Yesterday CAPS (Captive Animals Protection Society) revealed on Facebook its outrage when Soper Hall refused to back down when faced with their anti-reindeer campaign. Soper Hall have reindeer, a domesticated breed of this species of deer that have a long history of being bred and farmed in the UK, booked for their Christmas Fair. In an action the radical group called "arrogant" Soper Hall, who called the "concerns" voiced by CAPS as "ridiculous", made this factually accurate assessment of CAPS:
"I imagine the complainers don't eat meat, never wear leather and object to horse racing".This is very true of CAPS who notably do not refute this statement in their Facebook post. Why should they? They have admitted to being a vegan group and are in opposition to all these other practices speculated on by Soper Hall.
CAPS are actively opposed to the use of animals in any form of entertainment and, being supporters of the animal rights movement, have an agenda that will probably extend to the entire concept of animal usage. That means pet ownership. CAPS have campaigned and endorsed animal rights groups who have not hidden their desire to see the total eradication of domesticated animals, including "non-human animal companions" as they prefer to call what we know as "pets".
|CAPS making very clear what its agenda is in recent Facebook posting.|
Rouster has warned that banning wild animals in circuses was merely the thin end of the wedge on the animal rights agenda. CAPS have reinforced this idea by stating it on their website in a post entitled "If you wouldn't visit an animal circus, then you shouldn't visit a live reindeer parade" Here the group make reference to the recent incident reported in The Mirror tabloid newspaper. Rouster reported on this yesterday, showing how the creep of animal rights dogma is becoming even more evident in a more radicalised and militant RSPCA.
The sheer audacity of these animal rights groups can be quite staggering. Previous lack of opposition at the entertainment end of the animal industry had led to many activist groups caring little for getting their facts straight. Rouster has observed and reported that this breath-taking temerity was carried over into Westminster when cross-party, backbench MPs used the proposal for a ban on wild animals in circus as a political football, using information and quotes coming directly from radical animal rights groups and their supporters in the tabloid press, as if they were undeniable facts.
As regular readers will know this was in the face of the Radford Report that the Government agreed proved that there was no scientific evidence to support a ban on wild animal in circus. This did not stop slurs being thrown about here and there regarding the welfare of animals in travelling circuses as well as regular promoting of groups that have a radical agenda opposing all forms of animal usage by humans.
Therefore, it is refreshing to see that some authorities will not be bullied by this very vocal minority of extremists and have a good measure of them.
Rouster supports animal welfare. This is the genuine concern and should always be the priority.
However, weasel-like arguments regarding whether or not the appearance of animals at these events are sending the right message is the thinly veiled attempt at making an animal rights argument when all else is lost. We live in age where the urbanization of humans has led to less contact with animals, which might correspond with the rise of the rather detached philosophy put over by the animal rights movement. Having less personal experience with animals the general public are more susceptible to animal rights arguments and their emotive publicity.
In their post comparing the exhibition of animals in shopping centres and other venues over Christmas to circus, CAPS perpetrate the lie that the general public don't wish to see performing animals or, at least, animals in circuses. Rouster has debunked internet opinion polls on here several times relating to this issue.
The queues outside Jolly's Circus (pictured above) when it brought in a wild animal act demonstrate the truth of the matter.
Water for Elephants was an international success and plans are afoot for more animal circus movies, this is in the face of partisan animal rights documentaries like Blackfish, which put over an anti-performing animals argument. The fact that venues all over the country are booking more and more animals, only shows that the general public DO want to see them.
From our research and personal experience, Rouster is very happy with the levels of care shown by the majority of professional groups that supply animals for these events. Information provided to the client who make bookings verify that all animals are regularly checked by vets and in no way during the animals' transportation or appearance at these events are exhibiting stress.
So long as animals are well-cared for and their needs are met, bringing more different species of animals to the general public can only help promote better awareness of their conservation and why we should care for them.
Astley's Legacy was formed to counter the misinformation and propaganda spread by animal rights activists. As well as fighting the corner for circus animals and their trainers, we are here to promote and celebrate the cultural heritage of circus in general, and especially in the country of its birth - Great Britain. For more information please see our Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/223570581049199
Or follow us on Twitter: @RousterAstley