Guardian Unlimited Blogs, November 22, 2007

BAN WILD ANIMALS IN TRAVELLING CIRCUSES

[Rachel's introduction: "Surely if the report says there is not sufficient evidence either way, we should apply the precautionary principle and err on the side of caution?"]

By Will Travers

In 2005 during deliberations over the new Animal Welfare Act, the government set up the Circus Working Group (CWG), including a select academic panel, to consider the highly charged issue of wild animals in circuses. The panel's job was to review whether or not the welfare of wild animals was compromised in a travelling circus and they were instructed to base their findings solely on available scientific evidence. It was, however, acknowledged very early on by everyone that little peer-reviewed research exists that directly involved animals in circuses.

The Born Free Foundation's participation in the CWG, along with others, was subject to some bizarre constraints. We were instructed to ignore the training and performance element of circus life, to exclude anecdotal evidence, and to disregard the wider social context of this debate.

Notwithstanding these unjustifiable restrictions, the concerns we put forward included:

The fact that while licensed zoos operate under both legal and industry minimum welfare standards, it is clear that circuses cannot deliver the same minimum standards afforded to zoo animals. It is illogical to propose creating a situation whereby the same species, the same animal, can be kept under two captive regimes but cannot be guaranteed the same bare minimum welfare provisions.

Transport is an acknowledged stressor for animals. Research shows transport stress affects the physiology of some wild animals, and it is entirely possible that repeated transportation may have long-term negative consequences, as has been proven with domesticated animals habituated to transport.

The substantial deliberations, undertaken since early 2006, resulted in submissions to the chair of the Circus Working Group, Professor Mike Radford, in mid-summer 2007. The chair's report, published November 20, concludes that he is unable to determine whether wild animals in circuses suffer or not, or whether the circus lifestyle (even excluding performance and training) is appropriate or inappropriate for the species currently involved. Ultimately, he says, the decision will be purely political.

What is clear is that the situation cannot be left unresolved. The government must decide about whether wild animals can continue to be used in circuses or not.

And surely they must listen to the people.

Overwhelming public opinion is in favour of a ban. A poll by MORI in 2005 found that 80% thought that the use of wild animals was not acceptable. This consistent position was given form by the reaction of the British public to the sight of an elderly circus elephant with arthritis being kept without others of her kind in a tent, and big cats being housed in beastwagons and transported repeatedly from venue to venue.

Two other key factors must be taken into account. The Animal Welfare Act -- the first to comprehensively address animal welfare laws in nearly 100 years -- has raised considerable expectation that animal welfare will be substantially improved because it seeks to prevent cruelty before it happens, as opposed to acting after the event. Surely if the report says there is not sufficient evidence either way, we should apply the precautionary principle and err on the side of caution?

There are just 47 wild animals in circuses in the UK. Ending this practice is possible, practical, relatively painless (compared with the thousands of wild animals used in Continental circuses), and is a proportionate measure to deal with this issue. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, has already acknowledged that there is a strong body of opinion, in favour of a ban.

It is time to bring the curtain down on the use of wild animal in circuses. It is time for the British government to listen to the British people. It is a matter of leadership. Nothing less than a ban will do.

Will Travers, CEO, Born Free Foundation