On 8th March, Lorraine Parker from Cardiff, represented Animals Count at a badger rally outside the Senedd. The protesters urged the Welsh Assembly not to go ahead with next month’s planned badger cull in Pembrokeshire.

Lorraine has represented Animals Count at several meetings in Wales, written to AMs to call for a humane solution to the TB problem and asked them to follow the example set by England, which ruled out badger culling. Lorraine has also referred to the 2007 report by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG), which found that: “while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better.”

And it concluded that “scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone.”

Culling badgers is cruel, ineffective and flouts scientific evidence. Animals Count urges the Welsh Assembly to use improved cattle-based measures to control TB. Reducing the number of dairy cattle is another inevitable measure during a time when the demand for dairy is falling and more and more farmers are struggling to make ends meet anyway. Funding should be redirected away from the livestock industry into arable agriculture or other sectors ex-farmers would like to move into.

Click here to read our July 2009 response to the public consultation on the badger cull and here for Animals Count news from 2007-2009.

Today the Swiss unfortunately voted ‘no’ in a referendum to appointing state-funded animal protection lawyers. ‘No’ was the official Government recommendation and the main reason behind the failure seems to be that the initiative might have cost too much money.

Switzerland has very strong animal protection legislation, including mandatory animal care courses for dog owners, a policy that Animals Count would like to introduce in the UK. It also had a world first in appointing a lawyer to speak on behalf of animals in the canton of Zurich. The only state-funded incumbent lawyer, Antoine Goetschel, has successfully won many animal cruelty cases for several years.

The opposition to the proposal, mainly from the farming industry and lobby, was strong, but in Basel-Stadt 44.3% of the voters said ‘yes’. In general, the northern cantons, Bern, Ticino (in the south) and Graubunden (southeast) voted more favourably than in other cantons.

The man behind the initiative, Hansueli Huber, regretted the outcome, but he said that the result meant saying no to appointing a lawyer, rather than no to animal protection. He added that even the opponents have admitted that current animal protection law enforcement is not good enough. Huber said that the Government should do something to improve the situation.

Although the initiative may not have been successful this time, at least the discussion about the protection of animals has received renewed attention, and Animals Count hopes that other initiatives, similarly aimed at improving the lot of animals, will be successful in Switzerland, and indeed in the rest of Europe.

Our spokesperson Andrew Knight, who is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and expert on animal experiments, gave two presentations at Manchester University (MU) on 3rd March. They were arranged by MU student and Animals Count (AC) supporter Anita Davies, and attended by an enthusiastic audience of around 30 students and others.

Andrew’s presentations on animal experiments review the relevant scientific literature. His first presentation demonstrated the poor usefulness of animal experiments in predicting human toxicity or in the development of clinical interventions aimed at combating human diseases. His second presentation reviewed contemporary and developing alternative research strategies. These presentations were also summarised in articles recently published in UK veterinary journals by Andrew and Animals Count Leader, Jasmijn de Boo, who is also conducting research within the alternatives field. These articles can be accessed at www.animalsexperiments.info

Andrew provides powerpoint presentations on a range of animal protection topics, listed at:
http://www.aknight.info/pages/presentations.htm. To arrange a presentation in your area please contact him through his website.

The Dutch Party for the Animals, which already has two MPs, one Senator and 17 other representatives, yesterday contested the local elections for the first time and won six seats, one in each of the areas they contested, which include: Amsterdam, The Hague, Leiden, Apeldoorn, Groningen and Buren. This makes the total number of representatives 26.

The local councillors seek to establish a permanent official post for animal welfare and the environment, scrap dog taxes, ensure there is more space for dogs to exercise, encourage green recreation, ban circuses with wild animals, provide structural solutions to animal rescue and shelters, and encourage the use of sustainable energy.

During the forthcoming General Elections on 9th June (brought forward due to a collapsed government recently), the Party for the Animals expects to double their current number of two to four seats.

(Photo: Mike Hancock MP (left) with fellow Lib Dem MP Bob Russell at an event in parliament, hosted by Mike, to allow the animal rights charity Animal Aid to brief other Members of Parliament on the increasing problem of death and injury in thoroughbred race horses.)

Liberal Democrat policies on animal welfare

By Andrew Knight BSc., BVMS, CertAW, MRCVS, FOCAE, a spokesperson for Animals Count

In the lead-up to the forthcoming national elections, the political party Animals Count is meeting with other political parties and candidates, to ascertain their positions on animal issues, and to encourage the adoption of better policies (or, in some case, any policies), on animal issues and welfare. Following previous meetings with Green MEPs and a Conservative MP, in February we met with the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South: Mike Hancock.

Mike has been campaigning on animal issues for over 40 years. His passion for animals began in a household “filled” with animals — thereby demonstrating a phenomenon increasingly recognised: children raised with pets usually become more empathetic toward animals. Furthermore, such development of empathy and consideration for others may also improve their future relationships with people. Unfortunately the converse is also true: violent people may have a prior history of animal abuse — an issue of no small importance, given disturbing modern rates of violent crime.

As a teenager Mike campaigned passionately on behalf of circus animals, and even released farm animals confined within a small cage at a Portsmouth city farm one dark night — although an outer fence rendered their freedom short-lived. Unsurprisingly, the inmates chose not to stray too far from their known food source, but Mike still smiles when he remembers their one night of relative freedom.

Soon afterwards Mike became an anti-hunting campaigner, and also began to play an active role in the campaign against live animal exports from Portsmouth and other ports, mostly to European destinations. Along with the campaign against the Spanish ‘Running of the Bulls’, this campaign took him to Southern Europe from time to time.

Since then, Mike has taken an active interest in encouraging animal welfare education for children. He continues to remain very active in the campaign against live exports, and indeed, has succeeded in preventing Portsmouth from being used as a live export port.

Mike is also organising a petition against the forthcoming implementation of EU Broiler Chicken Directive 2007/43/EC, which allows for stocking densities that could give chickens an individual space smaller than one A4 sheet of paper, by the time slaughter weights are reached. He is also seeking to increase the rights of elderly people in care homes to be accompanied by their companion animals.

Within Parliament, Mike is currently the Joint Honorary Secretary of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. This cross-party body is comprised of over 80 MPs and Lords, and aims to promote the cause of animal welfare within both the UK and European parliaments.

Unfortunately, however, Mike’s enthusiasm for animal causes is not reflected by his party at large. Within the present parliament, animal protection initiatives are likely to receive support from only a small group of his Lib Dem colleagues. They are more likely to generate reluctance from the majority, and active opposition from a few. To date the Party Leader, Nick Clegg, has shown very little interest in advancing animal welfare.

This is clearly reflected in the Lib Dem policies available on the party website www.libdems.org.uk, as of February. As with other major parties, Lib Dem policy focuses on mainstream social issues, such as the environment, economy, health, law and order, education and transport. Animal issues are mostly mentioned in the context of biodiversity or wildlife preservation, within the relatively strong Lib Dem environmental policies. The main examples of animal-related policies seem to be:

• Support for a “policy of vaccination before the culling of livestock in cases where Foot and Mouth has been confirmed,” although they recognise that “it is imperative to adhere to the recommendations of veterinary experts on a case-by-case basis”.

No other plans for addressing animal diseases, in any species, were mentioned.

• A duty for local authorities “to protect local biodiversity and set local targets for wildlife, using the planning system to encourage the provision of wildlife-friendly features and wildflower areas in all new developments, with a duty to promote the establishment of wildlife corridors.”

• The establishment of “conservation zones for highly sensitive areas”, to “strengthen the protection of commercial fish stocks, dolphins, porpoises and other endangered marine wildlife.”

• Targets of: “At least a 75% reduction in global emissions from deforestation by 2020, and the halving of the carbon intensity of global food production by 2050.”

Given that the consumption of animal products such as meat and milk has recently been identified as the largest source of anthropogenic (generated by human activity) carbon emissions (Goodland and Anhang 2009), and that such worldwide consumption is expected to roughly double by 2050, we would need to decrease the emissions associated with animal agriculture to an implausible degree, to achieve the necessary improvement. As observed by Steinfeld and colleagues (2006), “The environmental impact per unit of livestock production must be cut by half, just to avoid increasing the level of damage beyond its present level.” To make matters worse, significant reductions in present levels are actually required, to avoid runaway climate change.

Unfortunately however, the Lib Dem policy lacked any further detail about how such incredible reductions in the carbon emissions associated with livestock production might actually be achieved. They also failed to include any mention of the range of policy initiatives necessary to reduce our consumption of animal products, that must form a key part of any realistic strategy aimed at slowing climate change (e.g. Brown 2009).

• Additionally, the Lib Dems aim to: “Work through the EU to guarantee high standards of animal welfare across the board for farm livestock, working animals and domestic pets.”

Whilst this sentence is clearly laudable, the lack of any further detail about how any of these goals would actually be achieved again serves to highlight the lack of serious Lib Dem commitment to animal welfare issues.

Unfortunately, most of the broad range of animal issues were excluded entirely from Lib Dem policies. Accordingly, we left Mike with a range of policy suggestions, in the areas of overall responsibility for animal welfare, farm animals, fishing, whaling, companion animals, the use of animals for entertainment, zoos, and scientific animal use. We took great care to limit our suggestions to very simple policies that appeared to be politically desirable, potentially achievable, and economically affordable. Within the area of companion animals, for example, we proposed that:

• “Purchasers of animals should be of adult legal age.”

• “Breeding of companion animals to meet breed standards, or for other purposes, that result in hereditary anatomical, physiological or other impairments likely to significantly compromise good welfare, should always be prohibited.”

• “The profound benefits of microchip identification, when compared to its minimal costs, justify making microchipping a compulsory preventative healthcare measure, for both dogs and cats.”

After all, we believe that broad concern for animals (as distinct from more radical viewpoints) constitutes a mainstream sentiment within UK society. This is not hard to understand, when one considers that most people either have a companion animal, or have close links to someone who has. We believe (and indeed, have demonstrated in the elections we have contested), that such concern for animals can be a vote-winner, and should be reflected in the priorities of our elected representatives.

Unfortunately, however, Mike informed us that in light of the recent economic meltdown, the political reality for animals is presently grim. All major parties are focusing almost entirely on the ‘big issues,’ including the economy, health, law and order, and education. Mike felt that the only way to progress any animal policy within the current political climate was to link it to one of these big issues, in a positive way.

He did, however, offer to place some of our policy suggestions on his website, www.mikehancock.co.uk, and to ask for comments, to determine the level of social support for them. We hope that he will indeed do this, and that any policies eliciting a positive response might be further considered within his party.

Mike spoke passionately of his belief that there was a much more powerful way to influence party policy, however. He felt that we should target marginal electoral seats, raising awareness about the differing policies on animal issues positions of closely-matched candidates. If we could actually alter an election outcome as a result, other parties might start to realise that animals do matter to voters.

Funnily enough, that is exactly what we have been planning during recent months, and is a core Animals Count strategy. As a fledgling political party, we can afford to contest only a single constituency effectively within the forthcoming UK elections. Accordingly, we have chosen one of the very few in which the leading candidates are separated by a very small margin: London’s Islington South and Finsbury. We will be making voters in that constituency aware of the positions of the various candidates on animal issues, with the aim of achieving exactly such an outcome. It was very gratifying to learn from a politician with over 40 years experience that our strategy is sound.

In the lead-up to the national elections we will continue to seek meetings with the remaining political parties, as well as the candidates in Islington South and Finsbury, to determine their position on animal issues — and to similarly encourage their adoption of policies that safeguard the welfare of animals.

References

• Brown LR. 2009. Plan B 4.0: Mobilising to Save Civilisation. New York: W W Norton & Co. http://www.earthpolicy.org./index.php?books, accessed 25 Feb. 2010.

• Goodland R and Anhang J. 2009. Livestock and Climate Change. World Watch 2009 (Nov.-Dec.): 10-19. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294, accessed 25 Feb. 2010.

• Steinfeld H et al. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM, accessed 25 Feb. 2010.

Please let us know your views on the General Elections 2010 by answering 3 short questions: Click here to take survey.

Thank you in advance for your help – your vote and voice count!

Our Nominated Candidate:

The Animals Count Nomination Committee has formally endorsed Richard Deboo, Deputy Leader, as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate. Richard has been an active member of Animals Count for three years, and was also a candidate during last June’s European Parliamentary elections. An eloquent and passionate speaker, Richard commented on his nomination:

“I am delighted to represent Animals Count in the Islington South and Finsbury constituency. My main aim is to carry a strong animal protection message to the electorate (a genuine first for the UK in a General Election!). I further believe we can demonstrate that democracy is alive and well in the UK despite all that’s happened over recent years, and that we will use our democratic right to challenge those in power. And it is time to demonstrate the connection between injustice for animals and the failure of social justice for humans. I will fully use this chance to speak up on behalf of the non-humans in our society who are denied effective representation for protecting their interests.”

The Election Campaign
As part of our election campaign, we are meeting with animal-friendly MPs of the main parties to discuss animal protection issues, to encourage them to keep animal issues as high on the political agenda as possible. We believe that in the current political system, constructive dialogue is vital to achieving progress for animals (see our website for a report of our recent meeting with a Conservative Animal Welfare Group MP). At the same time, as Richard mentioned, we believe that Animals Count offers a serious alternative to those major parties. We are focusing our efforts on Islington South and Finsbury, to maximise our chances of influencing an outcome favourable for animals, because there is a close contest between Labour and LibDems, with the LibDem candidate seemingly more animal-friendly. Our participation could possibly swing the outcome in favour of LibDems due to many voters being disappointed in Labour’s broken promises for animals. The Conservatives are extremely unlikely to win there. As part of our campaign we hope to publicise the positions of the other main candidates and parties on animal issues.

Please support us
Nearer the election day we will be campaigning intensively, but we are starting our first leafleting session on Saturday 27th February, from 12 noon (meet at Angel station). Please contact us if you would like to help; the more the merrier! If you can help by designing promotional material (video, print or otherwise), then we need you too!

Campaigning is costly; our main election communication will be carried by Royal Mail for free, but we will have to pay for the printing of several tens of thousands of leaflets. In addition, the Electoral Commission nomination fee is £500.

While the incumbent Islington MP Emily Thornberry will be holding a fundraising evening for £85 per ticket, for the same price we are offering a whole weekend (see details attached), including admission to the Brighton/Hove eco-veggie fayre, dinner, one night in a great B&B, and a group walk along the South Downs! Please contact us before 19th Feb if you would like to join us, and if you don’t fancy going to Brighton, please feel free to make a donation toward our election campaign anyway. Thank you very much in advance!

News
For those who missed the Winter 2010 Newsletter about the forthcoming General Elections and other news, see: http://www.animalscount.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Animals-Count-Winter-09-10-Newsletter.pdf

Spring Conference
We will be holding our spring Conference on the afternoon of 27 March in Islington, which will be open to all paid-up members. This will be a great opportunity to discuss our proposed manifesto (which will then be launched officially soon after the Conference); to finalise planned campaign events, and to go through the finances. Our 2009 Financial overview will be submitted to the Electoral Commission next week.

And finally…
Unfortunately we were unable to find an Election Campaigns Coordinator and Secretary, so if you know of anyone who could support us with administration and communication during the next few months, please let us know. We are all working full-time, and would be grateful to receive some extra help.

Thank you for your support, as always, and we look forward to a fantastic election campaign!

Best wishes,

Jasmijn de Boo (Leader) and Richard Deboo (Deputy Leader)

Andrew Knight reports:

In the lead-up to the 2010 national elections, Animals Count is meeting with other political parties and candidates to ascertain their positions on animal issues, and to encourage the adoption of pro-animal policies. In October 2009 Animals Count met with the Green Party Deputy Leader, and MEP Jean Lambert’s assistant.

The second of these meetings was held on 2^nd February at Westminster Palace. Animals Count Leader Jasmijn de Boo, with Andrew Knight (veterinary ethicist and AC Spokesperson) and a solicitor member, met Roger Gale MP, the conservative Member for Thanet North. Roger is a founding member of Conservative Animal Welfare (CAW), which has a history dating back to 1994. CAW offers a focal point for Conservative Party members interested in animal welfare, and “recognises that animal welfare is an important political subject and is one that any Government should take seriously as it reflects the morality and ethics of the society in which we live.” (1).

Roger has a long history of involvement with animal issues. He served on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill Committee, and was the founding Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. He was Chairman of the All-Party Group for Animal Welfare for six years. He is an Honorary  Member  of the British Veterinary Association, an honorary life member of the League Against Cruel Sports, and a recipient the RSPCA`s highest recognition — the Richard Martin Award for services to animal welfare. He is a patron of the charity Animals Worldwide, and a Trustee of the Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad.

Interestingly, Roger told us he had effectively sacrificed his chances of a conservative front bench position, by refusing to support conservative policy favouring fox hunting. Roger has consistently voted against the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and remains committed to this admirable position.

The meeting was both interesting and disappointing. On the one hand, it was entertaining to be regaled with stories of Roger’s trips to Africa, partly to investigate human rights and animal welfare issues. On his Zimbabwean trip, for example, he had to travel incognito, as the consequences if identified as a UK parliamentarian could have been dire, given UK criticism of the Mugabe regime.

On the other hand, it proved difficult to get a word in, to discuss conservative policies on animal welfare, making this one of the most difficult political meetings this author has attended.

CAW aims to have very ‘science-based’ policies on animal welfare, and depend heavily on veterinary advisors for their expertise. Unfortunately, most veterinarians are expert on medicine and surgery, but — contrary to popular misperception — are not expert on animal welfare science or issues, although of course they do posses a certain level of knowledge. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that their positions on animal welfare issues often lag behind those of the general public. (2)

The CAW policies on animal issues are summarized on their website by a veterinary advisor (3). On the one hand, there are positive features. A major example includes:

“The conditions in which all farm animals are reared, grown and slaughtered should be considered and particular attention should be given to stocking densities, transport and slaughter. Animals should always be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible and the means of slaughter should always cause as little psychological or physical trauma as possible. Where the means of slaughter is dictated by religious traditions this should not be a valid argument to disregard trauma to the animals concerned.”

Additionally, the site states that: “The Conservative Party is the first political party in the UK to designate a specific Front Bench Spokesman for Animal Welfare”. This Spokesperson is currently Andrew Rosindell MP, the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, with special responsibility for Animal Welfare.

Other aspects of conservative policy are disturbing, however. An obvious example is:

“[…it is a] biological fact that man is an omnivorous animal and as such needs to eat meat. It follows from this fact that there is a need to farm, kill and eat other species for our own biological needs… a vegetarian diet … is not optimal for humans.”

Whilst this may once have been considered true, it demonstrates a fairly profound ignorance of current nutritional knowledge. Balanced vegetarian diets are well-established as offering the potential for significant health advantages. Ample published medical papers and the positions of relevant professional associations support this fact (4).

Additionally, “…if we did not rely on animal cultivation for a major food source then there would theoretically be no need for any other mammal to be preserved except for aesthetic purposes. … It is easy to envisage a planet virtually devoid of other animals if they did not provide a biological advantage for us.”

Such statements demonstrate a disturbing lack of awareness of: (i) the intrinsic value of other species and individuals — which provides a fundamental ethical basis for attempting to conserve them, and of safeguarding their interests; and, (ii) the ecological interdependence of most (if not all) species, and their role in supporting the planetary life-support systems on which we all depend. A planet ‘virtually devoid of other animals’ would almost certainly be similarly devoid of humans.

Additionally, CAW appears more interested in ensuring good welfare for laboratory animals than in finding alternatives to their use: “We should be prepared to accept that it will not be possible to eliminate the use of live animals for the development and testing of some procedures, pharmaceuticals and equipment.”

They do not necessarily support additional regulation: “Over enthusiastic regulation on research animal conditions does not always produce the best conditions for those animals.”

Animals Count will shortly be providing CAW with some key suggestions regarding their policies, which, we feel, could be considerably updated, to reflect the best current evidence, ethical thought, and policy, on animal issues. Roger affirmed their willingness to consider suggestions from any source. He stressed very strongly that given the current economic climate, animal welfare would be a very low priority for an incoming conservative government (or, he felt, any government). He stressed that any policies promulgated would need to be desirable, politically realistic, and must not incur a financial cost.

Roger also provided some interesting insights into political thinking about animal issues. He informed us that his colleagues were advised by strategists that there are “a million votes in animal welfare.” However, he also asserted that the perception of animal advocates that animal welfare is a big political issue is greatly exaggerated. Many people care about animal issues, he felt, but their commitment is “soft,” and they are unlikely to vote primarily on animal issues, relative to their range of other concerns. He stated that the big political issues are the economy, health, education, defence and policing. (Yet, in countries with proportional political representation such as the Netherlands, nearly 180,000 people voted for the Dutch Party for the Animals in November 2006, resulting in two elected MPs.)

This is in stark contrast to opponents of animal advocates such as the Countryside Alliance, who Roger considered to be much more committed, and much more likely to leaflet, canvass for votes, and actually exert political power. This would explain the relatively low political impact of animal advocates, relative to the large number of people who do actually care about animal welfare. Roger was also dismissive of groups who adopt ‘extreme’ positions, (e.g. on the abolition of all animal experiments), or who conduct noisy protests. He considers such groups to be out of touch with reality.

When asked whether there were any animal issues on which he felt real progress might be made, Roger identified two:

1. Limiting the export of live animals, in favour of domestic slaughtering. CAW also supports the establishment of a domestic veal market (‘rose veal’), in the hope this would decrease calf exports. Given that supply is largely determined by demand, however, it seems likely that creation of such an additional market would simply increase calf production, rather than decrease calf exports to existing markets.

2. Limiting the export of animals for other purposes, when they might be used for those purposes domestically. CAW are, for example, opposed to the banning of animal experiments within the UK, fearing this would lead to an increase in experiments abroad, where welfare standards are lower.

Similar arguments have been raised throughout history, by those opposed to reformist bans of various kinds. A veterinary parallel is the argument against banning canine tail-docking: “if we don’t do it, the owners may do it themselves, compromising animal welfare.” Of course widespread veterinary opposition to tail-docking has been important in securing current legal bans, and it is difficult to imagine such progress if there had instead been widespread veterinary support for tail-docking.

We are grateful for the opportunity to meet with Roger — a Conservative leader on animal welfare issues. We hope our suggestions for the strengthening of Conservative policies on animal issues will be fairly considered, and adopted wherever possible.

We aim to similarly meet with other political parties in the coming weeks.

Footnotes:

1. www.conservativeanimalwelfare.co.uk

2. http://tinyurl.com/knight-vet-AW

3. http://www.conservativeanimalwelfare.co.uk/page.php?pid=14

4. e.g. Craig WJ, Mangels AR. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.

The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is running a 12-week consultation on the use of wild animals in circuses, closing on 15 March 2010. It has been agreed between animal welfare agencies and representatives of the circus industry that maintaining the current regulations will not be an option.

The consultation focuses on how best to protect the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses, and the options are as follows:

• A complete ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses
• A voluntary system self-regulating the use of wild animals in circuses
• A statutory system regulating the use of wild animals in circuses

Animals Count believes that performances with wild animals in both traveling and static circuses as well as zoos should be banned as the aim of entertainment should not outweigh the animals’ right to integrity.  The well-known and obvious cruelty of transporting animals across the country, keeping them chained up and forcing them to learn unnatural tricks, often through harmful training methods, are the main reasons why many people prefer to visit all-human circuses. Please click here for Animals Count’s response to DEFRA’s consultation.

A widely-criticised DEFRA Circus Working Group report published at the end of 2007, concluded ‘there was insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that circuses could or could not meet the needs of animals and that any future bans would be a political, rather than scientific, decision.’

DEFRA’s online questionnaire can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/circus-wild-animals/

You can also submit your comments in writing, by email or post:

Rebecca Kenner, Defra, Animal Welfare Act Implementation Team, Area 8B, No 9 Millbank, c/o 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR or email:

animalwelfarecircusconsultation@defra.gsi.gov.uk  clearly stating the name of the consultation in the subject header eg: Wild Animals – Circuses

The consultation applies to the wild animals in travelling circuses in England only.

Please also ask your MP to sign Early Day Motion EDM 2179 WILD ANIMALS IN CIRCUSES

Are wild animals suited to a travelling circus life?

A recent study published in the journal ‘Animal Welfare’ by researchers from the University of Bristol, concluded that ‘non-domesticated animals, suitable for circus life, should exhibit low space requirements, simple social structures, low cognitive function, non-specialist ecological requirements and an ability to be transported without adverse welfare effects. None of the commonest species exhibited by circuses, such as elephants and large felids, currently meet these criteria. We conclude that the species of non-domesticated animals commonly kept in circuses appear the least suited to a circus life.’ (Iossa, G.; Soulsbury, C.D. and Harris, S., 2009)

Yesterday, Animals Count called on the Government to oppose the proposed ivory trade and today we learned that the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, has indeed made the position of the UK Government to oppose the ivory trade clear.

26 January 2010

Animals Count calls upon the UK Government to strongly oppose the proposal by Tanzania and Zambia to allow a resumption in the ivory trade.  The UK Government needs to demonstrate leadership on this issue and affirm that any weakening of the moratorium on the ivory trade represents a failure to ensure the protection of the wild elephant population.

The evidence from the two previous “one off” ivory sales in 1997 and 2008 shows clearly that any resumption in this trade immediately and tragically leads to an increase in “black market” ivory sales, with greater numbers of elephants being killed by poachers, thereby having a severe impact on the remaining wild elephant population numbers (tragically elephants are now extinct in Sierra Leone because of poaching).

Animals Count demands that the UK Government uses its position as a standing member on the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) committee to oppose the sale in the strongest possible terms.  The scientific evidence tells us everything we need to know about the rich emotional, social lives of these extraordinary animals and the protection of the remaining wild populations in their natural habitat should be a foremost consideration for all Governments, and should certainly take precedence over any temporary financial considerations – the lives of these elephants are worth more than any fiscal trade in their body parts.

Political leadership urgently needs to be brought to bear on this issue if we are not to see the complete collapse of elephant populations until all that are left are a few “exhibits” in zoos and safari parks. It is time for the UK Government to take a stand and show the same courage as the Governments of Kenya and Mali, in leading the call from the majority of African States, in opposing yet another “one off” ivory sale. Animals Count urges the UK Government to prove that it does have the political will to take a stand on the world stage and call for upholding and indeed extending the moratorium on ivory sales, and put animal welfare where it belongs on the political agenda.