Are Circuses and Zoos cruel in practice?

How can this question be answered? Almost everyone who has anything to do with animals (and almost everyone who does not!) will have an opinion on what is cruel for what animal. On what are these opinions based, and how valid are they? Also, most important of all, is there any concensus in our judgements? Over the last decade and a half how to assess cruelty has received a considerable amount of attention from three groups in particular.

The first are the animal welfare organisations of which there is an ever-growing number, reflecting the public at larges increasing concern with this matter. The members of these groups (although not necessarily their committees which may use any arguments to back up their position in order to achieve legislative change) usually make judgements primarily on emotional grounds: I dont like it, there is something wrong, and therefore it is cruel. Such grounds must by no means be dismissed, but it is of little help if we cannot agree between us on how we feel about a certain case, and in particular why we feel it to be wrong and cruel. There are, of course, cases where we will all agree - such as where animals are starved or grossly physically abused as a result of human interference. But there are many more difficult aspects of the debate where we cannot all agree using our emotional judgements. These are often cases where we feel that the animals are suffering psychologically but there are no obvious physical signs - the animals grow, eat and drink and even reproduce well.

To try to help here, the applied ethologists have been active, thinking, discussing and writing about how to assess, in particular, animal suffering using behavioural indicators [e.g. 3; 4; 5; 8; 33; 31]. The emphasis of this work has been on science, and empirical measurement of behaviour of animals in different situations. There is probably less agreement among such scientists, however, on the question of what is cruel than there is among those making emotional judgements!

The third, and probably the most influential, group of people who have been thinking about this issue are some philosophers who are interested in ethics [e.g. 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 34]. Philosophy has been described as critical thinking, so they have tried to back up whatever position they take with rational arguments and examples. In this way, they attempt to answer the question about what is Right and what is Wrong, what is Cruel and what is Not.

It is by using the techniques, information and ideas produced by all three of these groups, that I shall try to answer the question: Are zoos and circuses cruel?

There are two ways in which the question can be answered, and I think it is very important to understand the difference. The first one is Are zoos and circuses cruel in practice? The answer to this question requires a thorough scientific examination of the way the animals are kept and treated with, wherever possible, empirical data concerning how much physical and psychological suffering there is in zoos and circuses.

The second way in which the question can be approached is theoretically: Are zoos and circuses fundamentally by their nature cruel? Some people, including various welfare organisations (e.g. Zoo Check) [35] argue that this is the case and therefore such institutions should not exist even though there may be no evidence of either physical or psychological cruelty.

In this chapter we examine the way in which cruelty can be measured in practice, and the results we collected fiom our study of circuses and zoos.

First we have to decide what we mean by cruelty. There are many possible definitions of this; the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as being: indifferent to, delighting in, anothers pain or distress. Ethologists have concentrated largely on trying to measure suffering, particularly prolonged suffering. They have argued that if an animal is suffering, then the environment can be considered inadequate; the animals welfare is poor: in other words, the husbandry is cruel. But this begs the question.

What for goodness sake is suffering and how can it be measured? The first approach to this was to use what has been defined as stress. If it is possible to demonstrate that the animal is stressed - which is based on certain physiological measurements (e.g. level of certain steroids in the blood) - then it can be argued that the environment is inadequate. But as Selye [6], the originator of these ideas on stress, pointed out: a certain degree of stress is a good thing for the animal or human. Indeed, he went so far as to call this set of responses the general adaptive syndrome (GAS) because it helped the organism to adapt to difficult situations. It is only if the GAS continues for a long time that this group of physiological responses begins to be destructive to the body. We do then have some ways in which we can measure physiological suffering (although taking these measures may often be very difficult to do in practice).

It is easier to assess physical suffering in practice, up to a point. For example, we can assess the animals general physical condition, any wounds or signs of ill- health, malnutrition or neglect causing physical damage. This is what is done when assessing cruelty cases in law. Illness which is the result of occupational disease (e.g. wounds or damaged limbs as the result of training or performing) is another measure of ill-health. We should also look at the length of life of the animal and consider whether this is more or less than in the wild or other types of husbandry. This is particularly relevant to zoos and circuses where animals are not being reared for slaughter.

Is this enough? Is this all there is to it? If the animals are not displaying signs of physical ill-health, can we conclude that they are not suffering and that the system is not cruel? Animals can suffer psychological disease [e.g. 1; 3; 4; 40]. There is also the question of the interaction of mind and body: Can some physical disease be the result of psychological problems, and vice versa? [41]

Although we see no direct signs of physical or psychological suffering in the animal we are immediately concerned with, this may be because it has suffered treatments to reduce or eliminate such signs. For example, it may have been treated with drugs (immobilisers, tranquillisers or sedatives, or prophylactic antibiotics). Perhaps one index of possible suffering or inadequate environments for the animals might be the degree to which such drugs are used.

Surgery may be used for various reasons other than for immediate life-saving; for example, for cosmetic reasons; or to stop an animal performing an undesirable behaviour. Castration of males and hysterectomy of females (other than for strict medical reasons) are cases in point. This leads to a consideration of the sex ratios and the amount of castration that is usual in circuses and zoos, and any other use of surgery other than for immediate clinical reasons.

KEY C = circus Z = zoo W = wild caught Cas = castrated yr = year m = month Ad = adult y = young At = attempting

Is the use of drugs and surgery for behavioural reasons necessarily cruel, and therefore unacceptable? Such practices are not normally acceptable for human beings (although this does not always apply for the mentally ill). However, perhaps we should give the animals (particularly in zoos and circuses) the benefit of the doubt and assume that such practices are not desirable, although they may not immediately demonstrate cruelty.

In this chapter we look at the results of these different possible measures of cruelty, suffering, or distress in circuses and, in some cases, zoos.

The physical condition of circus animals

The easiest assessment of possible ill-health and distress is to look at the physical condition of the animals, to look for wounds, or any evidence of malnutrition or neglect of certain essential husbandry procedures. The majority of the circus animals were considered to be in good physical condition. Twelve individuals of different species, and ten horses, were in medium condition - usually slightly too thin and not showing a high gloss to the coat. Several of the horses and two of the cats also had coughs. (Figure 24).

Three of the Indian elephants, two old lions, one camel, four ponies and three horses (2%) were assessed as being in poor condition. All of these were too thin, and in addition the camel, which was moulting, appeared to have a bad infection of lice.

However, the percentage of the animals in the winter quarters that were in peak condition was much lower: 30%, compared to 90% on tour. It is inevitable that the winter quarters would show a higher percentage of animals in poorer condition since they are used to house the animals that are not considered well enough to travel, for whatever reason. Nevertheless, this percentage of animals not in peak condition is too high.

The figure of 10% of the animals on tour not in peak condition is relatively low. Farms, stables, kennels and other animal-keeping enterprises often have much higher percentages than that. It would be interesting to have comparable figures for zoos. They always remove animals from the public eye if they are not looking as well as possible and place them in their not on public view section.

The question remains, however, of what percentage of the animals should we expect not to be in peak condition at any one time? Indeed what percentage of human populations not in excellent health is acceptable? Inevitably there will always be some animals or humans who are sick or not in very good shape, but above what percentage do we consider that this indicates real problems with where and how they live?

Longevity

Figures 23, 25 and 26 give the age range of the animals in British circuses, and the average age. The animals were, as a general rule, trained as young adults, and would then work in the circus until either they die or become too senile. Old animals that were not sufficiently physically impressive to remain in the act, although they might be able to perform well, were usually retired rather than slaughtered. Circus trainers respond to a long association with an individual animal and, just as many other people who have worked with individuals for long periods (dogs, horses or elephants), they find it difficult to slaughter them when the animals get old. The result is that there were some old animals in the circuses and the average age of the animals is relatively high, when compared, for example, to the usual ages of horses in a riding-teaching establishment (9-10), or racing stables (2-8). The horses lifespan in reasonable domestic situations is around 20-30 years, yet relatively few of them are permitted to live this long. Competing horses are considered old at 15 and insurance premiums go up. If they had not been subjected to increasing chances of occupational diseases, they should be in their prime at this age.

Lifetime expectancy of dairy cows has declined radically in the last few decades, from an average of around 10 lactations (a lifetime of around 13 years) to just over 3 (a lifetime of 5-6 years). This has happened because of the increasing chances of occupational diseases such as lameness, mastitis, calving problems, infertility and as a result of the modern high input, high output management. Organic farmers who manage their cows differently ensure that they have longer lives which in the end are more productive [128].

It would be interesting to compare the longevity of circus and zoo animals, and economic incentives for zoos to keep older animals alive. The zoos one would expect would have less incentive to keep old animals passed reproductive age alive since their self-confessed raison detre is to breed animals.

Apart from the emotional reasons for keeping animals longer in the circus, the economic reasons for keeping older trained animals as long as possible are obvious. It takes considerable time and expense to train circus animals, and therefore the longer they live and are fit and healthy to present to the public and perform their acts, the better from the economic point of view. The animal and its transport, the trainer/presenter and his or her trailer can represent the entire capital of an individual or family whose income may rely on this one animal.

Notes
ANAESTHETICS column refers only to there use for routine maintenance.
ANALGESICS column refers only to their use to allow the animal to work.
SURGERY - CAST./HYST = castration/ hysterectomy.
OTHER = other behavioural surgery.
RESTRAINT = use of physical or chemical restraint to allow handling.
VACCINATIONS C = cat flu, F = flu, T = tetanus, W = wormer, = trivac, D = deloused.
ILLNESS Col = colic, HB = hair ball, Sic = sick, M = mud fever, Cou = cough, L = lice, W = WORMS
ANTIBIOTICS - + = used for severe infection
DEATHS - 5 reported 1986 1988 = 0.97 7%

Occupational disease

One argument used against animals in circuses is that the animals may be physically injured in training and/or while performing acts dangerous to themselves. A proper investigation of this topic must involve records for many years. These were unfortunately not available.

The information in Figure 24, columns 5-7 indicate that analgesics, antibiotics and anaesthetics, and even deaths, are very infrequent in circuses. There were 11 cases where the animals had minor injuries.

Comparative figures are not available for zoos. They are likely to be considerably higher as they certainly have to use physical and chemical restraint frequently. Also, they use surgery widely for breeding as well as for medical reasons [9]

Occupational disease is much higher in competing horses than in the circus horses (33% in racing stables, 32%o in teaching yards, 2% in circuses - see Figure 27).

The question is how low should it be? In human sport, the only way not to have injuries is to have no sport; should this apply to animals too, and particularly animals in circuses? Or would a certain level of occupational disease be acceptable if the animal showed no other evidence of prolonged distress, indeed apparently enjoyed the activity, as many horses apparently enjoy galloping and racing?

KEY C = circus, Z = zoo, W = wild caught, F = farms,.S = sales, yr = year, m = month.

KEY C = circus, Z = zoo, W = wild caught, Ad = adult.

Drugs

Drugs are very widely used, not only to cure or control disease, which may itself be the result of the system, but also to prevent a common disease of the system occurring (e.g. infeed antibiotics for calves and pigs to control or prevent outbreaks of bacterial diseases and to act as a growth promoter). They can also be used to reduce physical pain as a result of the system (e.g. Butezanodole to eliminate lameness in horses - Figure 27). Drugs are also used to control or eliminate undesirable behaviour within a system, such as tranquillisers and sedatives to reduce or control flight and aggression. They can also be used to increase desirable behaviours, such as artificially produced pheromones (chemical messengers); for example, the active components of boars saliva is sometimes used to encourage sows to stand for artificial insemination. Steroids are widely used in many animal breeding systems to encourage libido in the male, or ovulation in the female, or to synchronise oestrus and even parturition (e.g. oestrogens, testosterone and progesterone). Steroid implants are also used to encourage growth or production in some farm animals.

Other drugs are used simply to stop the animal behaving at all, such as immobilisers and anaesthetics. Immobilisers are particularly widely used for zoo animals in order to allow many of them to be handled and treated even for routine medication, such as worming in some species, or feet trimming in zebras, for example.

The morality of all these types of drug use must be seriously considered.

*= BHS approved

Surgery

This can be used in the same sort of way: for example, to overcome physical illness, the result of innappropriate management or neglect (e.g. worm-induced colic in horses), the result of insufficient worming, and/or inappropriate feeding [42]. It can also be necessary as a result of inappropriate breeding - for example, hip surgery for German shepherd dogs, nasal surgery for bulldogs and boxers or eye surgery for pekinese. Caesarian sections for Belgian Blue cattle are standard procedures.

Surgery can also be practised for cosmetic reasons; for example, ear and tail clipping of certain breeds of dog, vibrissae cutting for show horses, or denervation of the tail of Morgan horses.

Surgery is also used to prevent behaviour that is undesirable but which may be normal; for example, castration of males, hysterectomy of females, declawing of cats, debarking of dogs. It may also be used to prevent behaviour that is abnormal and the result of the system, for example the cutting of the neck muscles in crib-biting and wind-sucking horses, the docking of the tail or clipping of the ears on tail- and ear-biting pigs, or beak cutting of intensively housed chickens to prevent them defeathering and even killing and eating each other.

Surgery may also be used to overcome occupational disease; for example, denervation of the lower leg of some lame horses who have damaged legs as the result of excessive or prolonged over-exertion. Such drug and surgery use reflect on the inadequacy of the system. It effectively indicates that the husbandry system is outside the normal range of adaption of the animal and is therefore unacceptable; in fact, the use of drugs in this way is an indication of environmental inadequacy and animal distress. In these cases, the drugs are being used to suppress or eliminate other signs of distress and therefore are unacceptable. Both drugs and surgery were little used in circuses for these reasons.

Because surgical sterilisation is very widespread in all husbandry systems, we should look in a little more detail at the sex ratios of the animals in circuses.

The sex of circus animals

On farms where the animals are bred, the ratio of females to males is as a rule artificially high. Males not selected for breeding are usually castrated and then slaughtered as young adults for meat. Among companion animals, the ratio of males to females is more equal but in order to control populations, welfare organisations in particular are very active in encouraging castration of males and hysterectomy of females. In Britain (although not everywhere else in the world where horses are kept as companion animals, for recreation and work), the vast majority of males are castrated for behaviourai reasons; entire males have a reputation for being more difficult to manage, train and ride.

Zoos which exist, they argue, mainly for breeding endangered species of animals, prefer as a rule to have a predominance of females. Having said this, one of the problems of breeding endangered species is keeping a rich genetic pool. Animals that breed easily (e.g. lions) - which are not endangered and for which there is little market within the zoo world, or outside it (such as circuses) - are frequently castrated or hysterectomised. Zoos do, however, often produce more males than they require, or can house. What do they do with them? Many of these animals are slaughtered. Some are sold to circuses who because they are not primarily concerned with animal breeding prefer spectacular animals, and invest a lot of lime in training individuals. It is particularly important to start with good looking and/or spectacular animals.

As a result, they are one of the few animal husbandry systems who have a higher percentage of entire males to females in many species (zebras, horses, camels, llamas - see Figure 25). Entire males of any species do have the secondary sexual characteristics of that species, which include: horns or antlers, manes, larger size, spectacular colours or more exaggerated postures and movements; males sometimes show themselves off better than females.

Circuses can and do provide a life for some males of some species which would otherwise have been slaughtered and they do not, as a rule, have animals castrated or hysterectomised.

The debate concerning the ethics of castration and hysterectomy must involve an assessment of the cost and benefits to the individual; however, this does not mean that animals not predominantly kept for breeding should be castrated or hysterectomised as a matter of course, any more than this would be acceptable for human beings who have a worldwide problem of population control. Less intrusive surgical practices which do not change the behaviour and personality might often be more appropriate, such as vasectomy or the cutting of fallopian tubes; techniques that are used to sterilise human beings. Why are they not more widely used for animals?

Physical restraint and force

Another possible measure for assessing the humaneness of an animal husbandry system can be the degree to which severe physical restraint is required:

• muzzles, twitches, hobbles, yokes, crushes, cradles, nose pinchers, and special use of ropes and other gadgets often outlined in veterinary books [e.g. 44];
• or to overcome vices [e.g. 45] in order to allow handling or routine veterinary care;
• or in breeding (e.g. hobbling and twitch of mares for covering by stallions, standard practice in thoroughbred studs [46]);
• or transporting (e.g. use of chains and tractors to pull elephants into transporters).

Such physical restraint causes some form of distress (otherwise it would not be necessary) and often causes injury, trauma and even death of an individual. Its use must therefore indicate the inadequacy of the environment in one way or another, although again a cost benefit analysis for the individual must be assessed. The use of such restraining techniques can be almost totally eliminated by appropriate handling and training. We see this to be the case in the circus animals where they were not used.

Conclusions

To summarise, there is little evidence of physical maltreatment and cruelty in the husbandry, training or performing of circus animals. The great majority of animals were in excellent or good condition, and there was little evidence for frequent diseases or high mortality. In fact, the longevity of circus animals is greater and the occurrence of occupational disease less than for other animal husbandry systems, such as competitive and teaching horses, and possibly for some zoos.

Other indices of physical suffering of animals may be assessed by the use of surgery for cosmetic or behavioural reasons; by the need for antibiotics, analgesics and anaesthetics; and by the use of severe physical restraint. On all of these assessments, the circus scored very low indeed. Although the detailed figures are not available for comparison with many other husbandry systems, where there is information the circus appears to use all these techniques less than many other husbandry systems, in particular zoos. We must conclude therefore that circus animals show no more evidence for physical cruelty or maltreatment than many other animal husbandry systems, and in some cases less. There are not many figures available for zoos, but certain practices - such as intrusive surgery, sterilisation and chemical and physical restraint, which can be considered in relation to physical maltreatment - are relatively high for animals in the zoo environment.