This is despite the fact that the only independent scientific study of Animal Welfare in Circus, carried out by Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington and commissioned by the RSPCA and UFAW (Universities Federation for Animal Welfare) demonstrated that “circuses do not by their nature cause suffering and distress in animals”.
The fact is that while thousands of people are taken to court by the RSPCA every year, no British Circus has ever been convicted of animal cruelty.
The campaigns conveniently ignore both the facts and the
studies, and continue their harassment of animal circuses and their
public. Animal circuses are routinely
subjected to verbal abuse, death threats, vandalism and theft. The animals themselves are often subjected to
cruel stunts by activists seeking to disrupt the shows – activists letting off
fireworks near circus horses now happens so regularly as to be almost routine.
It is plainly obvious that a greater number of people
support than oppose animal circus. Go to
a performance of Zippo's Circus, which includes horses and budgies, and you will find a
handful of Animal Right activists protesting outside the gates (usually the
same people day after day, clearly untroubled by having to work for a living)
while hundreds of paying visitors inside enjoy the show.
Sadly, in this society it seems that it’s those who speak
the loudest who win, rather than those who talk the most sense. Local councils, private landowners and now
even central government have buckled under the pressure that these activist
organisations have put them under. The
opinion of activists who routinely resort to activities that can only be
classed as terrorism has been put ahead of that of normal, law-abiding
citizens. Animal circuses have been
banned from council-owned lands, with tax-paying residents generally not being
consulted when the bans were put into place.
An increasing number of private landowners, worried by the very real
threat of vandalism to their property or violence to themselves and their loved
ones at the hands of activist, have equally opted not to allow animal circuses
on their lands. DEFRA has recently
announced that: “The Government will seek to introduce primary legislation at
the earliest opportunity to achieve its much-stated desire to ban travelling
circuses from using performing wild animals.”
This ban is based on no science and no conviction – it is purely based
on ethical grounds, although it remains unclear whose ethics it refers as the
public has not been meaningfully consulted and allowed to state their opinion.
There were mixed feelings in the Circus community when
Ashleigh and Pudsey deservedly won this year’s “Britain’s Got Talent”. Many people were ecstatic as the victory
would surely demonstrate to central government, local councils, landowners and
the activists that the British public supports loved, well-kept, kindly trained
performing animals. The public paid good
money to support Ashleigh and Pudsey with their votes; surely their victory
would be a demonstration of where the public opinion sits.
On the other hand, there were concerns over the fact that
Ashleigh is not a licensed animal trainer.
In this country the training and exhibition of performing animals is regulated
by The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. This requires trainers and exhibitors of such
animals to be registered with the local authority. Ashleigh's amateur status would excuse her
requiring a license when entering the contest, but what about future
performances? Would she be deemed so
favoured by the public as to be above the law?
Still, the general mood was positive. The public would get to hear about Ashleigh’s
training methods, which are based on positive rewards as those of all modern
animal trainers. The false myth that you
have to make an animal suffer to force it to perform would be finally dispelled. Seeing a much-loved pet perform willingly with
his owner would show people that many animals are more than happy to “perform”,
because to them it’s just play and social interaction. This could only be good. This could only help the cause of Animal
Circus.
Yesterday’s unexpected bombshell put a sudden stop to all
the hopes. The pair have appeared in a
poster campaign for PETA, titled “The Saddest Show on Earth”. This is what Ashleigh has to say about the
campaign: “Animals in the circus are whipped and beaten so that they will
perform tricks. When they are not being forced to perform, they spend most of
their lonely lives in tiny cages.”
- For a suitable environment (place to live)
- For a suitable diet
- To exhibit normal behaviour patterns
- To be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable)
- To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease.
Unlike privately-owned animals, Circus animals are regularly
inspected by trained vets and inspectors and are routinely in the eyes of the
public. The abuse Ashleigh describes
would be impossible to carry out in this country. Circuses could not get away with it. She is unfairly attacking animal trainers
just like her, with no facts to support her accusations.
“The People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation is a UK-based charity dedicated to
establishing and protecting the rights of all animals.
Like humans, animals are capable
of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are
not ours to use – for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation or any
other reason. PETA and our affiliates around the world educate policymakers and
the public about cruelty to animals and promote an understanding of the right
of all animals to be treated with respect.”
Did you catch that?
Animals are not ours to use FOR ANY OTHER REASON. That’s not saying that Ashleigh should not be
able to starve, neglect or beat Pudsey.
That’s saying that she should not been able to keep him at all. I cannot for the life of me understand PETA’s
willingness to get into bed with Ashleigh, given that not only she is a pet
owner, but she has also trained Pudsey to perform what PETA would call “unnatural” tricks. Surely she represents everything they go
against. I can only assume that they
have chosen to be blatantly hypocritical in order to benefit from Ashleigh’s
fame.
It gets even worse.
Say PETA decide that Ashleigh can’t “use” Pudsey, because it prevents him
“leading his own life”. They take him
from her. What then? He can’t “lead his own life”. He’s a domestic pet. If Ashleigh threw him out the door, I’m
willing to bet he would not run off into the woods to commune with his wild ancestors, the wolves. He would want to come back in
where there’s safety, warmth, food and love.
So, what to do with all these emancipated pets? PETA found a good answer to this
conundrum. Let’s put them down, then
they cannot be repressed again! I wish I
was kidding, but I’m not. Statistics
from the US shows that out of 2345 animals removed from owners in 2010, 44 were
adopted and 63 transferred. The
remaining 93.81% were put down. That was
actually a good year, as in 2009 the percentage of pets put down was 97.3%, and
in 2008 it was 95.8%.
Many groups and organisations are now dedicated to informing the public of PETA's kill rate. The truth is readily available out there. If you are on Facebook, check out "PETA kills animals", "The truth about PETA", "Stop PETA" and "Consumer Freedom", amongst others.
"The Centre for Consumer Freedom" recently published an article about the town of Norfolk, Virginia, where PETA runs a so-called “animal shelter” that really is an extermination camp. The Norfolk city council has been has been debating an ordinance that would make the city-run animal shelter no-kill. PETA disapproves. "Part of the proposed Norfolk no-kill ordinance is a “trap-neuter-release” (TNR) program for feral cats. Stray cats are caught, sterilized, and released to live out their natural lives without producing more strays. To PETA, this TNR is an animal welfare problem. No, really: PETA would rather just kill feral cats than let them go after snipping them. In the words of a PETA “animal care and control specialist”:
We cannot in good conscience say that it’s safe for cats to live outside facing all of the dangers that they do. Euthanasia can be a mercy for a lot of those animals. It’s not popular, but it’s the truth. The alternative can be a fate worse than death more often than not for the cats that live on the street."
So, "slavery" at the hand of caring pet owners is not acceptable. Free life on the streets isn't acceptable either. The only solution to the pet problem is clearly euthanasia, in PETA's eyes. The New York Post suggested PETA should stand for “People Eradicating Thousands of Animals.”
Over 33% of PETA’s budget is spent on advertising to animal
lovers, so they can take their money and use it to kill animals. And people fall for it.
I don’t believe for a moment that Ashleigh truly supports an
organisation whose ethics would support taking her beloved dog away from her
and putting him down for his own good. I
also don’t believe that, as an animal trainer, she would have agreed to
participate in a campaign to slander her professional equals, guilty of nothing
more than choosing to train animals just as she does, by the same accepted
methods. Something MUST be wrong
there. Could it be that she did not
bother to research the organisation she decided to represent? Could it be that she believed their lies
about Circus trainers without carrying out any research?
Even if she was that naïve, surely she must have management,
a PR person, some sort of backup to prevent precisely this sort of slip. There is such an obvious rift between the way
in which she treats Pudsey and PETA’s ethics that something else must be afoot
here. She also does not support PETA’s ethics
in her professional life. For instance, she has been happy to perform
at the Epson Derby, while PETA are vocal against horse racing. The hypocrisy on both camps seems too extreme
to be the result of innocent mistakes.
The question I am asking myself, and forgive me for being
cynical, is “where is the money?”
Via: OnlineSchools.org
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/
An excellent article. What total hypocrisy. All animal training is based on the same principles as this girl uses on her dog including circus animals.
ReplyDeleteSuper article, just what was the agent playing at?
ReplyDeleteInformative piece of writing. Thank you . Can only think Ashleigh did not research this properly . She is young . She needs guidance. It's a big bad world out there.
ReplyDelete