Page 1449 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The arguments for the animals' welfare are the ones that must be concentrated on and are much more convincing and compelling. By their very nature, circuses are continually mobile. Therefore, exotic and domestic animals in their menageries are continually confined in cages. Accommodation provided for these animals is designed and provided according to the needs and convenience of the circus owners, not the animals. At least in zoos the animals have benefited a great deal over the past decade by animal behaviourists convincing zoo keepers to provide enclosures that reflect some of the basic social and environmental needs on a species-by-species basis. The zoo at Dubbo has been raised in this house before as a good example of that.
These things cannot be provided, in the main, by circuses. Lions and tigers are continuously kept in cages, not only for transportation but as part of everyday confinement. They are even trained in a cage. Elephants are transported in cages and, when out in the open, are tethered or hobbled. These animals are also subjected to the added stresses of frequent noise, movement and lights. Behavioural patterns observed by those animal behaviourists - not anthropomorphic emotionalists - indicate that these animals exhibit many forms of anxiety and disturbance. If one were to keep a dog in a backyard under these conditions, one would rightly be prosecuted and, under the current legislation, there would be room to do just that.
There are no animal welfare arguments for the retention of these animals in a circus. The circus, by its very nature, ensures an aberrant, confined, psychotic lifestyle for these animals. It appears that interactive animals, such as monkeys, baboons, donkeys, camels, et cetera, suffered less as they at least would have the company of other humans that they considered part of their animal group and were not so confined.
Mr De Domenico: How do we know? Did they tell you? Is this Michael Moore or Dr Dolittle?
MR MOORE: That is, they could be let loose in a paddock and could interact with others in their species as well as humans. They would be confined only when transported. These animals, some of which are exotic, are not suffering in the same way as large cats and elephants are; but their needs should be looked at in terms of accommodation. Instead of a Dr Dolittle working out what those needs are, it is appropriate that a code of practice, enforceable through regulations, be constituted on a national basis for the protection of these animals.
Abnormal behaviour, for instance, can result from a monkey being deprived of social interaction and challenges for its intelligence. The legislation for the welfare of all animals requires an understanding of their needs, based on factors related to social organisation and quality of environment, and an understanding of the needs of the specific species. Evidence from the RSPCA, ANZFAS and others has indicated that monkeys and baboons have been tethered and confined on their own in small cages for very long periods. If this is so, then those responsible ought to be prosecuted under the Act as it exists, for cruelty to animals.
If this practice with the current legislation has persisted despite threats of prosecution, then that particular circus should have its licence revoked. If these measures have been applied to no avail, then perhaps there is an argument for policing and enforcing this legislation more effectively. Whether the cruelty was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .