Interview with Captive Animals' Protection Society
With: Garry Sheen, Development Manager
Click here for the original issue
Lisa Selvaggio: First I want to say thank you for taking the time to speak with us. For those who don't know about CAPS, what is your organization's mission, where are you located, and how big is your staff?
Garry Sheen: Hello Lisa - it's a pleasure to be interviewed by Paragon Magazine. CAPS (Captive Animals' Protection Society) was set up in 1957 by a retired school teacher named Irene Heaton. Irene was so appalled at how animals were treated in circuses, she decided to do something about it. Don't forget, this was back in the 1950s, when the concept of animal rights wasn't something that was generally acknowledged. Irene was certainly a pioneer! Our work now extends to campaigning against the use of all wildlife in captivity - such as zoos - and the use of all animals in circuses. CAPS is also well known for its undercover investigations into animal suffering and producing fact-based studies and reports. Basically, our overall mission is to see an end to the use of all wildlife in the entertainment industries and the use of all animals in circuses. We're based in Manchester, UK, about 180 miles north of London. We have a team of four very hard-working and loyal staffers, plus a team of unpaid trustees who actively work with CAPS. In addition, we have a number of consultants specializing in areas such as animal behavior and veterinary science. Although I'm obviously biased, I know that these people work extremely hard, because they truly care about the animals.
LS: I understand CAPS is planning on extending its campaigns to Europe. Any plans for the future in which you'll campaign in the U.S.?
GS: We've worked with organizations in Europe, including carrying out investigations into animal circuses in Ireland, Portugal, and elsewhere. Also, we've worked closely with organizations in other parts of the world, including India. We'd certainly like to extend our campaigns to other parts of Europe, but it's always down to resources at the end of the day. For the time being, it's a matter of prioritizing and focusing on issues mainly in the UK. With animal circuses still touring, and over 400 zoos still operating, in the UK, we've certainly got our work cut out for us! Obviously, the same applies to any U.S.-focused campaigns. Although we'd relish the opportunity of working in America, unless a rich benefactor comes along, that may be a long way off. We already work with several organizations in the U.S., particularly on circus issues. By the way, if any rich benefactor is reading this article and would like to help CAPS....
LS: Are there any ways that CAPS plans on expanding in the near future?
GS: Sadly, for the foreseeable future, I'm sure there will be issues involving the abuse of non-human animals held in captivity. CAPS will continue to actively campaign until this isn't the case. We're very keen to develop our campaign work on animals used in the audio-visual industry. Although CAPS has been very successful in stopping animals being used by several big-name companies in their adverts, more animals are being used in advertising and films and we need to respond to this. We coordinate a working group for the Ape Alliance (a forum of primate conservation and welfare groups) to oppose primates being used in things like TV commercials.
LS: One of the campaigns that CAPS works against is the pet trade. This is an issue most of the population is highly misinformed about. Can you take a moment to explain to our readers why CAPS is working against pet fairs and keeping exotics as pets?
GS: CAPS began its undercover investigations into pet fairs during 1998 and was the first organization to do so. Apart from the animal welfare problems revealed, the huge risks to public safety, from illnesses such as salmonella, were highlighted. Other animal rights organizations became involved and, in the UK, the Government announced it would ban pet fairs through a new piece of legislation, the Animal Welfare Act. Tens of thousands of reptiles and birds were sold through pet fairs, many of them being illegally imported into the country after being snatched from their natural habitats. Many thousands of animals would never even get to the fairs and die tragically en route, sometimes after traveling thousands of miles in cramped and totally unsuitable accommodations. Of those that did eventually reach the fairs, many would suffer from illnesses or stress-related conditions. Exotic animals, such as primates, reptiles, insects, birds, etc., need specialist care and environments which are extremely difficult to replicate outside of their natural home. We believe that no artificial environment can ever replace a natural habitat, in terms of that animal being part of a wider ecosystem. Animals such as these are sold through UK pet shops, with little thought given as to how they will be cared for during their lifetime. A primate, such as a marmoset, will often be housed in nothing more than an elaborate garden shed, with no company from its own species; exotic birds, such as African Grey parrots, may be confined to an aviary, with no room to fly and a lack of any meaningful stimulation; iguanas housed in small glass tanks, with no means of controlling the temperature or humidity. For all of these reasons, and more, CAPS is against the keeping of any exotic animal as a pet.
LS: Does CAPS agree with keeping animals as pets at all? If so, which species?
GS: Although not a CAPS campaigning issue, in an ideal world no animal would be kept as a pet. All animals should be able to live as nature intended. However, in some cases, we'd need to go back several thousand years in order to completely change this. And, unless I'm mistaken, no one has developed a time machine yet. Dogs have been companions of humankind for around 13,000 years, and cats a similar length of time, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs needing homes throughout the world at any one time. Sadly, without human intervention and care, it may be impossible for these animals to survive. In the long-term, if more spaying and neutering programs were to be set up, there would be far less dogs and cats needing homes. Other animals which are more commonly kept as pets don't always receive the care and attention they need. Small mammals, such as hamsters, whose normal home is a vast expanse of desert, and who would roam for many miles during their nocturnal life, are normally kept in small cages, with a few plastic tubes to run through and a wheel for exercise - and that's if they're lucky! These types of animals are usually bought as presents for children who often get bored with their pets after a short period of time, or the animal has to be re-homed because they have bitten a child after being played with when they (the hamster) should be sleeping. Having personally kept many rescue hamsters, I'm speaking from direct experience. Fish can suffer and be kept in far from ideal environments too, with small, non-oxygenated or poorly filtered aquaria, housing far too many fish and mixing species which would never normally live together. With the best will in the world, even larger and seemingly more 'natural' aquaria can never allow the occupants to swim and roam in a normal home range. Any animal kept in a cage, pen, aquaria, or other enclosure will never live an entirely natural life. We don't believe that any animal should be bought from a pet store. There are so many rescue animals of every description that need loving and caring homes, many of whom will be killed through no fault of their own.
LS: CAPS celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2007, and over all these years it has added more animal issues to its campaign repertoire. Why do you think it takes so long for society on a whole, everywhere in the world, to recognize animal suffering as something the needs to stop? It seems as if every time a victory for animals is achieved, there's something new and horrible to fight.
GS: Things have changed a lot in the last 50 years, not only for the issues that CAPS campaigns on, but also other areas, such as factory farming, vivisection, fur, etc. However, for many of these issues, it's more a case of better conditions for animals, rather than a complete ban on their use and recognition of their rights as individuals. As long as non-human animals are seen as a commodity, we will always have an uphill battle. Frustratingly, society doesn't change as quickly as we would like. It took hundreds of years before the emancipation of slaves took place (although slavery does still exist in some parts of the world). The animal rights movement is still in its infancy compared with other social movements. With this in mind, I do think it's quite incredible that so many achievements have been made during this relatively short period of time. The advent of the Internet has made a tremendous difference. Worldwide, millions of people now subscribe to animal rights, welfare, and conservation organizations, which, in itself, shows a certain level of awareness and compassion. Millions more people are now vegetarian or vegan, or are reducing their intake of meat, which is another indicator of a raised consciousness. Obviously, we can't ignore another contributing factor: the number of diseases and viruses associated with the way in which we keep animals. I do believe that the vast majority of people would be open for change, with perhaps only a small hard-core of animal abusers left. People who maliciously and purposefully abuse and torture animals will always want to do so. If one activity becomes too difficult or illegal, they will move on to the next. But I believe that we are talking about the minority of people here. Tradition and culture often hide a multitude of sins when it comes to animal abuse (and human rights abuses too). At the end of the day, animal abuse is animal abuse, however it's packaged or presented - there's never any legitimate excuse. I believe that people have to be shown what really goes on in their name - not once - but on a regular basis. It's often been said that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, the majority of people would turn vegetarian overnight. Although this is probably an exaggeration, I'm sure many people would be compelled to change their views on all animal abuse issues, if they were allowed to see, firsthand, what really goes on in animal circuses, zoos, vivisection labs, fur farms, hunting environments (and slaughterhouses!), etc. But, it has to be sustained, and not just a quick glance, which may be forgotten in a few days or weeks. We need to keep showing people what really goes on.
LS: What are some other organizations CAPS collaborates with?
GS: CAPS has worked with many other organizations over the years, including: Animal Protection Agency (UK), Xwe African Wildlife (South Africa), Monkey Sanctuary Trust (UK), ANIMAL (Portugal), Friends of the Earth Malaysia, Marine Connection (UK), Animal Friends Croatia, PETA India, Bill Jordan Wildlife Defense Fund( USA), Association Against Animal Factories (Austria), RSPCA (UK), Primate Patrol (USA), Zoo Check Canada.
LS: In the U.S., there are many animal rights organizations and shelters, and there are plenty of volunteer opportunities, but paid opportunities are scarce and competitive in fields working with or for animals. Is this the case in the United Kingdom and Europe?
GS: Certainly in terms of paid work with animal rights organizations, there are limited opportunities in the UK. However, with around a dozen or so animal rights organizations in the UK employing staff, there is still some scope, especially as most of these organizations are trying to develop and expand. Gaining experience as a volunteer is often the 'way in' to being employed by an AR organization, or by having a certain set of skills, experiences, or qualifications not directly related to the animal protection arena - legal, fundraising, medical, vet, or teaching skills, for example. It's difficult to gain campaigning experience in a paid environment without having some experience - organizing demonstrations or other activities, or perhaps being involved in a local animal rights, environmental, conservation, or human rights group. I would imagine that the same situation exists in the rest of Europe, although I don't have any direct experience of that.
LS: It is clear that CAPS is against keeping animals in zoos, as these places are often cruel and unethical, keeping animals in small cages in deplorable conditions. But I am wondering what your opinion is toward animal sanctuaries and preserves. Do you still feel that no animal should be kept in captivity, or do you feel that in this case, when people are trying to help sick, permanently injured, or abandoned wildlife, it's okay, as long as the sanctuary follows strict standards for the animals' welfare?
GS: Unfortunately, as long as there are animal circuses, zoos, and other captive environments for animals, true sanctuaries, where animals have a safe home for life will be needed. Animals who have lived in captivity can rarely be released into the wild. Even those who may have been born in the wild, or spent an appreciable period of time in their natural habitat before their capture, may be extremely difficult to reintroduce. Apart from any social, hunting, and other life skills which a captive animal may lack, animals being taken back to the wild can often take with them a variety of infections, for which their cousins in the wild have little or no protection. The term 'sanctuary' possibly conjures up different images to different people. Just because a place has 'sanctuary' in its title, doesn't necessarily mean that it is such! CAPS doesn't have a prescriptive definition of what constitutes a proper sanctuary, but it would certainly include these criteria: no breeding of any description; a place for life, unless transferring to another sanctuary - no transfer to any zoo, circus, captive breeding facility, or other non-sanctuary environment; no animal to be involved in any performance or training, unless this forms part of a bone fide rehabilitation program; no animal to be sold; no animal to be mixed with any species with which they wouldn't normally live with, unless there are exceptional circumstances; and, appropriate diet, housing, and veterinary care. As I've said, this isn't a definitive list, but gives you an idea of where we're coming from!
LS: There have been so many cases of wild animals, especially those in captivity, attacking humans, even caretakers. I'm interested in getting your thoughts on why you think the animals react this way even after behaving affectionately for long stretches of time.
GS: I'm not an animal behaviorist, but we have to understand that these are still wild animals, regardless as to how much time they may have spent in captivity, or how they may have been 'trained' or accustomed to human contact. All animals have some genetic predisposition to wanting to act as their wild cousins (even domesticated animals). Domestic cats still want to catch birds, dogs still have an alpha male and pack mentality. If this is the case with these animals, imagine the genetic 'pulls' on an animal who hasn't been domesticated over millennia! We have to understand that wild animals are just that - wild. Being born in captivity and being raised by a human doesn't make them domesticated. Even after many years, a wild animal in captivity, who has previously shown no aggression toward a human, may have their natural instinct further triggered by some external source (a noise, smell, vision) or some other association.
LS: Are there any significant differences between the animal welfare laws found in the U.K. and those found in the U.S. and other parts of the world?
GS: Not an easy question to answer. I'm not very familiar with specific details of animal welfare laws in other parts of the world. However, some countries do have more stringent legislation than others. It's got to be said, though, that just having legislation in place doesn't always translate into positive actions taking place - but it is a good starting point! The UK is said to be a nation of animal lovers, yet the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Protection of Animals) annually reports increases in cases of animal cruelty.
LS: Which areas of the world do you feel have the worst animal welfare laws, and which do you think have the best?
GS: There's clearly an absence of animal welfare laws in some countries. China has quite rightly come in for much criticism over its treatment of animals generally, especially in zoos, circuses, fur farms, and vivisection. But closer to home, even France doesn't have very stringent animal welfare legislation. And Canada - well look what happens to hundreds of thousands of Harp Seal pups every year - clubbed, shot, and skinned alive in many cases. And, throughout the world, millions of animals are tortured and die in vivisection labs. No country can be said to be completely free of animal abuse, but China is probably vying for top position, in terms of its lack of any meaningful legislation. However, this doesn't mean that every Chinese man and woman is an animal abuser. China does have an embryonic animal rights movement, with many people who do care about animals. But, in a nation that suppresses free speech and whose human rights and environmental credentials are appalling, they have a very tough time.
And the UK can't escape criticism either - despite a new Animal Welfare Act, animal circuses are still currently legal!
LS: Again, thanks so much for doing this interview with us. Is there anything you'd like to address that wasn't already discussed?
GS: People can vote with their feet, by not visiting animal circuses - in whatever part of the world they may live. The only reason that animal circuses exist is because some people will still pay to visit them. I suppose there'll always be a hard-core of people that will support these primitive and brutal forms of entertainment. However, they are in a very small minority. Undercover investigations that CAPS and other organizations have carried out have shown, without a shadow of doubt, the harsh and cruel treatment these animals have to endure, both in their training and day-to-day lives. When people stop visiting animal circuses, the circuses will have to stop too. Until that happens, we'll have to rely on changes in the law to ban performing animals in circuses. Peaceful protests outside animal circuses are also a great way to inform people about what really happens to these animals. Similarly with zoos, which have been hiding behind a façade of 'conservation and education' for many years. Real conservation is about protecting animals' real habitats, not keeping them locked up in artificial environments, from which there is no escape until they die. It's been calculated that it could be around 50 times cheaper to keep an elephant in its natural environment rather than a zoo. So, it also makes good economic sense. And, protecting one species' habitat can often be highly beneficial to a range of other species that share that ecosystem. Zoos often call some animals 'ambassadors for their species'. Well, who asked these animals if they wanted to be ambassadors? Would they prefer to live in the wild as nature intended, or stuck in a zoo, becoming so frustrated that they display stereotypic behaviors - signs that they're gradually being driven mad. People need to realize that the animals they pay to see in zoos will never see their homeland, and this is a very sad fact. We learn precious little from seeing animals in zoos. They are really caricatures of their cousins in the wild; they may look the same, but that's where the similarity ends. They can't hunt (or be hunted) or forage for their food; they can't naturally socialize or play (yes, animals do play!); they can't naturally select breeding partners and they can't be part of intricate ecosystems that have been evolving for millions of years. These animals have their own lives and are far too precious to be locked up and used for entertainment or curiosity value.