Brexit, sentient animals and animal rights - a lesson from the circus

So Theresa May's government has voted that "animals can't feel emotions or pain." That's what the headline says in the London Evening Standard and the Independent. Boy, has that got people up in arms on Facebook and Twitter. The Tory Brexiteers haven't sounded so heartless since May campaigned on wanting to bring back fox hunting and the ivory trade.

The only thing is... it isn't true.

The UK government is currently deciding which bits of European Union law it wants to write into the British statute after Brexit. Among the items they have rejected, Caroline Lucas of the Green Party wanted them to adopt Clause 13, Title 11 of the Lisbon Treaty which was introduced in 2009 and says "animals are sentient beings with feelings and that must be taken into account when creating policy that affects them."

That sounds fine on the face of it. After all, anyone who has a pet dog or cat knows their pet is both sentient and capable of feeling pain, fear, affection and other emotions. So why wouldn't we want that on the statute books?

The reason is the animal rights agenda, which isn't the good thing that many unthinkingly believe it to be. I didn't know anything about it myself until I began looking into the question of animals in the circus.

I used to believe that organisations such as Peta and Born Free campaigned against circuses because they thought training and transporting animals involved cruelty. When I started talking to circus trainers, I realised that they cared greatly for their animals and that their animals appeared to be happy in thier lives. So were Peta and the rest mistaken?

Eventually, I discovered that the issue wasn't cruelty at all. It is the vegan ideology that, regardless of how they are kept, animals shouldn't be in circuses at all. Not only that but, according to Peta, we shouldn't be farming them for food or skinning them for clothes, betting on horse races, visiting zoos or even using things like wool and eggs which don't involve killing animals but does involve keeping them in captivity.

Peta doesn't hide this agenda, which is stated in the motto on its website: "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse in any other way."

Key to that is agenda is the idea of "animal rights." Again, the phrase "animal rights" sounds fine on the face of it. They've the right to be treated well, yeah? Well yes. But supposing those rights become closer to the rights of humans. We don't eat other humans, so therefore we wouldn't be able to eat an animal that had the same rights as us.

The words "sentient" and "feelings" in Clause 13 of the Lisbon Treaty makes it easier for groups like Peta to argue that animals have those rights, not to improve the conditions in which they are farmed but to legislate against them being farmed at all.

If that sounds far-fetched, look at the way animal rights lobbyists have driven nearly all the animals out of circuses on both sides of the Atlantic - destroying even the mighty Ringling Bros in the process. As Thomas Chipperfield argued in the Times a couple of years ago (If They Ban Circus Lions Pet Cats Will Be Next) circuses have always been the thin end of a very large wedge.

In fact, if you start researching the animal rights influence on agricultural policy in America in particular, and the campaigns against even milk production, you may start to wonder whether circus is the canary in the animal rights coal mine.

In that context, keeping the words "sentient" and "feelings" out of UK legislature is not a step towards a culture of cruelty to animals, as casual readers of the Standard and Independent may conclude. It is instead a sensible step back from a future of animal rights extremism in which all animals have 'personhood' and are completely excluded from human ownership.

Update 22 November 2017.
To clarify what MPs actually voted for, Stuart Andrews, MP for Pudsey, explained why he voted against inclusion of the EU clause:

“Can I make it very clear that I absolutely believe that animals are sentient beings. Of course they have feelings, emotions and feel pain – any pet owner, like myself, will know that first hand.

“I did not vote that animals cannot feel pain. We said the exact opposite. Minister Dominic Raab said in the debate. “Animals will continue to be recognised as sentient under domestic law”. This has been the case since 2006 and will continue to be so.

“A specific amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was not deemed to be right, but the Government will deliver the same result using a different route.

“I am proud and pleased that the UK has higher animal standards than any other country in Europe and in the past four months we have announced an Ivory ban, CCTV in slaughter houses, increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty and are banning microbeads. EU law is no panacea: you can keep animals in unspeakably cruel conditions without breaking a single EU law."

Threat of Welsh circus ban recedes

A Chipperfield tiger

There's good news for the future of circuses with animals as a statement from the Welsh government seems to suggest that a proposed ban on wild animals in the big top will now be replaced with a licensing scheme similar to the one currently in force in England.

Circus operators and fans feared the worst in 2015 when the Welsh Assembly's deputy minister for farms and food promised a ban on "ethical" grounds, stating, "The Welsh Government believes there is no place for wild animals in circuses."

Those fears seemed confirmed when Professor Stephen Harris, a long term opponent of circus animals was appointed to carry out a study of the sector and predictably delivered a report supporting a ban.

According to a new statement by Lesley Griffths, Cabinet Secretary for Environmental and Rural Affairs, however, the Assembly has decided to step back from a ban and impose a licensing scheme instead.

Griffiths states, in part:

My officials will be working on developing a new scheme such as licensing or registration, for ‘Mobile Animal Exhibits’ including circuses, which display domestic and exotic animals in Wales. We will work with key stakeholders and undertake a public consultation on this early next year

I also recently met with the UK Government’s Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, to discuss ‘Mobile Animal Exhibits’, wild animals in circuses and the revocation of the outdated Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 in Wales. ‘Mobile Animal Exhibits’ from across the UK regularly travel across borders. Therefore agreement was obtained that Wales and England would, as far as possible, have a joined-up strategic approach in introducing any new scheme to ensure cross border issues are kept to a minimum.  

As always, however, the threat of a ban has not gone away completely, with Griffiths adding the following caveats:

It should be carefully noted that whilst circuses with animals will be included in the proposed licensing or registration scheme, I am aware of the ethical concerns held by members of the public regarding the use of wild animals in circuses and a specific question on this issue will be included in the consultation document.    

I have not dismissed the possibility of a future ban on the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales and have kept the window open on the possibility of still being included in any UK Government Bill brought forward on this issue. 

For more on the hundred-year history of attempts to ban circus animals from British big tops, click here.

Update January 2017: Does the changing situation in Wales reflect changing attitudes in a post-Trump, post-Brexit world? Click here for more on the political circus.

Growing up in the circus - a picture that says it all

Here's a picture that surely sums up how wonderful it must have been to grow up in one of the great circuses of yesteryear. Two kids taking an elephant for a walk down a suburban street... on skateboards!
That's Bobbo Roberts in the foreground (read about his new clown show here) and his sister bringing up the rear. As for the elephant... surely this picture sums up the harmony in which circus folk and their animals once lived.* The jumbo was obviously part of the family, a big pet, considered safe enough to play in the street with two young children who she clearly trusted completely, and them her.
Notice there's not a bull-hook in sight. Bobbo's father Bobby Roberts, the circus owner and elephant trainer never used nor even owned one. He thought an ankus was something you found on a boat.
What a shame we're unlikely to ever see scenes like this on a British street again - a picture from the days when human and animal relationships were considered both normal and natural, to be celebrated, not outlawed, as they are today.
*And yes, I know there are still circus trainers keeping alive the tradition, but they are becoming ever more rare and the threat of a ban on their vocation grows ever closer in Wales (see article here) and now Scotland, where a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses will be debated in the Scottish Parliament next year.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if those with the power to ban could gaze upon a photo like this, from the days before protesters, political correctness and killjoys, and realise that those simpler times were better times. Let's bring them back!

Conservative MP Will Quince calls for ban on wild animals in circuses

Under threat
One of Britain's last performing tigers

As the Welsh Government works towards banning travelling circuses with wild animals (read about it here), Conservative MP Will Quince will bring the debate back to Westminster this Wednesday  (Feb 10) when he attempts to use the Ten Minute Rule to introduce his Wild Animals in Circuses (Prohibition) Bill.

The 10 minute rule allows any MP to propose a piece of legislation for future debate. Most never progress to law, but a rare few do. Since 1945, sixty acts of parliament have become law after originally being introduced under the 10 minute rule. The most recent was the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002.

In most cases, MPs know private members bills stand little chance and introduce them purely as a way of gaining publicity for their chosen cause.

Throughout the second half of 2014, Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick kept the issue of banning circus animals in the media by using the 10 minute rule to introduce a similar bill every few weeks, after the Government failed to pass a ban it promised in 2012 would be law by December 2015. On each occasion, Fitzpatrick's bill was blocked by either of the Conservative MPs Andrew Rosindell, a genuine circus supporter, or Christopher Chope, who took the official party line that the matter would be debated "when Parliamentary time allows." (Click here for more)

Some in the circus industry see the government's delay as a sign they have no heart to bring in a ban that was promised in haste after the media storm surrounding Anne the Elephant.

Animal rights groups, by contrast, maintain that the Prime Minister has assured them that a ban is still on the agenda, promising, "We're going to do it."

Update 10 February: Chris Chope brings hope that the government is changing its mind about a ban. Click here for latest. And click here to see what YOU can do to make a difference.

Whatever the truth about the government's intentions, Wednesday's motion is just the latest move in a 100-year history of attempts to ban animals from entertainment. Read the century-long timeline here.

And click here to read 10 Reasons Why The Show Should Go On!

10 Facts the Welsh Assembly needs to know about Circus Animals

Rebecca Evans of the Welsh Assembly wants
to ban performers such as Britain's last lion tamer
Thomas Chipperfield, who toured Wales last year.
She is not believed to have met him, seen his show
or inspected his animals.

In December, the Welsh Assembly’s deputy minister for farming and food, Rebecca Evans announced, “The Welsh Government believes there is no place for the use of wild animals in circuses.” In the next step to introducing a ban in Wales, she has commissioned Professor Stephen Harris - a man with a long history of opposition to animals in the big top (which you can read about here) - to carry out a review of their welfare

I was brought up to believe it was wrong for animals to perform in circuses, so I understand why many people harbour that belief. But having investigated the matter in great depth for my book, Circus Mania , I changed my mind and would like to present 10 reasons why the show - with animals - should go on.

1 The Radford Report (Read it here) found no grounds for a ban. In 2006, the last Labour government commissioned a six-month study of circus animals, with full participation by circuses and anti-circus campaigners, and concluded that circuses were as capable as other captive environments, such as zoos, of meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care.

2 An earlier study by animal behavourist Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington found circus animals suffer no stress during performance, training or transportation. The 18-month study, sponsored by the RSPCA and published as Animals in Circuses and Zoos: Chiron’s World? (Read it here) also pointed out ways in which the relationship between animals and trainers could contribute to our scientific understanding of how animals think, learn and perceive the world.

3 Circuses with wild animals are strictly regulated by a licensing scheme, introduced in 2012, that sees them inspected by vets six times a year (twice unannounced) with the results available online. Every aspect of the animal’s life, diet and accommodation is governed by strict guidelines. Plus, every circus, including animal accommodation, is on continual show to the public.

4 Circuses aid conservation through breeding programmes and by raising awareness. It was largely the tricks performed by dolphins in aquariums that convinced the public they were intelligent and worth saving. Animals in the wild are endangered by human predators and shrinking habitats, and live short, dangerous lives. Circus animals receive food, shelter and veterinary care. They live twice as long as their cousins in the wild.

5 Circus animals lead rewarding lives. Every cat and dog owner knows their pet enjoys playing with humans, and it’s no different for a horse or a lion. Training and performance are organised play, like throwing a stick for a dog or pulling string in front of a cat. Zoos stopped animal performances to distance themselves from circuses, but have reintroduced them because animals benefit from the stimulation. These days they call it ‘enrichment.’

Click here to seeBritish circus big cats

6 Children are enthralled by circus animals. It’s the only form of entertainment where the under-fives are guaranteed to enjoy themselves as much as their grandparents, making it a cheap day out for all the family. Seeing the skill and intelligence of animals at close quarters can only foster admiration and respect for other species. Even adults will seldom get as close to wild animals as they do in a big top. expectancy

7 It’s what the public want to see. Unlike most contemporary all-human circus shows, traditional circuses with animals receive no public funding and survive entirely on ticket sales. I’m not sure who was surveyed in the oft-mentioned ‘public consultation’ that found 98% of respondents supported a ban, but it wasn’t circus fans. The consultation was held during the year I was writing Circus Mania and regularly attending circuses, but I never heard about it. Perhaps it was only publicised by animal rights organisations to their existing supporters?

8 No other profession is judged by the actions of individuals. There have been 7 prosecutions of circus trainers in 130 years; a tiny minority of the trainers who worked blamelessly in that time. Banning circus animals because of the case of Anne the elephant would be as ridiculous as banning children’s television presenters because of Jimmy Savile. We have existing laws to deal with individual cases of cruelty.

9 A ban on circus animals would be the thin end of the wedge because animal rights campaigners have a wider philosophical agenda than animal welfare. The next targets would be zoos and aquariums, horseracing, meat consumption, wool, silk and leather-wearing, medical research and pet ownership. The slogan of the world’s largest animal rights organisation PETA is “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

10 The circus is a 250-year-old art form that Britain gave to the world. It was started in London by horse-rider Philip Astley and although the global success of Cirque du Soleil proves circus can flourish without animals, surely there should be room in the land of its creation for a few well-run and regulated shows that keep alive the entertainment in its most pure form, with a mixture of human and animal acts.

Douglas McPherson is the author of Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus (Peter Owen Publishers) 

Is Welsh Assembly trying to 'fix' a circus animals ban?

That’s the opinion of a circus industry angered at the appointment of Professor Stephen Harris, a long term opponent of circuses with animals, to head an “independent review” of whether they should be banned in Wales.

As one insider told me, “A travesty of law-making is about to take place.”

Harris was commissioned to carry out a review of animal welfare in circuses by the Welsh Assembly’s deputy minister for farms and food, Rebecca Evans who announced in December, “The Welsh Government believes there is no place for the use of wild animals in circuses.”

His report is expected to be completed by the end of February, but many in the circus believe his bias will make his findings a foregone conclusion.

In December, Harris was discredited as an expert witness in a fox hunting trial because of his links to the animal rights group, League Against Cruel Sport. His opposition to wild animals in the big top, however, has never been hidden.

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday in 2008, Harris said, ‘Every intelligent person knows that circuses are cruel. They should not be allowed to use wild animals.’

In 2011, he told the Daily Mail, ‘You can’t control big wild animals without the use of force, and that means regularly beating the living daylights out of them. It’s as simple as that. For this reason, and for many others, wild animals should not be allowed in circuses.’

Harris previously published a study on the Welfare of Wild Animals in Circuses. His findings were entirely negative, but his methodology was fundamentally flawed. Rather than carrying out any original research of his own, he relied on existing studies of animals in captivity from around the world, most of which had no relevance to animals in the very specific circumstances of life in the circus, and particularly circuses in Britain.

At one point, for example, he notes that there were no scientific studies on stress levels of circus animals during transportation. Instead of taking the opportunity to conduct a study of his own, he relies on a study of cortisol (the stress hormone) levels of zoo tigers during transport - ignoring that fact that zoo tigers would never become acclimatised to transport in the way that circus tigers are.

There has, however, since been a cortisol test  on the lions of Martin Lacey Jr, during a 800 km trip across Europe that showed the animals suffered no stress whatsoever. What’s more, the lions were so comfortable with their trainer that he was able to take saliva swabs from the animals’ mouths with his fingers - something that would be impossible with zoo tigers, which would generally have to be anaesthetised before being handled so intimately. The test can be viewed on YouTube here.

It appears Harris will take the same approach with his current report as he did with his last, drawing on previous studies from around the world rather than visiting actual UK circuses and inspecting the animals and their living conditions for himself, as he has so far made no approaches to the UK’s wild animal trainers .

There have previously been only two comprehensive studies of circus animals in the UK.

The first by Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington was sponsored by the RSPCA in the late 80s and concluded that circuses did not by nature cause distress to their animals. You can read it here.

The Radford Report, commissioned by the last Labour government, similarly found no welfare reasons to ban circus animals. Read it here.

It would be nice to think Harris’ report might highlight the findings of those two studies.

Unfortunately, this is what Harris told the Daily Mail about the Radford Report at the time: “The whole review process was dishonest and a waste of time. It’s cruel to train animals to do tricks, keep them in tiny cages, truck them around the country and prevent them from expressing their natural behaviour. It’s farcical to claim otherwise.”

It seems Harris was angered at having his own contribution to the Radford enquiry ignored. Who could blame the circus industry for fearing that his current review will be an opportunity for him to finally bring forward the ban he has always wanted?

Update 10 February: Meanwhile in Westminster... Chirstopher Chope brings hope that government is changing its mind about a ban. Click here for latest.

Update January 2017: Although the Harris report supports a ban, the Welsh government appears to be moving towards a licensing scheme similar to that in England, although this will be subject to a public consultation in the coming year. Read more on this story here.

Does the news from Wales reflect changing attitudes in a post-Trump, post-Brexit world? Click here for more on the political circus.

Did you know this debate has been going on for a century?
Click here to read the 100-year history of attempts to ban animals from entertainment.

And click here for 10 Facts the Welsh Assembly Needs to Know About Circus Animals.

Circus Cruelty Videos - The Camera Doesn't Lie, or Does It?

Michael Hackenberger
Telling it like it is?

Animal rights groups will tell you that circus animals are beaten into submission and forced to perform through fear. It’s easy to believe if you never go to a circus with animals, which is why campaigns to “stop circus suffering” generate such a big income from armchair animal lovers (the combined income of UK organisations including Peta, ADI, CAPS and Born Free is over £350 million per annum).

Circus trainers will tell you they love their animals like their children and train them with a system of rewards and kindness that enriches the animals’ lives. That makes sense, because lots of other animals are trained, from guide dogs and riding horses to household pets - and nobody assumes they are cruelly treated.

But then there are those covertly shot videos of behind-the-scenes abuse that periodically show up in the news and live forever on YouTube to nag at the conscience of even the most ardent circus fan.

The latest star of such a video is Michael Hackenberger who trains big cats in a circus ring at Bowmanville Zoological Park in Ontario. Just before Christmas, Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) released a video of Hakenberger appearing to whip a tiger twenty times during a training session.

Hackenberger, who owned the tiger used in the film Life of Pi, thought he was in the presence of a woman interested in animal training, but didn’t know she was secretly filming him. The video shows him telling her that it’s more effective to hit a tiger’s foot while it’s on its pedestal, because being trapped “like a vice” between the whip and the hard surface “it stings more.”

Clearly an abuser caught bang to rights, you might think.

Except that Hackenberger is the first trainer filmed in such circumstances to reply with a video of his own explaining how his actions have been taken out of context. View it here.

First, he shows us that far from whipping the tiger twenty times, he was actually whipping the air near the animal to make a lot of noise without touching it. His purpose wasn’t to hurt it, but to show his displeasure at it jumping onto the ring kerb which, during a performance, would be dangerous.

He demonstrates with the same tiger, which shows no fear of the whip, and points out that if he’d actually been beating it, its natural reaction would be to try and kill him.

Next, he explains that in another segment from the Peta video he hit the tiger’s paw, but only to stop it taking a swipe at his assistant.

Discipline is part of any training regime and, given an animal’s short attention span, has to be administered at the moment of bad behaviour - just as rewards are given at the moment of good behaviour.

It’s the animal equivalent of smacking a child to stop it running into the road. Witnessed in isolation the wallop may make you wince, and if a celebrity were filmed hitting their offspring it might cause a media storm. But, in the real world, it doesn’t mean the parent is generally abusive or that the child won’t be all smiles again five minutes later.

Some people will question why Hackenberger needs to assert his authority over a wild animal. His answer is that in a world of shrinking habitats, captivity is a necessary option. Boredom and obesity are the biggest problems for zoo animals, whereas training gives them exercise and stimulation.

As justification, Hackenberger invites us to look at Uno, the tiger from the Peta video, who is with him throughout his own film: as relaxed around humans as a housecat, and the constant recipient of treats, strokes and affection.

Hackenberger’s anger at the Peta video isn’t with the two minutes of his training session that it shows, but the 90 minutes that it doesn’t show.

“If there was anything bad in that time, they’d show you,” he reasons. So could it be the complete film would put two instances of responsible discipline in the context of a caring training regime, or actually show the tiger enjoying the interaction the way a well-trained dog enjoys playing with its owner?

Take a look at another of Hackenberger’s videos filmed in an outdoor exercise pen and make up your own mind.

When the last Labour government commissioned the Radford Report on the welfare of circus animals, undercover film submitted by animal rights groups was excluded as evidence, precisely because it had no context. In the words of then Minister of State Lord Rooker: “A film showing a lion pacing up and down may indicate evidence of stereotypical behaviour, but equally the film may have been shot when the lion had seen its keeper approaching with food.”

Without such film, the report concluded there was no evidence that animals were more likely to suffer in the circus than any other captive environment.

I understand why many people harbour an instinctive objection to the idea of performing animals. I was brought up with that belief. But when I became interested in circus, I knew I had to visit one of Britain's last big top shows with elephants, tigers and horses to get a glimpse into the disappearing history of where the art form began. My interviews with trainers and my changing opinion on their work forms a major thread of Circus Mania, the book the Mail on Sunday called "A brilliant account of a vanishing art form." Click here to read a sample on Amazon.


Author's Note: I'd be interested to hear the views of any animal trainers on Michael Hackenberger's video and training methods. My impression is that he's maybe at the harsh end of the scale and perhaps a little old school, but I reckon he's sincere. Whether his honesty will cut any ice with his detractors is another matter. We live in an age where the Daily Mail has just run an hysterical piece about a training display during an open day at Amazing Animals - the UK's leading supplier of trained animals to TV and film. There's no 'evidence' of mistreatment underpinning the piece, just the opinion of TV presenter Chris Packham that the very idea of using animals to entertain the public is wrong. In such a climate, it's no wonder that few trainers speak as openly about their methods as Hackenberger. But an open debate on what happens 'behind closed doors' is necessary if the animal training industry is to gain the wider public's trust. Hackenberger's bravery in opening that debate is to be commended.

Update: Unfortunately we live in a world where an open debate on what does or doesn't constitute the abuse of animals is increasingly difficult to have. I wanted to give this post a wider airing on the Huffington Post - a supposedly open-door blogging platform for the expression of all viewpoints - but because Hackenberger admits to striking his tiger twice (in a responsible way) the Huff wasn't "comfortable" with publishing the piece. So TV presenters such as Packham can have their views of animal training aired in the media, but animal trainers, who are the only people who know anything about animal training, aren't allowed to tell us how they work. How can the public make up its mind if it only hears one side of the argument?