not many, if in fact any at all. That I believe is vastly unfair to an industry that has worked with Government/Defra for many years and complied with everything asked of it. The only MP I know who regularly goes behind the scenes of the circus to see things for himself, is the MP for Romford Andrew Rosindell, who when he spoke up for traditional animal circus in the House was ridiculed, booed and jeered by his colleagues! But and the point being, is that Andrew had first hand knowledge of what he was talking about and that s the difference. When making important decisions, such as this one for example, where indeed a ban could come into play, everyone on the Committee should have some genuine first hand knowledge of the subject matter. That allows a more reasoned and fair hearing and is more likely to reach a more sensible solution. Its very easy to ban something when you don t understand it! I was very pleased when Defra finally launched the Regulations for Wild Animals in Circus, as this gave the traditional circus industry in this country a high standard to meet and to follow and to keep to at all times, if individual circuses wished to keep wild animals in its show. The fact that the circus industry itself has been asking for Government approved standards for a number of years and the fact that all the circuses that include wild animals that applied for a license, met the standards and were issued with a license surely must speak volumes for the standards of animal husbandry within the UK circus industry. I need not remind the Committee, that the then Minister Ben Bradshaw first said he would use the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to ban the use of wild animals within touring circuses only, if their welfare needs could not be met! We all know the conclusions of the Circus Working Group report, which concluded, after eighteen months of site visits and submitted evidence from both sides, that the welfare needs of animals currently within the UK circus was being met. Basically the same conclusions as the RSPCA report published by Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington a number of years previously, although much to the RSPCA s annoyance. So, the only two independent reports into the welfare of circus animals BOTH conclude that the welfare of the animals is being provided. The circus industry already knew that, however from their point of view, it was good to have some published evidence to back that up. As far as everyone was concerned that should have been the end of the matter! But it isn t, is it! Here we are a number of years further down the line and nothing has changed. Traditional circus has been under the threats of a ban for years, that in itself is vastly unfair. The only reason the situation hasn t changed is due to the highly emotive issue of animals in the circus and the continual bombardment (and money) towards the Government (and the other main parties) from the apposing so called animal welfare groups like the RSPCA, Captive Animal Protection Society (CAPS) and of course Animal Defenders International (ADI). Strangely enough, traditional circus has been around far longer than any of those groups. Traditional circus was created in London at Halfpenny Hatch near Lambeth in 1768, that s two hundred and forty five years ago! The RSPCA was formed in 1824, CAPS in 1957 and the ADI in

5 Its interesting to note that during all the years that animal welfare organisations have been in existence, despite all the claims that circuses are cruel and horrible places for animals, very few prosecutions of circuses or circus animal trainers have taken place. I believe the UK circus industry has generally an overall pretty impressive track record when it comes to animal welfare and for doing what is right for their animal co stars. Circus animals have I feel, overall a much more active life than animals within any other setting. They receive some basic training showing off their natural abilities, based on the reward method and they move locations once a week giving them new sights, sounds and smells. Surely that has to be good for the brain! Stimulation I believe its called! Now to the reason for this . I have seen the arguments set against the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Section Two of the Draft Bill and I would like to respond as below: Animals in circuses are not an outdated view of animals, wild or domestic. Animals are for some people, the main reason for going to the circus. Wild animals make circus today unique, different to the average all human circus, many of which are boring. In the circus environment you can get up to and touch wild animals, where in other environments you most certainly cannot do that. Because circus animals are cleaned and groomed daily, they are used to human contact, which is why they are less predictable than animals within other environments and why they are approachable not only by their keepers, grooms, and trainers but also by other circus visitors. Other settings which include wild animals do not work as closely with their charges, they are cleaned out, fed and watered but that s it, there is less hands on work with their animals and certainly in 99% of animals in a zoo for example, there is no direct public/animal contact. This I believe lessens the impact and understanding of the animals. Wild animals are wild animals whether they are in the true wild, or indeed a circus. However any wild animal currently in England has no idea what the true wild is, let alone where it is. Circus performances include animals such as zebras, camels, reindeer and even snakes which are being classed as wild, in addition to animals such as big cats and elephants. I believe circuses do respect their animals and that s why circus animal routines are designed to show what animals can do naturally, not what some animal trainers might want their animals to do and that s why thought is given to the animals housing and exercise. People forget that camels, zebra and reindeer are grazing animals and during the day, they do just that, in large outdoor paddocks, exactly the same as they do in any other setting. Big cats spend most of their day sleeping, again they can do that in the circus and when they wish, they too have outdoor exercise facilities. So the circus does allow wild animals to express their wild behaviours and because they work with animals 24/7, they not only understand animals but they allow the animals to be animals. Wild animals in circuses can be educational. Circus can with schools cooperation offer more educational aspects and can offer hands on opportunities for school groups. They can see the size of animals, learn about where they come from, what they eat, what they do in the so called wild, how they react to human contact. You can touch, feel and smell a camel, a zebra or indeed an elephant. You can gaze into a camels eye or see how long its eyelashes are! NO other animal husbandry system offers this hands on educational facility with so called wild animals. Some circuses with wild animals are already offering this to schools who will work with circuses. Conservation is a totally different subject and with the destruction of the world s natural habitat by man, animal husbandry systems such as circuses should be encouraged to breed and keep wild animals for future generations to witness and enjoy, rather than discouraged and banned. To ban wild animals in circuses serves no purpose whatsoever, other than pleasing a minority who campaign against circuses with animals. Wild animals are still wild animals and yes even in the circus, are treated as such, their true natural instincts are not ignored or suppressed. Overall, wild animals in English circuses have a very good life, they are kept clean, warm, well fed, groomed daily (except big cats naturally), they have the best vets when needed, plenty of 3

6 fresh air and exercise and now in addition, numerous inspections by Defra yearly to make sure the circuses are doing properly what they are supposed to be doing and that is looking after their animals. The fact that circuses got licensed by Defra earlier this year, tells me something. I am aware that the standards Defra set were high and the fact that circuses applied, met the standards and got issued with a license is brilliant. In summary, wild animals are very much an important aspect of circus, they are well loved by not only their owners and trainers but by the circus going public and for many, animals are the reason for attending the circus. They add a diverse and unique aspect to the circus programme through their natural noises, colours, their movements and their own natural performing abilities, something which is missing from the various all human circus shows, some of which are boring and present nothing more than a continual flow of acrobats. Although they may well be in a circus, wild animals in a circus are no different to wild animals anywhere else. ANY species of wild animals not suited to being within the circus, are not in circus already but the animals that are currently within circus are more than suited and circus can and is making sure their needs are met. Circus trainers know what the animals can do, what the animals need on a daily basis and they make sure they and their staff provide it. That s why all big cats have outdoor exercise facilities with toys on which to climb, to sit or space just to sleep, they also have pools in which to soak or just to dip their feet. All grazing animals again have large outdoor exercise facilities enabling them to get fresh air, run around or just eat the grass. Circuses want the best for their animals that s why they make sure the animals get what they need. They don t do it because of some rule that says they have to do it, they do it because they want to and they want the best for their animals. I really hope the MPs on this Committee view all the evidence and finally realise that there is no need to ban wild animals from appearing in circuses. If, on the other hand, they don t understand what they are tasked with and don t understand anything about animals in the circus and their decision goes the other way, it will be a sad day for the animals, a sad day for English circus and the circus community worldwide. May

7 Written evidence submitted by the RSPCA Summary The RSPCA is opposed to the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. Due to their itinerant nature, it is not possible to provide for the needs of wild animals in such an environment. The practice is outdated and fails to reflect current public opinion on how animals should be treated and represented. The RSPCA therefore welcomes the Government s draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill to ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England, which would bring it in line with five other European countries. That said, we believe there are some problems to iron out to make this a more effective piece of legislation. Most importantly, it fails to define travelling circus and would permit wild animals to tour with a circus, albeit not perform or be exhibited. Liability, penalties and powers of entry should be expanded. The draft Bill fails to address what would happen to an animal in the event of an offence being committed as it has no powers of seizure, or indeed the fate of wild animals currently being used in travelling circuses. Clarity is needed as to what will happen to the current Regulations (the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012) once the Act comes into effect. The RSPCA suggests remedies for these shortcomings. In addition, the grace period is unnecessarily long, particularly given that circuses must already have an approved retirement plan for wild animals currently being used. As long as these issues are addressed, the RSPCA fully supports the enactment of legislation in England as a matter of urgency, and hopes to see the same in the Devolved Administrations. Introduction 1. The RSPCA welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the enquiry on the draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill. The RSPCA has had concerns about the use of animals in circuses since the early days of the Society and has actively campaigned against their use for over a century. 2. The RSPCA believes that the only way to adequately protect wild animal welfare in this context is to ban their use in circuses altogether and the Society has campaigned for such a ban alongside the British Veterinary Association (BVA), Born Free Foundation (BFF) and Captive Animals Protection Society (CAPS). The RSPCA, along with many other animal welfare groups, opposed the introduction of a licensing scheme - the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations on the grounds that it would fail to deliver significant improvements to animal welfare and has insufficient provision to allow effective enforcement. There was also the fear that it could delay a ban. Arguments against the use of wild animals in travelling circuses 3. The RSPCA believes that animals should not be subjected to the confinement, constant transportation and abnormal social groups associated with circus life - circumstances known to cause stress to animals. Animals may often be subjected to forced training, performing to a timetable and performing acts that cause welfare issues. Crowds and noise can also cause 5

8 severe welfare problems in captive animals. The RSPCA does not believe that teaching animals to perform inappropriate tricks does anything to educate the public or foster respect for animals. 4. The RSPCA agrees with the Government s ethical arguments against allowing the use of wild animals in travelling circuses (section 2 of the package of documents published with the draft Bill). Supplementary evidence on this aspect can be submitted to the Committee if it so desires. 5. Using ethical arguments to outlaw particular animal practices has precedent, either wholly, as in the case of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 [1], or partially, as in the Hunting Act 2004 [2]. 6. There is precedent in Europe [3], and around the world [4], for banning the use of wild animals in circuses. Prohibited activities and definition of circus 7. Clause 1(2) of the draft Bill states that only a wild animal that performs or is exhibited is prohibited from use in a travelling circus. Thus, a wild animal could still be taken on tour and trained for performance, and so be exposed to most conditions that make itinerant circus life objectionable (summarised in 3 above), as long as the animal is not performing or on exhibition. The draft Bill therefore has a narrower focus than the current Circus Regulations which apply to all wild animals kept or introduced (whether for the purpose of performance, display or otherwise) into a travelling circus (regulation 2). Clause 1(2) should be amended to: For the purpose of subsection (1), a circus operator uses a wild animal in a travelling circus if the animal is kept by, travels with or performs or is exhibited as part of, the circus. 8. The Explanatory Notes to the draft Bill state that a travelling circus does not require a definition as it is a term that is commonly used and well understood. Obviously this leaves the term open to interpretation and may fail to capture, for instance, circuses that do not use a traditional big top and instead use some other temporary structure that is less recognisable as a circus. 9. A more appropriate definition of travelling circus, largely the same as the definition in the Circus Regulations, is: A travelling circus means any company/group which travels from place to place for the purpose of giving performances, displays or exhibitions. An alternative to company or group is institution, used in the Austrian Animal Welfare Act (2005): 'circus - an institution with performances that, among other things, fall within the domain of equestrian skills or animal dressage and that may include acrobatic presentations serious and comic acts, pantomimes as well as dancing and musical numbers'. The RSPCA is not suggesting that equestrian acts be prohibited but that emphasis on the company/group/institution, rather than place, more accurately reflects how circuses work, with acts often moving between circuses. It also circumvents the scenario of circuses exchanging their iconic tents for other temporary arrangements that may not be commonly recognised as a circus, or even travelling between permanent facilities around the country. Whilst the definition above prevents circuses touring with wild animals, it has the advantage 6

9 of not impacting on the use of wild animals for the audio-visual industry, which reside at a home base when not being used for performance. Liability 10. In clause 1(4) of the draft Bill, the officer (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence. The circus proprietor should also always hold some responsibility. To this end, clause 1(5) of the draft Bill should be amended to: circus operator, in relation to a circus, shall always mean - (a) the owner of the circus, and (b) any other person with overall responsibility for the operation of the circus, or (c) if neither the owner of the circus.... Penalties 11. In addition to a fine, Courts should have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping wild animals, for example in order to deal with repeat offenders, as they can do for example with the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (DWAA), section 6(2). A further point should be added to clause 1(3): (2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act the court by which he is convicted may disqualify him from keeping any wild animal for such period as the court thinks fit. (3) A court which has ordered his disqualification in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection may, if it thinks fit, suspend the operation of the order pending an appeal. Likewise, under the current draft Bill a minor amendment should be made to section 6(2) of the DWAA to include a conviction under the new circus Act, once in force, as grounds for cancelling any DWA licence and disqualifying a person from keeping a dangerous wild animal, if the court so decides. Powers of entry 12. The draft Bill does not award power of entry to constables and so does not permit anyone other than the appointed inspector to enter premises to search and gather evidence. Inspector should be replaced with inspector or constable throughout, as in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA). This will also require additions to the Schedule of the draft Bill as per Schedule 2 of the AWA. Powers of seizure 13. Clause 7(k) of the Schedule to the draft Bill states that an inspector exercising a power of entry may seize anything, except an animal, that is found on the premises. An inspector may therefore be forced to leave premises where an offence is being committed. Indeed, no provision is made for an animal when an offence is committed. One assumes the animal will be left with the circus, in which case how long is it until a second offence is committed? Once the circus moves to another location? Power of seizure should extend to the animal, as it does for example in the DWAA when an animal of a type listed in the Act s Schedule is kept without a licence or in contravention of licence conditions. 7

10 Grace period 14. The Act would come into force on 1 December 2015 (clause 4[2] of the draft Bill), meaning circuses could tour with wild animals for almost three full seasons more. The RSPCA believes that this grace period is unnecessarily long. The two circuses currently licensed to use 21 wild animals [6] must already have made suitable provision for the retirement of licensed animals as part of their individual care plans [7], although see point 15 below. In addition, the RSPCA and BFF have offered to help find suitable homes for the animals. At most, a grace period of one year following Royal Assent is required to finalise these plans. 15. It is essential that the welfare of wild animals currently used is assured. Although retirement plans are required by the Circus Regulations (see above), the Regulations will presumably no longer apply once the Bill comes into force (see point 16 below) and the draft Bill itself makes no provision for animals currently used. A further clause Welfare of former circus animals should be added, based on section 16E of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 which outlines how to deal with the similar situation of zoo closure. Supplementary evidence on this aspect can be submitted to the Committee if it so desires. As noted in point 14, the RSPCA and BFF offers help in finding suitable homes. 16. Lord de Mauley s introduction to the draft Bill states that when the Bill comes into force the ban in this Draft Bill will supersede the Regulations. Clarification is needed on whether this means the Circus Regulations will be revoked and what will happen to existing licences issued under the Regulations. 17. Under the Circus Regulations, circuses could add additional wild animal acts during this grace period, for instance as a last chance to see. There appears to be no mechanism in the Regulations to prevent this, as long as licensing conditions are met. Circus operators are simply required to give 14 days notice to the inspectorate [8]. Government should strongly discourage circuses from acquiring more wild animals during this grace period. Implementation 18. The RSPCA is committed to supporting the Westminster Government in implementing this piece of primary legislation at the earliest opportunity. The RSPCA urges that the draft Bill be prioritised so that it will become law in the next Session, as hoped by Environment Minister Richard Benyon MP [9]. Devolved Administrations 19. The RSPCA would also like to see a UK-wide ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses (section 3 of the package of documents published with the draft Bill). The RSPCA is therefore keen to see the Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland develop legislation in this area to achieve the same end. 8

11 References [1] e.g. Second Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, Hansard, 15 May 2000, cols [2] e.g. The Countryside Alliance & Others, Francis Derwin & Others, Brian Friend & Hugh Thomas and HM Attorney General, The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another, 29 July 2005, EWHC 1677, paragraph 339. [3] Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Greece have banned the use of all wild animals in circuses. [4] Israel, Costa Rica, Bolivia and Singapore have all successfully banned the use of wild animals in circuses. Malta, Slovakia, India, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland and Denmark also have imposed bans on key species and Portugal has banned circuses breeding their existing wild animals or acquiring any new ones. [5] Defra (2012) Zoo Licensing Act 1981: Guide to the Act s provisions, Annex A [6] Circus Mondao is licensed to use two camels, two reindeer and two zebra. Jolly s Circus is licensed to use one Ankole, one camel, one fox, one raccoon, four reindeer, six snakes and one zebra. Hansard, 14 Feb 2013, column 880W. [7] Condition 4(4) of the Schedule to The Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations [8] Defra (2013) Guidance on the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations November 2012, page 88. [9] Hansard, 18 January 2013, column May

12 Written evidence submitted by the Captive Animals Protection Society Summary The Captive Animals Protection Society is an organisation which was founded in 1957 with the specific aim of combating the exploitation of animals within the entertainment industry. A major focus of the organisation s work has been on working to secure an end to the use of animals in circuses in the UK and Ireland and, as such, the charity is supportive of the proposed measures for an outright ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England. In recent years, CAPS has worked alongside the RSPCA, Born Free Foundation and British Veterinary Association on this issue. Ethical nature of ban It is firmly believed that the ban could have been expedited via secondary legislation by virtue of the powers granted to the Secretary of State under the Animal Welfare Act Notwithstanding this belief, CAPS would like to congratulate Government on the development of the proposed Bill on ethical grounds and the recognition that: It is not necessary to use wild animals in travelling circuses to experience the circus; wild animals are just that and are not naturally suited to travelling circuses and may suffer as a result of being unable to fulfil their instinctive natural behaviour; we should feel duty-bound to recognise that wild animals have intrinsic value, and respect their inherent wildness and its implications for their treatment; and the practice adds nothing to the understanding and conservation of wild animals and the natural environment. CAPS is fully supportive of the above overriding principles. Devolved administrations CAPS is supportive of the suggestion of UK-wide prohibition on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses and welcomes the confirmation that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considering their respective positions. At least one wild animal circus act moved from the UK to join a circus in the Republic of Ireland at the beginning of 2013 and it is expected that the circus in question will tour locations in Northern Ireland, as it has in previous years. There are concerns amongst animal welfare groups that, without a UK-wide ban, more wild animal shows may simply be displaced into Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland when the English ban is introduced. Definitions: 1. Use of wild animals (Section 1(2)) The current wording of s. 1(2) of the Bill would allow the transport of wild animals around England as part of a travelling circus as long as they are not exhibited publicly or used in performances. Circuses often cross back and forth between England, Scotland and Wales throughout the circus season. In the event that a ban is introduced in England, but not in Wales or Scotland, it is possible that circuses will continue to travel around England with wild animals in order to use them in shows when they cross the borders, meaning that animals may continue to spend much of the year on the road; albeit not as part of performances or for exhibition purposes. 10

13 It is widely accepted that the regular transport of wild animals, the temporary accommodation and the necessarily confined quarters within the travelling circus environment is a cause for great concern. In order to avoid the eventuality outlined above, it is suggested that the wording of s.1(2) of the Bill is amended to reflect the wording of the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Regulations) 2012 to read: S.1(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a circus operator uses a wild animal in a travelling circus if the animal is kept or introduced for the purpose of performance, display or otherwise as part of the circus. 2. Wild animal (Section 5) In order to avoid ambiguity, it is suggested that the definition of wild animal be amended in order that it does not differ from the recognised definition used in the Zoo Licensing Act This would be achieved by replacing the word commonly with the word normally with the relevant definition outlined in s. 5 of the Bill. Consequential amendment to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 The consequential amendment, which removes the exemption for circuses in England from the provisions of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is not problematic in itself. It is noted, however, that the wording included in the commentary states that: If the prohibition contained in the draft Bill comes into force, there should be no dangerous vertebrate animals, as listed in the 1976 Act, remaining in circuses that would require the exemption 1. As such, it would appear that the Government believes that this amendment will have no impact on businesses currently operating in England. In fact, there are at least two businesses currently based in England which are defined as 2 circuses but do not travel. These businesses exhibit sea lions as part of their shows and, as such, would be required to obtain a Dangerous Wild Animals Act licence following the implementation of the Bill to avoid finding themselves in contravention of the amended s. 5(2) of the Act. Whilst one solution is that these businesses simply apply for a Dangerous Wild Animals Act licence, CAPS recommends that, in light of the fact that the Bill is being brought about as a result of the belief that wild animals should not be used in circus performances on ethical grounds, then static circuses should be included within the new legislation. There appears to be little ethical differentiation between using sea lions in static shows and using the same animals in travelling shows. This blanket prohibition would be achieved by omitting the word travelling in s. 1 and 2 of the proposed Bill. May Section 11 of the Explanatory Document, p. 8 ( 2 Pleasurewood Hills, based within the jurisdiction of Waveney District Council and Pleasure Island, based within the jurisdiction of North East Lincolnshire Council have both been defined as circuses by the relevant local authorities. 11

14 Written Evidence submitted by the Born Free Foundation Introduction The Born Free Foundation has made numerous submissions outlining the case for a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, most notably as part of the Circus Working Group process. We are convinced that the welfare of wild animals cannot be met in travelling circuses, and that there is sufficient scientific evidence to support such a position. Nonetheless, as the draft Bill is not predicated specifically on animal welfare science, we note the various opinion polls, investigations and publications in the media, and Parliamentary debates and EDMs which overwhelmingly indicate the strong desire in society for a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England. The Born Free Foundation firmly supports the principle of legislation to ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses and welcomes this draft Bill. The Born Free Foundation is keen that this legislation cover Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, should the devolved Governments choose not to introduce their own legislation on this matter. The Born Free Foundation, along with the RSPCA, has offered to work with circus owners and Government towards a solution to providing lifetime care for wild animals currently used in travelling circuses that may be affected by this legislation. Specific Comment 1(2) By using performs or is exhibited with, a circus may still tour with wild animals, provided that the animals are not used in performance nor put on display. This raises the possibility of wild animals remaining subject to the very same living conditions, travelling regime etc. in circuses that have alarmed Parliamentarians, the general public and animal protection organisations. This section should be amended to ensure that wild animals do not travel with circuses. 1(5) - The definition of wild animal differs from that used in the Zoo Licensing Act The distinction appears minor, but it might be prudent to ensure consistency between the legislation. May

15 Written evidence submitted by Trading Standards Institute (1) TSI welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill for prelegislative scrutiny before it is formally introduced to Parliament. (2) It is understood that the Government s position is that there is insufficient evidence of irredeemable welfare problems in travelling circuses with wild animals to justify a ban on welfare grounds under the Animal Welfare Act On 01 March 2012 the Government set out its policy on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses and stated its intent to pursue a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. (3) In the absence of any compelling scientific evidence, to ban the use of an animal using the delegated powers provided by the Animal Welfare Act would likely fail the test of proportionality and so the Government now intends to introduce primary legislation. As the process of introducing new primary legislation takes time, the Government has introduced interim Welfare Regulations, aimed at protecting wild animals which stay in travelling circuses in the short term. To date, two circuses have been licensed under these Regulations. (4) TSI believes that Government policy and any final Bill must continue to give transparency and confidence to the public regarding animal welfare in these circumstances. (5) TSI welcomes the news that circus operators will be given until 01 December 2015 to remove any wild animals from their circus before it becomes an offence under the Bill to use a wild animal in a travelling circus. Whilst giving a grace period this will allow alternative arrangements for any animals to be made, without requiring any change of ownership of a wild animal or otherwise amounting to a deprivation of a possession, and as such is more likely compatible the European convention on human rights. The welfare of any circus animals must, in the meantime, be ensured under the interim measures. (6) It is noted that the draft Bill extends to England and Wales only. However, the offence of using a wild animal in a travelling circus in the draft Bill applies only in England. The Scottish Government has indicated a wish to consult before extending the Bill to Scotland. The Welsh Government has indicated a wish to consider the implications of the introduction of a ban. Northern Ireland has not yet developed a position on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. (7) TSI is firmly of the opinion, given the travelling nature of circuses, that enforcement would be simpler and more effective if the legislation extended throughout all the countries of the United Kingdom. Clause 1 subsection (1) sets out the central prohibition in the draft Bill which provides that circus operators are no longer allowed to use wild animals in their travelling circus in England (only). TSI would urge Defra to speak with counterparts in the Devolved Administrations about the territorial scope of any final Bill. Without such agreement from the Devolved Administrations inevitable problems with enforcement and application are likely to ensue. (8) The Schedule to the Bill makes provision for the appointment of inspectors and specifies the powers and duties of those inspectors when exercising powers of entry, inspection or search. There is no detail provided as to whom such inspectors will be, although it is suggested in the commentary that it will be a public sector inspector. (9) TSI accepts, given the small scale of the industry and the visibility of any operator seeking to contravene the ban, that changes in public sector expenditure or manpower as a result of the 13

16 Wild Animals in Circuses Bill will be small. TSI agrees, based on the evidence presented, that the proposals appear to be a low cost regulatory measure. (10) However, the trading standards service is already under severe pressure and even a negligible increase in workload arising from the Bill would need to be carefully managed and considered. May

17 Written 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" (e.g. 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 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. 15

18 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. 16

19 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 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. 17

20 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 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. 18

21 References: Breland, K. and Breland, M. (1961). The misbehaviour of organisms. American Psychologist 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 MA. (2008). Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, diffusion, and impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(33) May

22 Written evidence submitted by the Fédération Mondiale du Cirque 1. The Fédération Mondiale du Cirque is a non-profit organization under the patronage of H.S.H. Princess Stephanie of Monaco to promote and preserve Circus arts and culture worldwide. A federation of professional circus associations from Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, the United States and the Festival International du Cirque de Monte-Carlo, its membership now includes circus associations and organisations in Mexico, China, Japan and Afghanistan. 2. Contrary to what is implied by the draft Bill and explanatory notes, the very existence of the Festival International du Cirque de Monte-Carlo demonstrates the ongoing interest in and vitality of circus of all forms, including classical circuses featuring performing animals. Now preparing for its 38 th season since its founding by Prince Rainier of Monaco in the early 1970 s, the Festival is the world s preeminent international competition for circus arts, including the presentation of performing animals alongside traditional and contemporary human acts. Each of the past several years, the public has overwhelmingly voted for an animal performance as the top act. The more recent formation of the Federation (December 2008) and its growth in the last four years is more evidence of the continuing public support for all forms of circus. The recent celebration of the Fourth annual World Circus Day saw celebrations by circuses and circus enthusiasts in 47 countries, including open animal training sessions and other animal-focused events. Even youth and social circuses, which focus exclusively or predominantly on performance by humans, sometimes work with animals. As one social circus founder and teacher has explained: working with an animal in the circus setting may be the only opportunity for some (disadvantaged) children to have a positive interaction with an animal. 3. As stated by the Government on 1 March 2012, The 2007 Radford report on circus animals concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that travelling circuses are unable to meet the welfare needs of wild animals presently being used in the United Kingdom. That position has not changed. Consequently, we are now looking at the means by which a ban could be introduced on ethical grounds. i 4. It is noted that ethics are not referenced anywhere in the draft Bill or accompanying texts. With no evidence of welfare concerns and apparently lacking any definable ethical grounds, the basis for the draft Bill appears to have been downgraded to opinions and platitudes. 5. In fact, most of the arguments advanced to support the draft Bill concern animal welfare: e.g., performance is unbefitting their wildness and potentially harmful ; loss of their ability to behave naturally as a wild animal ; not naturally suited to travelling circuses ; may suffer as a result of being unable to fulfil their instinctive natural behaviour ; and implications for their treatment. Draft Bill, paras Each one of these arguments can therefore be set aside as deficient as a basis for the draft Bill in light of the Government s concession and position that there is currently insufficient evidence of irredeemable welfare problems in traveling circuses with wild animals to justify a ban on welfare grounds. Draft Bill, para One could equally point out that the very topic of the draft Bill traveling circuses demonstrates the inherent lack of a justification for the legislation. The Radford report, the conclusion of which the Government accepts, also addressed potential welfare implications of travel. It concluded: [A]lthough circus animals are transported regularly, there is no evidence that 20

23 this, of its own nature, causes the animals welfare to be adversely affected. Radford Report, para Is it travel that makes it unethical for animals to perform? 7. Once the welfare arguments are set aside, what remains as the legal and factual basis for the Bill is very thin: that it is not necessary to use wild animals in the circus to experience the circus; that performing animals represent an outdated view; that performance is unbefitting to their wildness ; and that performance provides little or no benefit of any kind. 8. The suggestion that performing animals in the circus is a traditional, but outdated view (draft Bill, para. 15) is nothing more than an ideological or personal opinion held by some. That many hold a different opinion is clear. The number one question asked by visitors to one of the world s most famous circus museums, the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, is where can I visit a circus? The most frequent inquiry at box offices when the circus comes to town is which species of animals are in the program? According to an analysis in 2006, traditional circuses in Australia attracted approximately 1.3 million paid visits in one year, a larger numbers of paying patrons than opera or rugby. ii A 2006 survey by the Irish Arts Council found that more Irish visit the circus than ballet, opera and contemporary dance combined. iii Independent market research by a German firm (GfK) in 2008 found that 6.4 million Germans visited a circus performance in 2007 or The survey found that 86% of randomly selected persons surveyed believe that animals are an essential part of the circus. 9. That countries across Europe and elsewhere continue to regulate, not ban, animals in the circus shows governmental respect for the training and presentation of animals in a circus setting and reflects the ongoing appeal of the classical circus to the public. Even in the United Kingdom, which has been plagued by decades of prominent and well-funded campaigns created by activists and PR firms to turn the public against classical circus, the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish continue to make their way to the Big Top to enjoy and experience circus complete with performing animals and visits to circus animal menageries. 10. Like France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and other countries, England and Wales now have specific legislation for travelling circuses requiring proof of qualifications, licensing, inspection of facilities, husbandry, recordkeeping and other aspects. Effective only as of this year, it took longer to develop the licensing system than the circuses only just licensed -- will be permitted to use their animals under the draft Bill. 11. The existence of the new licensing system which can and will address any welfare concerns that may remain in the minds of the public or policymakers raises a serious question as to the need for any new Bill at all. Its only apparent purpose is to create a legal barricade to stop those who being uninformed that their views are outdated and that it is no longer necessary to have animals to experience the circus - have a high opinion of circus and value the opportunity to see well cared for performing animals in the classical circus from doing so. Its effect would be to put English trainers and presenters out of business; result in the export from the UK of the last remnants of the cultural heritage that Philip Astley invented in London in 1768; and block professional trainers and presenters from other Member States from exercising their legal rights to live and carry out their trade throughout the European Union. To prohibit licensed exhibitors from conducting their performance with any animal, just because some portion of society prefers a different form of entertainment is nothing less than censorship of those who do not subscribe to a 21

24 certain philosophy. The public has the right to decide for itself whether it thinks classical circus, built on the three traditional pillars of acrobatics, animals and clowns, has value to them and whether they want to see human/animal interaction particularly in places where such interaction may be hard to find. The decision as to whether to attend a circus should rest with the public, not be made for them by a government prohibition that has nothing to do with animal welfare. 12. In 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it noted that it would be desirable for it to be recognised that the classical circus, including the presentation of animals, forms part of European culture and urged the Member States who have not already done so to recognise the circus as part of European culture. iv Now that it has appropriate animal welfare and licensing regulations in place, it would behoove the Government to look to protect its cultural heritage rather than destroying it on the basis of what comes down to personal taste. May 2013 i Hansard 1 March 2012 Column 41WS. ii Australian Leisure Management, Animal Circuses More Popular than Rugby and Ballet, 08 Jul iii Irish Arts Council, The Public and the Arts 2006, Ch. 5, figure 5.1. iv European Parliament resolution on new challenges for the circus as part of European culture, P6_TA(2005)

25 Written evidence submitted by Feld Entertainment Inc Feld Entertainment, Inc. is the leading producer of live, family entertainment and is the parent company of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey, Disney On Ice and Disney Live as well as Feld Motor Sports events, including Monster Jam, Monster Energy Supercross, AMA Arenacross, and Nuclear Cowboyz sm. Feld Entertainment productions have appeared in 74 countries and entertain over 30 million fans a year. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey (also known as The Greatest Show On Earth ) comprises three self-contained touring circus units that travel by rail and truck to present shows in arenas throughout the United States and to Canada and Mexico. Ringling Bros. shows also have toured in Europe and Japan. The traveling community includes hundreds of artists and specialty staff, family members, school teachers, translators, trainers and a variety of animals including the Ringling Bros. herd of pachyderms (the largest herd of Asian elephants in the Western Hemisphere) for which the circus is famous. Like all other circuses in the United States, Ringling Bros. animal operations are licensed and inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture as well as by numerous state and local governmental authorities. Ringling Bros. is proud of its human and animal partnerships and the physical and behavioral needs of our animals are a top priority that can be seen in every city we visit. Feld Entertainment has long supported conservation programs to preserve the endangered Asian elephant. Achievements include the establishment of the Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation in 1995 for elephant conservation, research and retirement, contributions to a number of important in situ conservation projects in Asia, and the birth of twenty-five elephants. The Ringling Bros. program is the most successful breeding program outside of Asia and is vital given that there are less than 35,000 Asian elephants left in the world. Feld Entertainment was a Founding Member of the International Elephant Foundation (IEF) and continues to provide a leadership role in IEF through provision of both funds and expertise. In recent years, Feld Entertainment has initiated a new program focusing on the conservation of endangered species of felines such as tigers and leopards. 1. Feld Entertainment notes the Government s concurrence that a ban on animals in the circus cannot be justified on animal welfare grounds. It also congratulates the Government on the new regulations for licensing and inspecting circuses which can be expected not only to serve animal welfare purposes but to provide transparency and fairness for circus proprietors and presenters working in England and Wales. 2. Feld Entertainment is of the view that traditional circus like any other performing art or cultural activity contributes to a rich social fabric without the need for demonstrating any other benefits derived from the animals to justify their use. Nevertheless, it is clearly inaccurate to say that there is little or no educational, conservational, research or economic benefit derived from wild animals in travelling circuses. 3. Traditional circuses, including Ringling Bros., are tax-paying family businesses that operate based on ticket sales from the public that wish to enjoy them. Traditional circuses also bring real 23

26 economic benefit to the communities they visit by hiring local venues, staff, services and supplies, and because the circus management and staff patronize local businesses during their stays (restaurants, laundry services, etc.). 4. Ringling Bros. significant, long-standing and ongoing contributions to species and habitat conservation as well as scientific research both in situ and ex situ cannot be questioned. These contributions far exceed what is mandated by U.S. law and are motivated by our commitment to our animals. While Ringling Bros. may be a leader in the field, other circuses can and do contribute to conservation and research. It is posited that the circuses in the United Kingdom would be able to contribute to such important causes should they be given the opportunity to conduct their activities pursuant to the new licensing system without threat of their very business being banned by the government. 5. The argument that endangered or threatened species should be used only for conservation, education and/or the greater good of the species and/or natural environment is at odds with the previous argument complaining that traditional circuses provide little or any economic benefit. As further noted below, it is the economic activity generated by circus performances that provides the resources to support conservation. 6. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), a treaty on trade in animals to which the U.K. is party, explicitly allows for the international movement of animals in travelling zoo, circus, menagerie or other travelling exhibitions. CITES, Art. VII, para. 7. The movement of animals that form part of circuses and other travelling exhibits is facilitated through the issuance of a special certificate. CITES, Res. Conf (rev. COP15). Animals qualify for this special treatment when they are pre-convention as is the case with many elderly circus and zoo elephants or born and bred in captivity (e.g., elephants or tigers). The CITES prohibition on commercial activity does not extend to these animals; neither does it apply to animals that are not considered endangered (e.g., lions). Not only does the internationally agreed CITES specifically provide for animals in the circus, in many cases it is the economics of the use of animals (be it circus, hunting, or other public display) that generate the much needed funds for conservation. 7. Ringling Bros. is proud that one of its two large travelling shows Dragons currently on tour features Mr. Alexander Lacey, British born and bred animal trainer and presenter, whose incredible tigers and lions also were born and bred or descended from cats in England. Performing for tens of thousands of people each week, Mr. Lacey and his animals not only entertain but inspire. Through program books, DVDs, websites, videos, educational material, and visits to the animal housing area, the public, both young and old, are informed about the animals biology, care and training and the natural habitats and conservation needs of their wild cousins. Mr. Lacey is a shining example of a highly successful circus animal trainer and presenter, dedicated to carrying on the family profession of raising, training and presenting well-kept, thriving animals in the circus. The proposed Bill would prevent Mr. Lacey from ever returning to his homeland and would deprive the people of England of the circus tradition they created. 8. The current debate is not about animal welfare; it is about the ability of audiences to experience animals up close and in person in a performance setting. Not everybody agrees with the opinion of 24

27 certain activists that animals in captivity must necessarily be abused, sad or sick -- reasonable people can see for themselves and are free to conclude that the animals are happy and healthy. Individuals have the right to decide whether such shows have value to them and whether they want to see human/animal interactions. 9. Circuses are an art form steeped in tradition and rich in history and recognized as culturally significant and should not be censored because of the philosophical beliefs of some regarding animals in captivity. The proposed censorship should be rejected. May

28 Written evidence submitted by Dr Ted Friend Personal Introduction I am a professor of Animal Science at Texas A&M University, at College Station, Texas, USA. I am a native of New York and received my B.S. degree at Cornell University and my M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. I am also a Registered Professional Animal Scientist and a Diplomate of the American College of Applied Behavior Sciences. I have been conducting behavior and stress-related research on a wide range of animal species for over 35 years. Much of my research has been on animal welfare-related issues and was stimulated by requests from moderate animal welfare groups. In 1986 the Animal Protection Institute (based in California) honored me as their Humanitarian of the Year. My experience with circuses and exotic animals began in 1995 when the General Manager of the largest tented circus in the United States, Carson & Barnes Circus, invited me to travel with them to learn about circus elephants and to report back to management my opinion as to how they were handling their elephants. At first, I was skeptical about circuses, having only heard the much-publicized animal rights side of the issue. From 1995 through 1998, I periodically traveled with the Carson & Barnes Circus, observing their practices and conducting research on the behavior and welfare of their elephants and tigers. In 1999, the USDA APHIS Animal Care Program commissioned me to conduct several studies that involved a wide range of circuses and exhibitors, including Clark s Tigers, Carson & Barnes, Clyde Beatty Cole Brothers, Trunks & Humps, Arthurs Exotics, both units of Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus, Hawthorn Corp., Larry Carden, Josip Marcan). The Animal Care Program of APHIS is the unit that is responsible for inspecting circuses in the U.S. The administrators of Animal Care were genuinely interested in obtaining unbiased data on the welfare of circus elephants and large cats. Most of the research from those studies has been published in nine articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Circus personnel in the United States are very international in representation, so my students and I also observed and worked with many British and European animal trainers and animal acts. In 2006 I was asked by DEFRA to serve on the Animal Welfare Team that produced the Radford Report that has been often mentioned in these proceedings. My Submission This submission focuses on Section 2 of the draft bill THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE OF WILD ANIMALS IN TRAVELLING CIRCUSES. For the convenience of the committee, I have reproduced the arguments from the draft bill in smaller font and italic, which are then followed by my observations. 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. 26

29 15: Watching highly trained horses perform in the London Olympics was no more outdated than watching highly trained circus animals. The Olympic equine events, although clearly removed from the natural environment in which wild horses exist, were extremely popular and many people learned greater respect for horses, just as people do when attending a well-managed circus. Actually, in a circus, patrons are much closer to the performing animals than in equine events or in most zoo situations, and people can watch and learn about the animals husbandry and behavior by observing the animals and trainers before and after performances. The openness of traveling circuses is a unique and very important aspect of circuses that affords people much greater access, resulting in greater respect for the intrinsic value of animals. Surveys of circus patrons in North America indicate that the vast majority of patrons attend circuses to see the animals, which I am sure is also the case in England. School children and other people often come to see the animals while circuses are setting up, during the day, and before and after performances, in addition to the actual performances. The photo from a British circus on the front cover of Martha Kiley-Worthington s RSPCA commissioned study shows this very nicely (Figure 1). For many of us, the moment when we decided that elephants were special and worth conserving was when our mother put us on a circus elephant ride. We got to touch and feel the animal, and although it may have been many years ago, we remember it as if it were yesterday. Depriving Britons of the opportunity to see and appreciate wild animals appears to be simply class discrimination, because it has been well established that there are no longer inherent animal welfare issues. 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. 16. The wild animals that travel with circuses have been selected for their ability to adjust to and even thrive. The oldest elephants in North America are historically those traveling with circuses. Elephant training sessions and performances provide exercise and help compensate for the sedentary lives that most zoo elephants unfortunately now have because of the recent push by activists for protected contact in zoos. If a species is having chronic trouble coping with the circus environment, it would certainly not be able to consistently perform at the level needed for a successful circus. The animals in sanctuaries and zoos merely need to be alive and ambulatory to draw crowds, while performing animals need to be at their peak. Also, many species or breeds of what we consider to be very domesticated animals, e.g., dogs, horses, pigs, cattle, cats, etc., can readily revert back to surviving in the wild. Similarly, wild horses, dogs, cats, pigs, etc., can be readily tamed, highly trained, and thrive in captivity because their natural behaviors are simply redirected. 17. There is little or no educational, conservational, research or economic benefit 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. 27

30 17. It is critical to remember that ability to behave naturally as a wild animal also includes extensive periods of hunger, forced migrations and death during droughts, a constant threat from predators and a very inhumane death when eventually caught, and a constant threat of injury from other members of the same species as the fight for dominance, breeding rights and limited resources rarely ceases. Although often romanticized, life in the wild is always full of challenges, most of which circuses have eliminated in return for the animal making a living by performing. Producers of nature shows carefully edit what they show the public so that they do not alienate the parents of young children with, for example, scenes of young elephants in the wild being eaten by lions, or dying from thirst or hunger. Circuses provide people who would not otherwise be able to see and appreciate wild animals the opportunity to see these animals. The performances provide an obvious educational advantage by showing people how clever, conversant and athletic these animals really can be. Activists often claim that circus animals are taught to preform un-natural behaviours, such as elephants walking on their hind legs or preforming headstands. However, elephants commonly walk on their hind legs in attempts to reach browse that would otherwise be out of their reach during droughts (Figure 2). Also, wild elephants perform near headstands when trying to reach water that is in deep holes, breaking open a water melon, or when crushing an animal with their head that they perceive as a threat. Circuses recognize that their animals can be a very important resource for research studies, and the level of training of the animals can make them very useful for a wide range of studies for which wild or untrained zoo animals are not useful. For example, circus elephants, expertise remove from circuses from circus veterinarians, and donations from circuses have been crucial in advancing international research on elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus (a major killer of domestic and wild elephants), improving reproduction and artificial insemination (crucial to maintaining genetic diversity in the species), and elephant tuberculosis. Also, animals in British circuses were used for Dr. Marthe Kiley-Worthington s RSPCA commissioned study entitled Animals in Circuses and Zoos, Chiron s World? (Little Eco-Farm Publishing, 1990). 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. 18. True, captive wild animals who often perform in circuses are often endangered or threatened in their native habitat, and have had to flee those conditions. But, it costs money to maintain these animals, and circuses are one way of maintaining important populations and genetic diversity without requiring government or charity support. Circuses are enthusiastic supporters of research and conservation programs, as mentioned above, and readily participate in international organizations that are attempting to maintain genetic diversity in captive populations and conserve wild populations. 28

31 19. In summary, the Government does not believe it is appropriate to continue to use wild animals in travelling circuses because: It is not necessary to use wild animals in travelling circuses to experience the circus; wild animals are just that and are not naturally suited to travelling circuses and may suffer as a result of being unable to fulfil their instinctive natural behaviour; we should feel duty-bound to recognise that wild animals have intrinsic value, and respect their inherent wildness and its implications for their treatment; and the practice adds nothing to the understanding and conservation of wild animals and the natural environment. 19. In summary, it is appropriate to continue to use wild animals in traveling circuses because: wild animals are necessary to maintain the economic viability of traditional circuses because many people are attracted to circuses to see and learn about the wild animals; research has shown, and the Government s own Radford Report concluded, that the wild animals used in traveling circuses are well adapted to their life style and do not inherently suffer; in many ways traveling circuses are more effective in instilling a respect for the intrinsic value and uniqueness of the wild animals used in their performances than when the public views sedentary con-specifics in zoo and sanctuary settings; traveling circuses reach a segment of the public who are not otherwise likely to travel to zoos or sanctuaries due to distance, cultural or economic reasons to view and experience wild animals, and depriving these people of that opportunity could be discrimination by the Government. Figure 1. Photo from a British circus that is on the front cover of Martha Kiley-Worthington s 1990 RSPCA commissioned study showing people learning to appreciate circus elephants. 29

32 Figure 2. The front cover from Natural History magazine showing an elephant walking on its hind legs in an attempt to reach browse. May