ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses
OUT OF CONTROL? Regulation & licensing of animals in circuses Options to ban the use of wild animals in circuses
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses Summary When the Animal Welfare Bill was debated in Parliament in 2006, there was enormous public and cross-party support in both Houses for an end to the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. In response the Government announced a ban would be introduced on the use of wild animals in circuses. The Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), undertook an extensive examination of evidence which involved a huge commitment of resources from animal protection groups such as ADI. A working group to examine scientific and empirical evidence was formed which required groups to conduct research and consult with experts over many weeks. Groups were obliged to contribute to feasibility studies, impact assessments and finally public consultations. This process was reaching its conclusion in March 2010. Following the election, the new Government confirmed continued support for an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. Defra was indicating that restrictions on the use of animals in circuses, including a prohibition on the use of wild animals, might now be supported. However, further discussions and deliberations have since taken place within Defra and ministers appeared to be dragging their feet, and incorrect information was provided to the House of Commons on the legality of a ban. A Backbencher’s debate in the House of Commons on 23 June 2011 adopted the following motion: “That this House directs the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to introduce a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses to take effect by 1 July 2012.” 1 MPs from all main parties attended and spoke in favour of a ban. Following the debate, Defra ministers reassured the public that the Government had listened to the view of the House and was sympathetic to the motion for a ban2. Prime Minister David Cameron echoed this by commenting that it was "not right" to still have lions, tigers and elephants performing in the big top3. However, Defra has since announced that a ban is no longer an immediate possibility2 and the Government had “begun to develop a tough licensing regime that will stop circuses from using these wild animals if they do not provide the appropriate welfare standards” 1, we understand that another circus team has been created to revisit this issue and look at the different avenues for implementation of a regulatory system. ADI and others have produced a wealth of evidence that shows that a regulatory licensing system is expensive, inspections are unlikely to uncover poor welfare and husbandry practices or even abuse, and it is difficult to implement and enforce. Furthermore, a regulatory licensing system which envisages the continued use of wild or exotic animals in travelling circuses is entirely at variance with both public and parliamentary will. Similar regulatory licensing and inspection systems in other countries, including the USA, have failed to protect circus animals from poor welfare practices and abuse. The Government does have the option of using Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) to enact regulations banning the use of wild animals in circuses, which would guarantee animal welfare. This would be cheaper to implement and would satisfy the will of the British public and the UK Parliament. There are no legal impediments to this option.
Public and Parliamentary will Defra’s public consultation in 2009 found that 94.5% of respondents supported a ban. These results coincide with a YouGov poll that indicated that 72% of the public backed a ban with only 8% against, and a ComRes poll reaffirmed this result, showing an overwhelming majority of 71% of the public backed a ban. The Backbenchers motion on 23 June directs the Government to use its powers under Section 12 of the AWA to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. During the debate support of the motion was close to unanimous.
Early Day Motions 1998–2011 The will of parliament and the public has been expressed in many Early Day Motions over the years: Prior to the Backbenchers’ vote 199 MPs from all parties had signed EDM 403 Wild Animals in Circuses: ..recognises that the only thing stopping this ban from coming into place is a decision by Ministers; and urges the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act to make a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses.. – making this the 7th most signed EDM in Parliament out of 2292 motions tabled. EDM 1860 Wild Animals In Circuses (… urges the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to introduce a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses without further delay). 2011: 86 signatories
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
2
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses
A world of illusion: RSPCA, Defra, and local inspectors duped during circus inspections
Above: RSPCA and local officials inspect the elephant tent, Great British Circus 2009. No evidence was found that the three elephants were chained to the ground, each by two legs, for up to 11 hours every day. ADI surveillance footage reveals the chaining routine (left). The elephants had actually been chained prior to the inspection, and again later that same day, after the inspection. The recordings show how the chains were carried from the tent each morning before the circus opened and brought back in the evening. The hasps into the boards, which hold the chains, cannot be seen under the straw. Seemingly confident in the deception, earlier that year the circus had made a presentation to MPs in the House of Commons, where they asserted, “no chains in our elephant tent”. Also caught on video were a series of vicious attacks on the elephants by two individuals – a groom and the presenter. No one doubts the concerns of the RSPCA team and local inspectors. This incident simply serves to demonstrate how easily circuses can conceal routine husbandry practices as well as serious physical abuse.
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
3
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses EDM 2179 Wild Animals In Circuses (.... urges the Government to maintain its commitment to ban the use of wild species in travelling circuses, and to restrict and limit the use of domesticated species under a strict, accountable and open licensing system) 2009: 96 signatories EDMs 965 & 976 Animal Welfare In Circuses (…and urges the Government to maintain its commitment to ban the use of wild [or non-domesticated in EDM976] species in travelling circuses and to restrict and limit the use of domesticated species under a strict, accountable and open licensing system) 2008 & 2009 : 187 signatories & 78 signatories EDM 1626 Animal Welfare (…urges that the Animal Welfare Bill is used to end the use of animals in travelling circuses) 2006: 108 signatories EDM 468 Circus Animal Welfare (…calls on the Government to introduce measures to end the use of wild animals in circuses in the forthcoming Animal Welfare Bill) 2005: 107 signatories EDMs 714 & 767 Cruelty to Animals (both criticising the lenient sentencing in the Chipperfield trial) 1999: 76 signatories & 61 signatories EDM 787 & 64 Animal Defenders and Circus Animals (…and calls for a ban on the use of animals in travelling circuses…) 1998: 214 signatories & 192 signatories
Perceived Legal Obstacles Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act provides that “The appropriate national authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority thinks fit for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible, or the progeny of such animals”. Independent legal opinion has been obtained by ADI on whether the Government is able to ban the use of animals in circuses through regulation under the Act. We were advised: “There is in our view clearly adequate vires in section 12 AWA 2006. It is a question of political will. If the Government chose to impose a ban under section 12, we consider that it would be lawful to do so. If there were a challenge to the adequacy of the powers in section 12, or if regulations made under the section were challenged under the Human Rights Act we consider it likely that a court would consider that the Government had adequate discretion or margin to justify the use of the powers in question for the purposes of effecting a ban on the use of non-domesticated species of animals in travelling circuses.[…] In our view, there is no doubt that the intention was that section 12 could be used to ban wild animals in travelling circuses.” 4
The Cost The “summary monetised costs and benefits” detailed in Defra’s 2009 Impact Assessment shows that a complete ban on the use of animals in circuses is the most cost effective option for both circuses and the Government. Should the animal welfare groups offer to rehome animals (as ADI has done in other countries where circus animal bans have been introduced), a ban would present an initial but acceptable cost.
Analysis of the Government’s likely proposals for regulation and licensing Animal Defenders International (ADI) understands that the Coalition Government is concerned about the perceived “legal obstacles” to a prohibition on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses and is exploring the option of a regulatory system to include welfare standards, licensing and inspections. It is further understood that the proposed regulatory regime will include all performing animals in travelling circuses, both domestic and wild species, with special attention to wild/exotic species. First and foremost, ADI would strongly urge Defra to take into consideration that successive studies of animal welfare in travelling circuses have shown that the needs of wild or exotic animals simply cannot be met in the travelling circus environment. Clearly the deficits in environment and care affect domestic species as well, and they also suffer as a result. Currently, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not protect animals travelling with circuses and action needs to be taken as a matter of urgency. ADI and some other animal protection groups have participated at each stage of Defra’s deliberations and information gathering during the process of examining the use of animals in travelling circuses since the passage of the Animal Welfare Act. Both during the previous government, and this, we have committed considerable resources and contributed extensively to the previous Circus Working Group, which examined scientific and empirical evidence of suffering and husbandry issues; to the previous public consultations, impact assessments and feasibility studies.
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
4
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses
A world of illusion: Making a seriously injured lioness disappear
Alex Lacey of Circus Harlequin (now the Great British Circus) (in front of RSPCA inspector) glances at a worker who appears to be cleaning an empty beastwagon during an inspection. In fact a seriously injured lioness called Narla is concealed behind the closed shutters. The incident was recorded in 1997 by an ADI field officer working inside the circus. Narla had been attacked by a male tiger and badly mauled. The circus publicly claimed to be “RSPCA inspected�. Before the inspector arrived, Narla was pushed into the end compartment of the wagon and hidden behind sacks of straw. Pulling down the shutters and pretending to clean them, completed the ruse. The vanishing act shows not only the ease with which an animal can be concealed but how an inspection regime is attractive to circuses for marketing purposes. The ADI field officer also filmed several incidents of animals being beaten, including poor Narla (below). These incidents could not have been identified during an inspection.
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
5
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses In the absence of a ban on the use of domesticated species, ADI would support a regulatory regime incorporating welfare standards, licensing and inspections to restrict and limit their use in travelling circuses. However, in the case of wild or exotic species it is clear that given the particular circumstances of the travelling circus, the welfare needs of these animals cannot be met. While Defra continues to examine the perceived “legal obstacles” to a ban on the use of wild/exotic animals in travelling circuses, we discuss below the challenges presented by a licensing and inspection regime, with particular reference to the use of wild/exotic animals.
Licensing and inspection cannot improve animal welfare Travelling circuses, by definition, spend most of the year on tour. Even if a proposed licensing system functions with clearly described welfare standards for all species including cage size, arrangements for transportation, housing, environment, limits to the time spent travelling and/or shut in transporters, wild animals will nevertheless continue to spend almost their entire lives confined in temporary accommodation, with little opportunity to express their natural behaviour patterns5. The need for caging and fencing to be small, collapsible and relatively lightweight to facilitate transport on the back of a vehicle, together with the need for living quarters to fit the same small space, means that the very nature of travelling circuses presents an unhealthy environment for animals. Time spent in transporters can be unnecessarily long. When circuses are touring, circus staff are required to erect facilities at each site, unload the animals, and then at the end of the series of shows, the animals must be loaded up, their facilities dismantled along with the rest of the circus, before they are transported to the next site5. In 2009 ADI observed and recorded the tour of the Great British Circus (GBC). On one occasion, for example, the circus moved just 5.5 miles, but three elephants were confined to their cramped transporter for 7.5 hours and forced to wait until their tent was erected6. This is consistent with the pattern of animal management across all of the circuses that ADI has studied over the past fifteen years. We believe it is highly unlikely that a regulatory system that relies on welfare standards, licensing and inspections, would have identified this problem. Inspectors would need to pass information across jurisdictional boundaries very quickly, and more time would need to be spent on observations of dismantling, travelling, and erection of circus sites. Time available for individuals or groups of animals to use exercise enclosures is also an issue. A regulatory system with attendant welfare standards would need to specify how a circus would enable all animals to benefit from exercise cages, given the time restrictions in the daily routine – feeding, clearing out, preparing for performances (for example horses are commonly cleaned and tacked up one to two hours before a performance, in order for other preparations to be made). Thus, when exercise cages or enclosures are provided they are not always used due to time or space restrictions7 and aggressive or difficult animals may not be allowed to use them (e.g. stallions)8. ADI’s observations at Zippo's Circus in 2006 showed that either exercise enclosures were not provided for the horses or, where they were provided, animals were not seen to use them7. A similar situation was also observed in 2006 for camels at the GBC9.
Visits from an inspector, whether pre-arranged or unannounced, may not detect welfare deficits experienced by wild animals in travelling circuses ADI’s investigations have shown that trained inspectors are very unlikely to detect husbandry problems or physical abuse. Evidence of long-term problems might only become clear over an extended period of observation, and physical abuse often occurs behind the scenes. For example: ●
2011 – ADI exposed the beating of Anne, a 57-year-old elephant and other animals kept at the winter quarters of Bobby Roberts’ Super Circus. The abuse was only captured as a result of recordings made by a hidden camera over a three-week period in February. Anne had apparently been placed in the barn at the end of the season, the previous November. Given the circumstances, we do not see that a visit by a local inspector, whether pre-arranged or unannounced, could have prevented or identified the abuse. In 2002 Anne had been examined by a vet who found her to be ill and in pain. His report concluded: “I believe retirement to a suitable sanctuary is now in her best welfare interests”10 Despite this advice, Anne continued to tour with the circus until the end of 2010. She was released from the circus winter quarters when the public pressure resulting from the ADI exposé forced the circus to relinquish her.
●
2009 – ADI’s investigation of the use of three elephants from Germany with the Great British Circus demonstrated that enforcement of regulations by inspection did not identify welfare problems. The circus reported that they had been inspected on six occasions during the tour, by Defra animal health inspectors, local authority inspectors and a team of RSPCA inspectors. None of the inspectors were aware that, (a) the elephants were chained for up to eleven hours a day; (b) their access to water was restricted; (c) there were various health problems; (d) they were being abused by the workers18. There is no question about the RSPCA’s concern over excessive chaining of elephants; this example simply serves to highlight the relative ease with which inspectors can be misled.
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
6
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses
A world of illusion: Anne’s makeover In March 2011, the nation was sickened when ADI released video footage of an elderly, arthritic elephant, Anne, living in chains and being abused in the winter quarters of Bobby Robert Super Circus. The ADI video showed that Anne had been chained to the ground barely able to move; she had been placed in the barn at the end of the season the previous year. ADI’s recordings were made during January and February. As the story broke, our surveillance team monitored a frenzy of activity on the farm. Anne was then shown to the press, police, RSPCA and others unchained, walking on deep straw bedding in a fenced off section of the barn. As long ago as 2002 a wildlife vet had examined Anne and identified severe arthritis. However she continued to tour with the circus (bottom right, in 2010). In the end, it was the public outrage following the exposure of her suffering that ensured Anne was retired.
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
7
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses ●
1997 – At Mary Chipperfield Promotions in Hampshire, ADI produced evidence of elephants, camels, chimpanzees and other animals being beaten. The farm was an official MAFF quarantine facility; it carried a Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 licence; it was registered under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925; co-owner Roger Cawley was at the time a Government zoo inspector. During the period of the investigation, the quarantine facility was inspected by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food officials on two occasions. ADI found conditions in the big cat quarantine facilities to be very poor; concrete floors with no comfort, no shelter from the rain, no footbaths between the quarantine facility and the rest of the farm19. However, no action appeared to be taken on this, and the inspection did not cover all of the animals kept on the farm. Clearly, it is unlikely that any official inspection is going to identify abuse or welfare deficits when there are multiple buildings and numerous animals of many different species. This needs to be addressed.
●
The evidence gathered at Mary Chipperfield’s facility led to the convictions on various charges of Mary Chipperfield and her elephant keeper, and also Roger Cawley for cruelty to a sick elephant. Cawley had overseen the permanent chaining of elephants for many weeks. He had also repeatedly whipped an animal in the training ring. It may be that such treatment might have been noticed in a zoo20, but we do not see that a licensing system could provide a failsafe against such treatment in a circus farm facility.
●
1997 – ADI secured footage of a badly injured lioness called Narla at Circus Harlequin; a male tiger had attacked her. The circus staff were aware of an impending RSPCA inspection and hid the animal in a cage behind bales of straw. We filmed the RSPCA visit, as the inspector stood next to the cage where Narla lay badly injured, unaware of the deception. This demonstrates the comparative ease with which large animals can be hidden in the travelling environment from even the best-intentioned inspections. The RSPCA inspector did not detect the animal18.
Defra has suggested that a regulatory licensing system could involve inspections carried out by local authorities. This means that different officials would inspect the circuses at each location and therefore consistency of assessment is likely to present a problem. Unless the animals are observed for 24-hour periods over spanning several days, without the knowledge of the workers, it is not possible to establish actual routines and working practices.
Complex animal welfare standards would need to allow for the range of species available to travelling circuses ADI’s studies of circuses around the world have identified a very wide range of wild and exotic species are available to travelling circuses. For example in Ireland a hippopotamus, rhinoceros, snakes, crocodiles and seals have been noted11; in Portugal, bears, a polar bear, chimpanzees and baboons21; in the UK we have observed elephants, tigers, lions, macaws, leopards, giraffes12, and even a rhinoceros (Circus Darix Togni). Given the travelling nature of circuses and the EU principles of freedom of movement of people, services and capital13, circuses can currently bring a wide range of species into the UK without restriction (despite the EU decision to allow Member States to regulate on circuses independently). Circuses have access to a wide variety of species and they are constantly incorporating different acts into their repertoire14. Therefore, Defra would need to develop standards for all species of wild animal available for use in circuses around the world; such standards would also need to reflect age and gender. Although it would be possible to start with a set of standards for the most common wild or exotic animals, Defra would very quickly need to introduce new standards each time a circus arrives in the UK with a new species. Revision of the standards would prove costly, inefficient and will create uncertainty for the public and the authorities, as well as the circuses. It is of note that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums of the United States issued a policy statement in March 2011, requiring that all AZA-registered facilities institute a ‘hands off’ management protocol for their elephants. In recognition of the protection of both animals and staff, elephant care providers will no longer share the same unrestricted space with elephants. The move towards hands-off management in such facilities is growing around the world. This sensible protocol is not possible in a travelling circus. If the Government were to consider this option, we suggest that a better solution would be to place responsibility for presenting evidence to support the use of a particular species, on the circuses themselves. They would need to apply to Defra for a licence to use a particular species and provide supporting evidence that the animals would not suffer. This would then go out to consultation with animal protection groups.
Variation on sites makes it difficult to implement common standards The variety of the sites used by touring circuses would also have an impact on animal welfare, e.g. car parks, fields and industrial areas. Animals picketed on concrete or tarmac will continue to suffer a poorer environment than those in a field. Furthermore, busy town centre activity disturbs animals attempting to rest in their accommodation5. A major element of any standards operated under a regulatory licensing regime would therefore be to provide guidelines for the variety of sites that circuses might occupy. There would need to be some restrictions placed on types of site, especially when such sites may be on privately owned land. There would need to be provision for access by inspectors. In our view, the lack of comparability would make consistent standards difficult to create, expensive and almost impossible to enforce.
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
8
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses Lack of expertise and need for retraining to enforce a licensing system With animal circuses touring the country, implementation and enforcement of a licensing system would require high standards of training and expertise among inspectors. Training would need to involve a working knowledge of the needs of all wild animal species and would need to be constantly updated to reflect the expected influx of new species. Inspectors would need to exchange detailed information in a timely manner (bearing in mind that circuses are constantly on the move). Defra has suggested that they will seek the support of the local authorities to implement any licensing regime. However, local authorities are often stretched with their enforcement duties due to lack of personnel with appropriate qualifications. Currently, when animals are on tour, the local Environmental Health or Trading Standards Officer in the town where the circus is performing usually carries out the inspection (if any). As one EHO commented: “Another difficulty encountered with the enforcement of legislation concerned with performing animals is the fact that many of the animals encountered are exotic, and Local Authority inspectors who see such animals perhaps only once or twice in a lifetime are not best qualified to judge the conditions in which they are kept, or to know whether the animals are a danger to the public” 20. This highlights the need for inspectors to be appropriately trained, therefore the Government must commit to a substantial financial investment in a climate of economic austerity for local authorities. If on the other hand, Defra favours using the Defra veterinary service for inspections, or local Defra-appointed vets, there is a cost implication. It is likely that veterinary fees would be substantially higher than those of an inspector not qualified in veterinary medicine, and this solution would still require animal welfare training of veterinary-qualified appointees. It would be vital that inspectors receive training in animal welfare and behavioural science.
Reluctance from local authorities to implement and enforce a licensing system In 2009 the Local Authority Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) responded to Defra’s consultation expressing its reluctance to take part in enforcing a licensing system: “LACORS does not believe councils are best placed to deliver this regime, largely due to the travelling nature of these premises and reliance on veterinary expertise. Any potential licensing system for travelling circuses is not comparable to the current licensing system for, e.g zoos, as the lack of a fixed location would create complications when it came to issuing a licence and follow up the inspections. The council issuing the licence would rarely be the same as the council/s where the performances occur”14. Local authorities therefore have legitimate reservations about a licensing system implemented by their officials, and ADI shares these concerns. Another difficulty of enforcing regulations relates to seasonal staff from abroad coming to work in UK circuses. The industry employs itinerant workers and a variety of acts from around the world. A recent news report stated “Around half of the 500 circus performers who come to the UK every year […] are coming from outside the European Union”15. ADI’s studies have found that most circus workers are poorly paid and untrained. It will be difficult to establish the background of animal presenters and trainers. Thus, inspectors will be left to assess the competence of handlers and animal trainers based on little or no information – perhaps impressions on the day – and in terms of the workers responsible for animal care, it is unlikely that their level of knowledge could be established with any degree of certainty.
Costs of a new licensing system The proposal to introduce a strict licensing regime will be extremely costly for taxpayers and for the circus industry. According to Defra’s own Impact Assessment the associated costs for the potential regulator are £7,680-£11,500 per year and for the circuses, £129,000-£190,000 one-off improvement costs16. It is clear that the costs of regulation would not create an inspection system with even a remote chance of discovering the long periods of chaining or confinement, water and food deprivation or physical abuse that has been discovered during undercover investigations and remote monitoring. Although Defra has indicated that the system would be self-funded, it is evident that the UK taxpayers would still have to bear at least some of these costs. Furthermore, these costs are likely to rise as the number of circuses using wild animals in the UK increases as a result of the decision not to ban. If the Government opted for a ban, this would be the cheapest option. A ban under regulation could take the form of a Government policy decision not to issue licences for the use of wild or exotic animals in circuses. Any circus wanting to use a wild or exotic animals would need to apply to Defra for a special review, and provide scientific and empirical evidence that the species for which they are applying, would not suffer in a travelling circus environment. This would then be submitted to animal protection groups for input.
Systems of regulation around the world have failed to protect animals Worldwide, there is currently no system of regulation that has been shown to be effective in protecting circus animals. In the U.S., for example, the USDA regulates the use of animals in circuses with a system based on licensing and Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
9
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses
It is not by chance that so many violent incidents to animals have been filmed by ADI in UK circuses. No other captive wildlife has to endure so much close control, nor be forced to perfom such unnatural acts as in the travelling circus. Yet there is no inspection system that could have identified this abuse and protected the animals.
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
10
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
ADI Parliamentary Briefing: Wild Animals in Circuses inspection. Inspection guidelines are detailed in the USDA ‘Animal Care Policies’ and ‘Exhibitor Inspection Guide’ for APHIS inspectors. However our study of the use of animals in circuses in the U.S. indicates that these are mostly unenforced or simply not implemented and thus are still failing to protect animals17. The main problems being lack of funding when problems have been identified and lack of places to house seized animals. Problems with the inspection regime include animal care inspectors relying on “broadly worded guidance which they had difficulty interpreting”22.
Ban through regulations: widespread practice in the UK It is common in the UK for government departments responsible for management of regulatory and licensing regimes to end certain practices arising from a government policy decision, based on public concerns. These regulatory orders can take the form of internal policy directives or sometimes a statutory instrument. Examples include: ●
In 1998, the Government announced an end to cosmetics testing on animals, saying that no further licences would be granted for cosmetic testing under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 198625.
●
Similarly, section 7.1 of The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 bans the practice of handling an animal in a market by lifting it off the ground, dragging it along the ground, suspending it clear of the ground, by the head, neck, ears, horns, legs, feet, tail, fleece or wing, using powers conferred by sections 1, 8(1), 37(1), 38(1), 72, 86(1) and 87(2), (4) and (5) of the Animal Health Act 198123.
●
The prohibition on tethering of pigs is incorporated on section 2 of The Welfare for Pigs Regulations 1991 using the powers conferred by section 2 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 196824.
●
In 1997, the Government announced an end to the use of animals in certain painful forms of monoclonal antibody production25.
●
In November 1997, the Government announced that it would no longer issue licences for the use of Great Apes in scientific procedures26.
●
An amendment to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in October 1993, extended the protection of the Act to Octopus vulgaris27
●
In 2011, the Government announced that it intends to end the use of animals for household product testing28
Thus, under any regulatory and licensing regime operated under the powers of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, Defra is free to advise industry that no licences would be issued for the use of wild or exotic animals. This would represent a proportionate reform in a sector where the restriction of the use of animals has already been shown to actually benefit the sector as a whole – circuses presenting human-only acts have been very successful.
Animal Defenders International October 2011 tel: 020 7630 3340 www.ad-international.org Refs: 1. www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05992.pdf -Accessed 18/10/11 2. Letter from Jim Paice to ADI. 27 July 2011. Ref: PO235631/MP 3. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-minded-to-support-circus-animal-ban-2302556.html 4. Bircham Dyson Bell. Legal advice to Animal Defenders International on wild animals in travelling circuses. Advice: s.12 animal welfare act 2006 5. Animal Defenders International. Animals in Travelling Circuses: The Science on Suffering. Page 10 6. http://www.ad-international.org/media_centre/go.php?id=1623&si=12 – Accessed 14/10/11 7. Animal Defenders International. Animals in Travelling Circuses: The Science on Suffering. Page 11 8. Animal Defenders International. Animals in Travelling Circuses: The Science on Suffering. Page 7. 9. Animal Defenders International. Animals in Travelling Circuses: The Science on Suffering. Page 13. 10. Veterinary report on an examination of "Annie", a 45-year-old female Asian elephant at Bobby Roberts' Circus. 11. Animal Defenders International. Stop Circus Suffering: Animal Circuses in Ireland. Page 5 12. Animal Defenders. “The Ugliest Show on Earth: the use of animals in circuses”. Page 4 13. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Title III). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:321E:0001:0331:EN:PDF 14. LACORS. Initial opinion on the regulation of wild animals in circuses (December 2009) http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/23328.doc 15. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/4928084/Circuses-could-run-short-of-trapeze-artists-and-acrobats-because-of-new-immigration-rules.html - accessed 17/05/11 16. Defra. Impact Assessment of the regulation of wild animal acts in travelling circuses. 21 December 2009. Page 4. 17. ADI. Animals in Travelling Circuses: the science on suffering. A discussion of the scientific evidence on animal suffering in captivity and transport and a study of the use of animals in circuses in the US. 2008 pg.33 18. ADI Submission to DEFRA public consultation on the use of wild animals in traveling circuses, 2010, Page 23 19. Animal Defenders. “The Ugliest Show on Earth: the use of animals in circuses”. Page 59 20. ADI Submission to DEFRA public consultation on the use of wild animals in traveling circuses, 2010, Page 24 21. ADI, Stop Circus Suffering, Animals in Circuses in Portugal, 2005, Page 5 22. USDA, Controls Over APHIS Licensing of Animal Exhibitors, 2010, Page 2 23. The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 24. The Welfare for Pigs Regulations 1991 25. Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1998 26. Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain, 1999, Cm4841, 2000 27. Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1993, Cm 2730 28. Written Statements, Monday 18 July 2011, Animals: Scientific Procedures Statement http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110718-wms0001.htm - accessed 17/10/11
Regulation & Licensing of Animals in Circuses
11
Animal Defenders International, October 2011
Animal Defenders International Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP, UK. Tel. +44 (0)20 7630 3340 www.ad-international.org