Last in the pecking order - Captive Animals Protection Society

Last in thepecking orderCaptive birds in English zoosCAPSCaptive Animals’ Protection Societywww.captiveanimals.orgWORKING FOR A WORLDWITHOUT CAGESSINCE 1957

Last in the pecking orderCaptive birds in English zoosThis report interprets and summarises the mainfindings of an investigation researched and writtenby Craig Redmond on behalf of the Captive Animals’Protection Society. The full report, including acomprehensive outline of methodology and detailedanalysis of data entitled ‘Birds in Zoos in England:An Assessment of Welfare, Conservation andEducation’, Redmond, C., 2013 can be found byvisiting www.captiveanimals.org/birdsCraig Redmond is an independent animal rights consultantwho was previously CAPS’ Campaigns Director, havingworked for the charity for over a decade. He has extensiveknowledge of the zoo industry and has co-ordinatedprevious investigations and research projects into UK zoos.In addition, he has several years’ active involvement inprogrammes to protect migratory birds from illegal huntingacross the Mediterranean.The Captive Animals’ Protection Society (CAPS)is a UK-based charity leading the campaign toend the use of animals in entertainment.CAPSCaptive Animals’ Protection SocietyPO Box 540, Salford, M5 0DS, UKPhone: +44 (0)845 330 3911 (local-call rate)or +44 (0)161 869 0020E-mail: info@captiveanimals.orgWebsites: www.captiveanimals.orgwww.irishcircuses.orgThe Captive Animals' Protection Society is aregistered charity in England and Wales No.1124436Through a combination of undercoverinvestigations, research, campaigns, politicallobbying and education, CAPS aims to stopthe exploitation of animals in entertainment,particularly in zoos, circuses and the exoticpet trade.The charity’s evidence-based campaigns andstrong ethical basis ensure we can make asignificant difference to the lives of animals inending their exploitation.Working for a world without cages, CAPSencourages a more compassionate attitudeand relationship between humans andother animals.The Captive Animals’ Protection Society isa registered charity and receives nogovernment funding.

IntroductionRuppells GriffonVulture, tethered© C. RedmondWhen it comes to consideration and discussionof the welfare and ethics of keeping animalscaptive in zoos, it is perhaps fair to say that themajority of time, resource and effort has gonetowards understanding the needs of captivemammals. In-depth research has sought toascertain to what extent those needs are met,if indeed if they ever can be, in a captiveenvironment. Iconic species such as elephants,dolphins and great apes, for example, have beensubject to much scrutiny and research. Someanimals, such as dolphins, are deemed to havesuch specialised needs that they are no longerheld in UK zoos and there is increasing agreementthat elephants should follow suit due theirinherent unsuitability for life in captivity. Great apeenclosures, and particularly those for gorillas,have millions of pounds spent on them in zoosworldwide. The arrival of pandas at any zoo seemsfit to trigger something akin to hysteria withextraordinary levels of interest, investment andpublicity leading to every aspect of the bears’ livesbeing placed under uncomfortably close scrutiny.Both pro-captivity and anti-captivity commentatorshave assessed, investigated, explored and drawnconclusions on the divisive issues of welfare,conservation, education, rights and ethics inrelation to captive mammals. However, despitedecades of debate on mammal species in captivity,the welfare of birds in zoos has, until now, beena relatively neglected issue.In an attempt to redress the balance, CAPScommissioned a study in order to provide someevidence on growing areas of concern in this areaof animal welfare, such as the restriction on birds’abilities to fly through management practices ofzoos (i.e. pinioning and tethering). Welfare,conservation and education were the main areasto be addressed in the study.The study commissioned was not designed toprovide a detailed or scientific overview of all birdzoos around the UK and, indeed, only considered arelatively small sample. The purpose of the workwas to consider areas for further research, identifypractices of significant concern and conduct apreliminary examination of the potential welfareand ethical issues that are most prevalent for birdskept in captivity.2

MethodologyA random sampling of licensed zoos in Englandprovided a list of 20 zoos for which analysis on anumber of factors was conducted in order toprovide a greater understanding of issues.Full details of research methodology employedcan be found in the full study report and issummarised as follows:1. Literature review and discussion with variousexperts relating to the key welfare issues facingbirds in zoos identified key research areas.2. Visits to 20 randomly sampled zoos housingbirds taken from the 2011 Defra list of zoosoperating in England were carried out in orderto facilitate collection of data.3. Information including animal stock lists,inspection reports and correspondenceobtained from local authorities under theFreedom of Information Act 2000 relating tozoos sampled as well as information providedon zoos’ websites was analysed.4. All information was brought together todevelop discussion and draw conclusions.The big pictureCarried out over a period of six months from2012-2013, the research uncovered a number ofserious welfare concerns for birds held in zoos.These concerns range from worryingly highmortality rates, inadequate and inappropriateenclosures, as well as lack of environmentalenrichment to encourage and promote naturalbehaviour. The most serious welfare issueuncovered during the study relates to that offlight restriction for captive birds. This flightrestriction regularly results in partial amputation ofwings (known as pinioning) for thousands of birdsin English zoos. Birds of prey spend long periodstethered by their legs, rarely being able to fly andbeing kept in tiny ‘mews’ style enclosures for themajority of their lives.In addition to these fundamental welfare problems,it was found that conservation claims relatingto captive birds were highly questionable andeducational messages surrounding the keeping ofbirds in zoos were found lacking. In many cases,the educational messages were wholly inadequate,sometimes false and often damaging from eitherethical or conservation perspectives.More than a quarterof all birds died intwo zoosBird deathsSpecies’ mortality in captivity is expected todiffer from that in the wild (Kohler et al, 2006).Captive animals should benefit from veterinarycare, a lack of predators, and a regular supply offood. However, they may also suffer from pooradaptation to captivity or to a zoo’s climate, thespread of infections caused by close confinementto others, and, for some species, higher levelsof obesity.Animal stock lists for zoos provide minimalinformation on births and deaths and the study’sanalysis combined all species of birds at eachzoo rather than carrying out a species-by-speciesanalysis. Each species will have differing levels oflife expectancy which have not been accountedfor in this instance. (Kohler et al, 2006) note that“authoritative accounts of survivorship andlength of life exist for very few species” and that“imprecision of age assignment are importanthurdles to the accurate mapping of survival”.For a fuller study of mortality, access would berequired to the stud books or other zoo-helddatabases for avian species for more informationthan is provided by stock list data. These datacan then be used to construct life tables, suchas those in studies of mortality in other animalsin zoos (e.g. Clubb & Mason, 2002; Kohleret al, 2006).With the above points in mind, our study foundthat, for the 15 zoos for which data was provided,an average of almost 16% of birds die over aone year period – a total of 860 birds.Two zoos had no deaths recorded on their stocklists; 11 zoos had mortality rates higher than5%; five had a mortality higher than 10%.Shockingly, more than one quarter of all birdsdied in two zoos, with a third zoo showing onlya very slightly improved mortality rate.It is difficult to make too many generalisationsabout mortality rates for a wide range of avianspecies for the reasons outlined previously,however, some mortality rates here are higherthan expected by vets consulted during this study.To put these statistics into an understandablecomparison, we can compare with one of themost controversial methods of farming animalsfor food: broiler chickens. These chickens arefactory farmed for their meat and selectivebreeding forces them to grow too fast so thatmillions “suffer from painful lameness due toabnormal skeletal development or bone disease,so that many have difficulty in walking or evenstanding” (Turner, Garcés & Smith, 2005).One of the major criticisms of this method ofbreeding chickens is the high mortality rate:between 4% and 5% die before reaching theslaughterhouse (Department of PrimaryIndustries, 2013; VIVA, 2013). Averagemortality in the zoos studied in this report ismore than three times this figure.Mortality rates for intensively reared rabbits is,according to the European Food SafetyAuthority’s Panel on Animal Health and3

Key findings• Mortality rates for birds in sampledzoos were found to be an average of15.99% with two zoos seeing morethan a quarter of all the birds heldthere die in one 12 month period.• More than half of the 81 enclosuresassessed in detail by the studyauthor and a bird behaviourist wereovercrowded (54%) and notenvironmentally varied (62%). Themajority lacked enrichment (91%),appropriate substrate (63%) orspecies-appropriate features (87%).Even perches were lacking in number(in 78% of enclosures). 82% ofenclosures did not have appropriatebathing or swimming facilities.• The majority of enclosures (68%) failto meet minimum recommendedsizes that would allow birds to takeseveral wingflaps or strides.• Flight restrictions of varying kinds areprobably the biggest welfare problemfacing birds in zoos, yet they are alsoone of the least discussed. Theserestrictions include surgicalmutilations (e.g. pinioning) whichpermanently disable a bird andprevent them from ever flying again,mainly used on waterfowl, storks,cranes and flamingos.• In sampled zoos which tether birdsof prey, up to half of all birds wererestricted in this way. Zoos claimsuch birds are flown every day butthis study shows this to be highlyunlikely and even when birds areflown in displays it is just for a fewminutes. Smaller owl species, whichare widely seen as unsuited to thistype of restraint, were seen to betethered at some zoos visited. 62% ofbirds in zoos which tethered werenot provided with shelter and water.• Zoos are failing in terms ofconservation and there is littleinformation published by theindividual zoos to show what,if anything they do to serveconservation. Over 80% of theindividual birds in the sampledzoos are not of threatened speciesand there appears to be minimalinvolvement in co-ordinatedbreeding programmes and evenless in actually reintroducingspecies to their natural habitats.• Likewise, education standards werepoor. 12% of signs on enclosuresdid not identify the species correctlyand over half (58%) of zoo websitesdid not give detailed informationabout their birds.• Presentations and talks provide theopportunity to really educate anaudience about a particular species,their behaviours, biology and habitats,as well as the threats they face inthe wild and what people can do tosupport conservation efforts. Yet, lessthan a third of zoos offer either apresentation or a talk involving/aboutbirds and none gave any detailedinformation on conservation despitesometimes directly discussingthreatened species.• Finally, the ethics of zoos isdiscussed, with it being seen asinfringing on the basic needs ofanimals to confine them for thepurposes for which they are keptin zoos.• Overall, 63% of all birds in zoos thatuse flight restriction methods wereeither pinioned, wing clipped ortethered – over 2,600 birds in total inthe sample of 20 zoos used in this study.4

Welfare (EFSA, 2005), “considerably higher than inother farmed animal species due to enteric andrespiratory infections, and reproductive problems”.They report that “on the most successful intensiveclosed cycle farms... mortality levels can be as highas 25-30%”.So, it would appear that mortality rates for birds insome zoos are as high as those for farmed rabbits,on which the EFSA Scientific Panel concluded:“Because of very high morbidity and mortalityrates reported, Rabbit housing, management andhygiene systems should be reviewed urgently so asto significantly reduce them”.Looking at inspection reports for zoos with anabove 10% mortality rate, no inspector (either localauthority or DEFRA) questions these statistics. Onetheory for these deaths not being highlighted isthat inspectors take little notice of stock lists andwould not be aware of large numbers of deathsunless they were informed by the zoo.The Handbook of DEFRA’s Zoos Expert Committeeprovides an example of an animal welfare auditwhich includes a weekly review of mortality andmorbidity (incidents of disease / ill health) and aquarterly outside audit of mortality (DEFRA,2012d). The Handbook also recommends thatthe results of welfare audits on issues such asmortality should be reviewed by zoo inspectors.It is not known how many zoos follow theserecommendations and they have not been referredto in inspection reports for the sampled zoos.Inadequateenclosures, poorenvironmentalenrichmentIn the same way that it is not appropriate toprovide different species of mammals with thesame type of enclosure, so different species of birdsrequire various types of enclosures and furnishings.Each enclosure should be designed for a speciesspecificpurpose.“Ideally, animals can choose their exposure tosunlight, wind and rain. An animal exhibit shouldhave shelters, perches, vegetation and water bodiesto provide various microclimates. Depending on theanimal’s natural behaviours, the exhibit should alsoprovide a variety of substrates and natural objects.The appropriateness of artificial objects depends onthe theme and the intended message of the exhibit.Changing and exchanging objects and exhibitelements allows exploration in a confined spacewhich is a fundamental animal behaviour. Exhibitdesign should allow such changes.” (Fiby, 2008)It is claimed that, to meet the welfare needs of ananimal in captivity, the complexity of an enclosureneeds to be combined with an appropriate size toensure that natural behaviours can be expressedrather than restricted. Those behaviours required tolimit stress, such as distancing and comfortingbehaviours, are seen to be particularly important(Hosey, Melfi and Pankhurst, 2009).Bird behaviourist, Greg Glendell, made thefollowing general comment on the enclosuresexamined during this study:“Standards vary between zoos and there are stillmany zoos whose whole practice is clearlyunprofessional. Such places have filthy, unkemptenclosures. Staff appear to have little knowledgefor the birds in their care. Birds are frequentlybored and appear listless, habituated to apathywhich is instigated by poor husbandry”.Provision of spaceMost species of birds fly, and flying is part oftheir daily activities. Despite this aviaries are notsufficiently large enough to allow anything morethan very short periods of flight; flights of a fewseconds only. Some aviaries are too small toencourage any flight at all. Birds will not be able toget adequate exercise and maintain fitness unlessthey can fly for reasonable periods throughout theday. The majority of enclosures examined in thisstudy failed to provide birds with adequate space.Lack of environmental enrichmentEnclosures are often poorly furnished, lacking arange of substrates and perches suitable for thespecies housed. Some stereotypical behaviourswere seen. Being kept in such barren conditionscan be highly stressful to birds. The animals shouldbe provided with facilities which attempt to replicatethe environments they are adapted to in the wild,but frequently, enclosures fail to provide this.Wire mesh usedThere are health and welfare issues associated withthe type of covering used to clad the birds’ aviaries.The mesh used should ensure the birds within areconfined safely so that risks of injuries to them areminimised. The mesh should also ensure other wildanimals cannot enter the aviaries, eat the occupants’food, harm them, be harmed by them, or exchangediseases between occupants and wild birds andother animals.It is common to see large holed mesh used inmany aviaries. This allows a range of wild animalsincluding rats and squirrels to freely enter. Otherspecies, including many wild birds and predatorymammals such as stoats can also enter. Birdsshould never be housed in flights whose mesh sizeis so large that the birds can poke their headthrough it; this poses a serious risk of death shouldbirds fly in panic and hit the wire.Most enclosures examined in the study had meshthat was inappropriate for the birds held or thetype of aviary.Enclosure sizeGiven the large number of enclosures and widevariety of species in the 20 zoos visited, a simplemethod of assessing whether enclosures providedadequate space was required.Studies of enclosure size for mammals in zoos haveoften relied on comparing enclosures to the5

Eurasian eagle owlsAnalysis ofenclosure adequacyDo the birds have access to clean water fordrinking at all times?12%© C. Redmond17%71%YesNoDon’t knowCrested caracaraIs the enclosure large enough to permit thebird to express its full repertoire of normallocomotive movements?47%53%Yes© C. RedmondNospecies’ home range in the wild (e.g. Casamitjana,2003; Clubb & Mason, 2003). The fact that somany avian species migrate each autumn makessuch a comparison more difficult in this instance.The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS)was founded in 2007 by a number of animalprotection organisations which recognised “theneed for global animal-specific standards andoperational standards for sanctuaries” (GFAS,2012). GFAS documents aid sanctuaries inmeeting the highest standards of welfare foranimals in their care. One such document is‘Standards for Animal Care of Arboreal/PerchingBirds’ (GFAS, 2011), which covers parrots, finches,canaries, corvids, hornbills, woodpeckers andmiscellaneous passerine species.It recognises that enclosure size will vary greatly,dependent on the species, but provides a usefulgeneral formula:“In order to allow each bird to take severalwingflaps or strides, minimum enclosure lengthshould equal ten times the wingspan or stride ofthe largest bird(s) housed.” These standards werearrived at by a consensus of various aviansanctuary directors.Whilst long debate could be had about whether‘several wingflaps or strides’ really does provideadequate space for any bird in captivity, these arelikely to be the highest standards currently availablewith regard to space for captive birds and so theGFAS formula was used during this study as a‘rule of thumb’.It was found that majority of enclosures in thisstudy fail to meet minimum recommended sizesthat would allow birds to take several wingflapsor strides.Is the enclosure environmentally varied?63%Are sufficient number of perches provided for all birds78%YesNoYesNoDon’t knowAre there any behavioural or occupationalenrichment items or techniques present inthe enclosure?9%1%91%37%21%YesNo6

Amputations,tethering and wingclipping. Renderingbirds flightlessin zoosIt may come as a surprise to many people thathuge numbers of birds in zoos have their abilityto fly deliberately restricted. It is this practice ofrendering birds flightless in order to keep them incaptivity which, in our view, presents the mostserious welfare and ethical concerns found duringthe study.The three most common flight restrictiontechniques for keeping birds in captivity (bothby zoos and private keepers), other than keepingthem in a confined enclosure, are pinioning,wing/feather clipping and tethering.Pinioning“The process of pinioning involves the cutting ofone wing at the carpel joint, thereby removing thebasis from which the primary feathers grow. Thismakes the bird permanently incapable of flightbecause it is lopsided” (Rees, 2011).Put simply, a few days after birth, birds have partof one wing cut off with sharp scissors. Thisprocedure is known as a ‘mutilation’ under the law.Pinioning is illegal if carried out on farmed birdsbut is legal for birds kept in zoos. Pinioned birdswill never fly.Birds of the following orders, kept in open enclosures,and who would likely fly off if their flight was notrestricted, are most commonly pinioned:Anseriformes: Waterfowl (ducks, geese, swans)Ciconiiformes: Herons, storks and relativesGruiformes: Cranes, rails and relativesPelecaniformes: Pelicans and relativesPhoenicopteriformes: Flamingos• Pinioning involves the surgical removal of themetacarpals, which permanently prevents flight.• Feather clipping involves cutting the primariesalong the wing coverts on one wing. It istemporary and needs to be repeated as thefeathers grow back.• Tethering involves tying birds of prey to a perch.Manchuriancrane, pinioned© C. Redmond© C. RedmondHawaiian goose,pinioned7

The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, a conservation charitywhich operates nature reserves, some of whichhave zoo licences, admits to pinioning all of theircaptive wildfowl and flamingos. In order to gaugeminimum numbers of individuals affected by thispractice we looked outside of the study sample andanalysed the most recently available animal stocklists for the five Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust centreswhich hold zoo licences in England. We found5,663 individual birds pinioned in these five centresalone. Exact numbers of birds subjected to thepermanently disabling mutilation in all of the 200+zoos currently operating in England have not beenestablished to date and further research is requiredin order to ascertain this figure.Justifications for pinioningConservationZoos often point to captive breeding programmesas beneficial to species conservation, arguing thatthey are creating a ‘reserve’ population which canbe released into the wild at a later date. In spite ofthese claims, evidence has shown that pinionedflamingos, for example, have little breeding success.The Vice Director of Odense Zoo, Denmark admittedthat his zoo had “never successfully bred the[pinioned] flamingos, even though [it] had morethan 50 individuals.”These reproductive problems do not appear to belimited to a few anecdotal cases as, according tothe American Zoo Association (AZA), “it has beenshown that reproduction is severely hindered bypinioning due to the male’s difficulty in balancinghimself during copulation. Full-wing flamingos havebetter balance, whereas pinioned male greaterflamingos more regularly fall off when mating”.Flamingos are not the only species whosereproductive capacities are adversely affected bypinioning. Pinioned male cranes have also beenobserved to have difficulties keeping their balancewhen mating. (Sawyer, 1997)Even if breeding were successful it would appearthat the vast majority of pinioned birds are noteven threatened in the wild; a revelation whichcasts further doubt on any suggestion that thispractice can be justified under the auspices ofconservation. In fact, analysis of all pinioned birdsin the five Wildfowl and Wetland Centres with zoolicences in England shows that a huge 86% ofpinioned individuals belong to species which arenot threatened in the wild. This represents 4,849birds in these five zoos alone. If this is indicative ofthe practice across zoos in England, it is likely thatthousands more birds have suffered partial amputationof limbs for no apparent conservation purpose.Finally, and perhaps most obviously, it is difficultfor zoos to make any claims that birds are beingkept for conservation purposes when it is clearthat a bird who cannot fly is a bird who will neverbe released into the wild. Pinioned birds are often,quite literally ‘sitting ducks’ - they simply wouldnot survive outside of captivity.Conservation claims, it would seem, offer nojustification for pinioning.WelfareA common excuse given by zoos for pinioning isthat it allows birds to be kept in large, openenclosures rather than in smaller, confined aviaries.One industry consultant suggested:“The difference between pinioning and notpinioning is the difference between access to,and the relative freedom, of several acres of anislet spotted lake or confinement to an aviarypond.” (Dickinson, 2011). This statement makesthe somewhat contradictory suggestion that theamputations are carried out for the bird’s ownwelfare benefit.Whilst birds having access to large open enclosuresmay be pleasing to zoo visitors who are impressedwith the space and apparent freedom that thebirds are provided, meaningful use can hardly bemade of any environment by an animal whosemost important locomotive adaptation (flight), hasbeen permanently removed.In addition, to suggest that the only alternatives tolarge open enclosures are small confined aviaries ismisleading, at best. The real issue is not one ofzoos being forced to choose between the lesser oftwo evils in the form of either large open topenclosures (and pinioned birds) or crampedaviaries, but rather a reluctance on the part ofthe zoo industry to invest in closed enclosures ofsufficient size to allow flight.As with conservation then, it would seem thatclaims that pinioning is carried out for welfarepurposes are wholly unconvincing.Legal requirementsOne of the most common arguments presentedin favour of pinioning relies on the fact that it isagainst the law in the UK to allow non-nativespecies to escape into the wild and that to do sois an offence under the Wildlife and CountrysideAct 1981.It was this point which was put forward by theRSPB during the passage of the Animal WelfareBill and was the reason provided by zoo staff whenthe practice was queried during the course of thestudy. The argument is that the outlawing ofpinioning would result in the potential foraccidental release of non-native wildlife. This, it ismaintained, could have a damaging impact on thelocal environment and native species.During formal considerations in 2004 on whetheror not pinioning should be permitted, it seemedthat this factor was also a concern withinGovernment. The Head of Policy for the AnimalWelfare Bill, Henry Hoppe, suggested at the time:“On the issue such as pinioning, we also have toconsider not only the welfare of the bird but alsothe possible impact on society if you do not pinion,and, in the case of pinioning, there is the risk ofnon-native species being released…”.Whilst these arguments appear to have somesubstance in that the potential introduction ofinvasive species is a genuine conservation concern,it does not explain why amputation is deemed asolution for birds and yet not for any of the otherhundreds of species of animals held captive in zoosaround the country. Zoos have a responsibility toensure that none of the animals held by themescape into the local environment but it is onlywith bird species that amputation of limbs issuggested as the way in which to achieve this.This point is made concisely by Bjarne Klausen, ViceDirector of Odense Zoo, who said: “It is only with8

irds that we, as a community, have acceptedmutilation of an animal to keep it in captivity.”So, whilst the concern for release of invasivespecies is an important consideration, it is hardto accept that mutilation is the best solution.EntertainmentThe CEO of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, MartinSpray’s frank explanation presented to Parliamentduring the passage of the Animal Welfare Billappears to be based on little more than theentertainment value of getting up close towildlife, saying:“The issue of pinioning with regards to theWildfowl & Wetlands Trust is that we want toactually bring people close to birds close to wildlife,particularly young children”. (sic)Animals in their thousands suffering the partialamputation of a limb in order to allow us to getup close to wildlife seems a high price to pay tosimply satisfy curiosity.TraditionFinally, the approach employed by the British andIrish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (thenknown as the Federation of Zoological Gardens ofGreat Britain and Ireland) during the same lobbyingprocess to see pinioning remain legal as referredto above was simply that the procedure was a“routine management practice”. It would seemthat there was an element of tradition that wasconsidered important by the zoo community andwhich, in and of itself, should be considered as areason to maintain the practice.It would seem that the various arguments putforward to explain pinioning do little to justifythe practice.Wing clippingUnlike pinioning, wing clipping is a non-permanentmethod of restricting a bird’s ability to fly andinvolves cutting the primary feathers (usually just ofone wing) and is most commonly used on parrots.Advantages over permanent restrictions includereducing stress to birds, avoiding surgical risks suchas pain and tissue damage and minimising cost(Zhang et al, 2011).This procedure needs to be repeated each time thebird moults and regrows the primary feathers. Inmost birds this is once a year. Some species ofbirds, such as some ducks, moult two or threetimes a year, although cranes only moult everyother year (Startup, 1967). A major reason givenby zoos for wing clipping not being used onsome species, particularly waterfowl, is thatcatching the birds to carry out the procedurewould be complicated and cause additional stress.Zoos claim that the stress caused by the capturenecessitated by wing clipping is too damagingto the welfare of these birds to be acceptable.As outlined above, though, the most commonalternative to wing clipping employed is thepermanently disabling procedure of pinioning.Wing clipping was the flight restriction leastevidenced during visits to the 20 sampled zooswith only one bird seen to have been wing clipped(a Grey crowned crane, Balearica regulorum).It is likely that more birds had been wing clippedbut this difficult to observe unless birds opentheir wings at the time the enclosures werebeing monitored.TetheringJust as pinioning is seen as a common managementmethod for captive waterfowl, so tethering to aperch is commonly used with birds of prey. Birdsof prey are tethered to provide a closer display ofthe birds for zoo visitors and/or as a method ofmanaging birds for flying them in free-flightprogrammes. Due to welfare and safety issueswith keeping birds of prey in aviaries, free-flyingprogrammes which employ the managementtechnique of tethering are one of the only ways inwhich captive birds of prey are currently permittedany meaningful experience of flight. It should benoted, however, that the study found that not allbirds who are tethered appear to be flown regularly.What is tethering?Tethering involves the attachment of thin leatherstraps (jesses) and leather anklets around the legsof the bird, connected to a leash which is thenattached to a stationary perch. The method shouldallow the bird to move off and onto the perch(onto the ground) and give access to a bath pan.Tethered birds should be able to preen, eat, batheand extend their wings (IAATE, 2008) but leashes“should not be too long as forces placed on thebirds legs from bating [trying to fly off] cancause damage if the length is not correct” (HawkBoard, 2011).Although birds should be allowed to freely moveoff and onto the perch, it is crucial to keep anadequate distance between each bird (at least theHarris Hawks,tethered© C. Redmond9

Peregrine-Lannerin traditional mewsstyle housing© C. Redmondsum of twice the wingspan of each bird), toprevent them attacking and injuring, or evenkilling, each other. Equally, consideration needs tobe given to which species to tether next to eachother to reduce stress and intimidation.Birds of prey tethered ona “weathering lawn”Some type of shelter from heat or inclementweather needs to also be provided (Fox & Chick,2007); (Cromie and Nicholls 1995) consider thisto be “perhaps the most fundamental designfeature”. Safe access to water for bathing is alsorequired (which helps clean the feathers andregulate temperature).In England, government zoo licensing guidance(DEFRA, 2012a) states that “owls and vultures,particularly the New World vultures should not bekept tethered” as “they can easily be trained to flyfrom pens and this is the preferred way to housethem”. Despite this, two zoos of the 20 visited forthis study tethered owls.Housing of tethered birdsAlthough some birds of prey are housed intraditional aviaries, those used for flying displaysand who spend large parts of the day tetheredoutdoors are usually housed in mews. In additionto the difficulties of catching birds in larger aviaries,birds can injure themselves (break feathers andinjure feet, wings and beaks) by hanging on thewire of the enclosure (Martin, 2012) or bycolliding with the mesh.There are two types of mews: traditional mews andfree-loft. The former usually has partitioned spacesto separate tethered birds and they will spend theday tethered outdoors. Free-loft mews providemore space and birds can fly free within thechamber, however housing raptors in free-loftingmews can result in similar problems to traditionalaviaries, with birds becoming nervous or aggressiveand difficult to catch and handle (Martin, 2012).The confined nature of traditional mews and thewelfare concerns of free-loft mews thereforepresent additional concerns with regard to the livesof birds subjected to tethering.TrainingThe process of training birds to fly from the fist isknown as ‘manning’ and involves withholding foodfrom the bird until they accept it on the fist.Manning has been described as an “indisputablystressful time for a raptor” with the bird “subjectedto bouts of acute fear” which can predispose themto stress-related diseases such as aspergillosis(Cromie & Nicholls 1995).One of the UK’s foremost bird of prey trainers hassaid (Parry-Jones, 1994 ): “Training birds is a verytraumatic experience for the bird”. She recommendsthat on day one of training, the bird is only allowedfood when she feeds from the fist; if she doesn’tthen the food is put back in the bag and the birdreturned to her perch. “By the third, fourth or fifthday she should feed”, although Parry-Jones had abird go ten days before she fed.FlyingWhereas pinioning of waterfowl or flamingos maygo unnoticed by most zoo visitors, tethering is clearfor all to see. One zoo visited had a sign on an areafor tethered birds, aiming to provide an explanationfor this flight restriction: “This may be a sight thatcauses concern to some guests. Weather permittingall our birds of prey are flown daily. Althoughschooled to return it is the birds choice whether toreturn or not.”“Training birds is a verytraumatic experience forthe bird”.Jemima Parry Jones, Bird of Prey specialist© C. Redmond10

© C. RedmondDEFRA states that tethered birds “must be flownat least four times a week” and must not “betethered permanently. All birds should be given theopportunity to fly or move around freely duringpart of the year” (although it does not clarify whatis meant by ‘part of the year’). The Hawk Boardstates that tethered birds “must be flown free on adaily basis (weather permitting)” (Hawk Board, 2011).The Hawk Board also recommends that “diurnal(day flying) birds of prey should not be tetheredexcept when flown daily, in genuine training orunder veterinary treatment” (Fox & Chick, 2007).Zoos which tether birds generally claim that all thebirds are flown daily. However, this is not usuallythe case. It may well be that the zoo flies somebirds every day, but that is different to every birdbeing flown every day. Given that 25% of all thebirds seen in the sampled zoos that employed thepractice were tethered, representing over 100 birds,it is highly unlikely that they are all flown daily.This concern was corroborated by a falconer atone zoo, who informed the study author that therewere 43 birds in total and they were flown “inrotation”, which meant that only a small numberwere flown each day. She admitted that given thepoor weather (cold and wet), birds were not flowndaily and as a result some were gaining too muchweight. Bird of prey’s weight should be monitoreddaily and if too heavy they cannot be flown; reducingweight too much can kill a bird (Parry-Jones, 1994).This creates a vicious circle whereby birds not flownlose further opportunity to fly by putting on weightand being deemed unsuitable to fly. During thedisplays seen during this study, birds were flown foran average of 5 minutes 41 seconds each.Tradition for tradition’s sake?The keeping of birds of prey in mews housing,tethering them and training to fly from a falconer’shand has a long tradition in both this country andothers around the world. There are, however, fewother animals held in captivity that are kept in suchunnatural confinement for so much of their lives asbirds of prey. Despite our understanding of theneeds of animals having developed and evolved,particularly over the last few decades, the practicesand even the equipment used in relation to falconryremain the same as those employed over a centuryago. It would appear that the practice of tetheringand the associated keeping of birds of prey inFlying displaycaptivity are influenced strongly by tradition,rather than by modern understanding of welfareand ethics.(Cromie and Nicholls, 1995) make the point that“further research needs to be carried out into thephysiological effects of tethering. Systems forreducing the problems of tethering need to bedevised or introduced more widely with appropriateeducation. Management techniques require furtherdevelopment with emphasis on allowing flyingbirds to be kept loose”.Summary of flightrestrictions in zoosFlight restrictions of varying kinds are probably thebiggest welfare problem facing birds in zoos, yetthey are also one of the least discussed. Theserestrictions include surgical mutilations (mostlypinioning) which permanently disable a bird andprevent them from ever flying; such a severealteration of a bird’s natural behaviour wouldprobably be seen as unacceptable for any otherspecies held in captivity.Pinioning is mainly used on wildfowl, storks, cranesand flamingos, with two of the sampled zoosmutilating all of their captive wildfowl and flamingos.Whilst there is some opposition to it from withinthe zoo industry, this appears to be fairly limited.Indeed, in the UK several organisations representingcaptive collections of birds campaigned strongly toprevent the practice from being prohibited underthe Animal Welfare Act. Although there are welfarerisks involved in keeping some full-winged speciesin roofed enclosures (e.g. injuries caused by flyinginto mesh), this is not a barrier to seeking otheralternatives. Zoos are willing to spend millions ofpounds on enclosures which they believe (butothers would reject) provide improved conditionsfor ‘characteristic megafauna’ but few are willingto do the same for birds.Tethering of birds of prey is a visible restriction yetseems to raise fewer concerns from zoo visitors.As with pinioning, there seems to be little internaldebate about the ethics of this restraint. In sampledzoos which used this restraint method, up to halfof all birds at individual zoos were tethered. Zoosclaim such birds are flown every day but this hasbeen shown to be highly unlikely and even whenbirds are flown in displays it is just for a fewminutes. Smaller owl species, which are widelyseen as unsuited to this restraint, were seen to betethered at some zoos visited.Common methods of housing and training birdsof prey involve some level of distress or cruelty,such as manning and 62% of birds in zoos whichtethered birds were not even provided with shelterand water.Overall, 63% of all birds in zoos that use flightrestriction methods were either pinioned, wingclipped or tethered, over 2,600 birds in total in thesample of 20 zoos studied. When we include thefive Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust centres with zoolicenses in England then we found 5,663 birdspinioned in these fives zoos alone.11

ConservationConservation is stated to be the raison d’etre ofthe modern zoo. Coupled with education, claimsof conservation contribution have becomesomething of a mantra of the zoo industry inrecent years, despite the fact that a Governmentcommissioned study confirmed that “concernsremain, however, with regard to the lack ofavailable evidence about the effectiveness ofthese [conservation and education] projects”(ADAS 2010).For many animals, captive breeding is pointed toas one of the main conservation contributionsthat zoos make. According to BIAZA, zoos “play avital role in conservation work, including breedingand managing species that are in danger ofextinction in the wild” (BIAZA 2013). However,despite these claims, a large proportion of animalsheld captive in zoos do not belong to species thatare threatened in the wild. The study suggeststhat this is certainly the case with regard tocaptive birds.Analysis of the available animal stock lists for thezoos sampled as part of the study found that82.21% of the 4,762 individuals included in thelists belonged to species that were not threatenedin the wild. When considered in this way, it isdifficult to see what possible contribution toconservation efforts is made by holding thesethousands of birds captive.ReintroductionsIn addition to captive breeding, reintroduction ofanimals to the wild is something which zoos claimas a reason for their continued existence. Indeed, itis an oft-held belief that the purpose of breedingprogrammes is just this – that animals will, one daybe released. This argument is often accepted atface value by zoo visitors, despite the vast majorityof animals bred in zoos never being released to thewild. Very little evidence was found of zoos in thesample taking part in reintroduction programmes,with only two of the 17 zoos with a website orwhich produced printed materials making referenceto reintroducing captive-bred animals.The two that do mention reintroduction offer amisleading picture. Both make reference to theHawaiian goose, or nene (Branta sandvicensis), andcaptive breeding and reintroduction of the species.Both zoos are part of the same chain and althoughone of the guidebooks gives vague reference to itsinvolvement in the reintroduction, the other notesthat it was a third zoo in the chain that wasresponsible for the breeding (which took place inthe 1950s) and reintroduction (in the 1960s). Itshould be remembered that, due to the fact thatsuch a high percentage of birds in the zoos studiedhave been subjected to pinioning, there is nopossible opportunity for those birds to be releasedto the wild.One further zoo is identified in inspection reportsas being involved in reintroduction programmes forbirds but the programme does not involve the birdskept and bred in the zoo itself. As such, the purposeof keeping and breeding captive birds appears tohold little purpose in the support of release andrepopulation programmes.IUCN Red ListNumber of SpeciesNumber of individual birdsNot EvaluatedLeast ConcernNear ThreatenedVulnerableEndangeredCritically EndangeredExtinct in the WildUnclear from stocklistCrossbreedDomestic5428532341981755416294329155416913044315197Total numbers450476212

© C. RedmondScops owl displayEducationEducation is considered to be one of the coreobjectives of zoos (DEFRA, 2012d ) and a zoo’scontribution to education is expected to beproportionate to the size and type of zoo.Zoos are required, as a basic minimum standard,to have a written education strategy, an activeeducation programme, facilities for educationpurposes (usually a room of some kind) andaccurate information about the species exhibited(DEFRA, 2012a). Education should be aimed at allvisitors, not just children, and both the formal(e.g. school visits) and non-formal (e.g. othervisitors) sectors. Where possible, educationalmaterial should be linked to the NationalCurriculum (DEFRA, 2012d).The study looked at the role the sampled zoos playin educating their visitors and revealed a mix ofgood and bad practices.Most visitors will probably rely entirely on theinformation signs that should be clear on eachenclosure for all of their information about theparticular species. The vast majority (91.55%) ofenclosures examined had signs, which is to beexpected, but that leaves 8.45% that didn’t;immediately it means that the visitor is unable toaccess information. 12% of signs did not identifythe species correctly, which is perhaps worse thanproviding no information at all. The provision ofEducating visitors in anymeaningful way about birdsis not a priority for zoosbiological data and conservation status scoredpoorly too.Provision of basic information about the species ondisplay was apparent across the board: in printedmaterials available to visitors, presentations andtalks. All of these are the ways in which visitorsshould be accessing information about the birds.Over half (58%) of zoo websites did not givedetailed information about their birds.Presentations and talks provide the perfectopportunity to really educate an audience about aparticular species, their behaviours, biology andhabitats, as well as the threats they face in the wildand what people can do to support conservationefforts. Yet, less than a third of zoos offer either apresentation or a talk about birds at all.Seven presentations, involving a total of 24 birds orgroups of birds, were observed, but not a singleone gave any detailed information on conservationor even explained why they had these species atthe zoo. Only 12.5% of these presentations meteducational standards at a level that should beprovided by enclosure signs (which should be seenas minimal). DEFRA’s guide to the provisions of theZoo Licensing Act state that animal presentations“sould raise awareness in relation to conservationof biodiversity”; clearly, the zoos visited are failingto do so.The talks on offer did not fare much better. Onlyone of the four provided an adequate level ofinformation and only one zoo tried to explain whyit kept these species in captivity, explaining thatpenguins were kept in order to breed them andsend them to other zoos worldwide. Despite thefact that three of the four species discussed duringthe talks were threatened in the wild, no mentionof this was made and an opportunity to educate onconservation threats was missed entirely.It seems from the study that educating visitors inany meaningful way about the birds that are heldcaptive is not a priority for the zoos.13

The ethics ofkeeping birds in zoosDiscussion of animal ethics is a necessary part ofany examination of the captivity of animals. Thisreport raises important issues surrounding theconfinement of wild animals in zoos: welfare issuessuch as flight restriction and restraint, poor livingconditions, as well as limited conservation andeducation values.We have seen that as far as captive management ofbirds is concerned, flight restrictions has supportersand opponents: pinioning, wing clipping andtethering restrict the free movement of birds tovarying extents but, it is argued, the former allowswaterfowl and others to have more space than aroofed enclosure would and the latter allows birdsof prey to be more easily flown. Which is moreethical? If birds can only be kept in captivity if theyare subjected to management methods that cancause physical pain, distress or result in a mutilationthat permanently prevents them from flying, is itacceptable to confine them in captivity at all?As for zoos’ conservation and education claims,they have been strongly refuted by former zoodirector David Hancocks:“This point has concerned me for many years. Ibelieve that the loud trumpeting of zoos abouttheir role in conservation – which is in truthmarginal, and mostly technical in nature – is, forthe sake merely of zoo promotion, resulting inmisguided and complacent attitudes among thegeneral public.Zoos have managed to convince many people thatthe only important wildlife species are the typicalzoo species, despite these being just a speck of thelife forms that exist on the planet, and have thenpersuaded many of their visitors that the zoos’efforts to breed these species means they will besaved from extinction. It is a disgraceful con-trick.And, I fear, a great disservice to conservation. I know,too, that the exaggerated and noisy clamouring byzoos for centre stage attention in the conservationfield is deeply resented by conservation biologistswho are working in the wild, actually savingwildlife and wild habitats.” (Hancocks, 2010)Although domestic species are not uncommon inzoos, most birds are of wild species, even if born incaptivity for generations. Domestication – adaptionby humans to captivity through genetic and developmentalchanges – has been described as still inits infancy for psittacines (parrots), for example:“they still share natural behaviour and responsethresholds with their wild counterparts and shouldbe considered wild animals” (Kalmar, Janssens, &Moons, 2010).Whilst ‘intelligence’ should not be the only factorin deciding the fate of captive birds, it is clear thatseveral species (at least) do display sophisticatedcognitive abilities, particularly psittacines andcorvids (crow family), including tool use, episodicmemory, the ability to predict the behaviour ofconspecifics (Prior, Schwarz & Gu, 2008) and complexproblem solving (Anderson, 2010). A 2008 studyreported the first example of self-recognition in anon-mammalian species – in magpies (Prior, Schwarz& Gu, 2008). Social learning – in this instance, birdslearning from each other that particular individualhumans were dangerous – has been reported incrows. Such learning can evolve over time to becomeculture (Cornell, Marzluff & Pecoraro, 2012).Martial eagle,tethered© C. Redmond14

© C. Redmond © C. RedmondIn addition, birds, like many species across theanimal kingdom, display a range of emotions;although like reptiles and fish they lack expressivefaces which can make it harder to interpret theirfeelings (Bekoff, 2007). In 1872 Charles Darwinwrote about how animals, including birds, feelemotions including happiness, sorrow and jealousy,and can display deceit and a sense of humour(Anderson, 2010).In their natural habitats, birds face infinitechallenges, both positive and negative. The ‘wild’is a dangerous place, even without the additionalpressures of habitat destruction, poaching andglobal warming caused by humans. Birds face thedaily challenges of avoiding being prey (or thechallenge of being a predator), of finding a mate,defending a territory or flying thousands of mileson annual migrations (where they often have toalso avoid hunters).Rose, Parsons and Farinato (2009), in a discussionof mortality rates in captive and wild-livingcetaceans, in a question which is as relevant tobirds, ask: “What replaces, with equal impact,White woodpeckerwith skin infectionKestrel withinjury to facepredators, food shortages, storms, ship strikes,fishing gear entanglement, and other causes ofdeath in the wild once a marine mammal is incaptivity? One obvious culprit is a degree andform of stress that is uniquely suffered byconfined animals”.However, this does not make captivity a betteralternative, despite the comments of many in thezoo industry. Food and veterinary care may beprovided by zoos, leading one zoo scientist to claimthat “for some species, the zoo trumps the wild”(Stern, 2008), but wild animals are uniquelyadapted to their own environment and occupyspecialised places in their ecosystems, and thoseplaces are not zoos. Considering captivity to bethe best option for wild animals is akin to givingup on conservation and stepping aside to allow thecontinued destruction of global habitats.Increasingly, animals are being recognised assentient beings with their own emotions anddesires and people are awakening to the realisationthat using them for our amusement denies thevalue and rights of those individuals (Redmond,2009; 2010).In terms of animal ethics, zoos infringe on thebasic needs of animals in order to benefit thesecondary desires (amusement) of humans. Anyethic concerning animals should start with regardto the animal herself: her cognitive capacities,interests and needs. A basic step towards ameaningful ethic would require an end to usinganimals for our entertainment.According to Randy Malamud, Professor of Englishat Georgia State University and author ofReading Zoos:“I think that what people see inside the zoo cageis a symbol of our power to capture and controlother aspects of the world. They see what wasonce a marvellous, vibrant, sentient creature, full ofinstincts and emotions and passions and life-force,reduced to a spectacle, a prisoner, a trophy of ourconquest of the natural world. They see a celebrationof the human power to displace and reconfigure ananimal’s life for our own amusement and supposededification.” (Malamud, 2009)Malamud has written (2009) about how seeingan animal in a zoo, out of context and out of herown environment, means that we really cannotexperience that animal. This is a view shared byenvironmental author Derrick Jensen (2007), whosays of zoos:“We learn that you can remove a creature fromher habitat and still have a creature. We see a sealion in a concrete pool and believe that we’re stillseeing a sea lion. But we are not. […] A sea lion isher habitat. She is the school of fish she chases.She is the water. She is the cold wind blowing overthe ocean. […] She is the process of being a sealion in place.We could, and should, say the same for everyother creature, whether wolverine, gibbon, macawor elephant. I have a friend who […] ecstaticallyreported to me one time that he saw a wolverine.I could have responded, ‘Big deal. I’ve seen plentyin zoos. They look like big weasels.’ But I havenever seen a wolverine in the wild, which means Ihave never seen a wolverine.”15

Moluccan Cockatoo© C. RedmondSuggestions forfuture researchThe aim of the commissioned study was toprovide an overview of the situation for birdsheld in zoos in England: their welfare and what,if any, conservation and education benefits occur.From the brief review (looking at just 20 zoos indetail) a number of areas for future research canbe highlighted:• Given the issues identified within such a smallsample, it would be beneficial to conductsimilar research to consider a largerrepresentative sample of zoos as well asthose in other parts of the UK (as this studylooks at England only).• Valuable research could be carried out toconsider specific categories of zoos in greaterdepth to see if highlighted problems are specificto some types of zoological collections, e.g.Bird of prey centres or other specialist aviancollections such as waterfowl.• Mortality of birds in sampled zoos over a oneyear period were briefly looked at in this studyand this is an area of high importance for futureresearch, particularly as it appears to be poorlymonitored by the zoo licensing regime. Moredetailed sources of data, such as stud books foravian species, should be obtained, with aspecies-by-species analysis as well as mortality“What people see insidethe zoo cage is a symbolof our power to captureand control”.Prof. Randy Malamud,Georgia state Universityfor birds under one year old (first year mortalityrates are expected to be higher (e.g. see Murnand Hunt, 2008). Further data needs collectingto ascertain the reasons for higher levels ofmortality and to provide comparison betweenyears and species to see if some species areprone to higher mortality rates than others,possibly as a result of welfare problems in zoos.• More in-depth study of flight restriction methodsand potential physical and behavioural harmcaused to the birds. Cromie and Nicholls (1995)noted that “further research needs to be carriedout into the physiological effects of tethering.Systems for reducing the problems of tetheringneed to be devised or introduced more widelywith appropriate education. Managementtechniques require further development withemphasis on allowing flying birds to be kept loose”.16

ConclusionThe Captive Animals’ Protection Society believesthat holding animals captive in zoos is unethicalfrom an animal rights perspective and thus rejectsthe keeping of birds, and indeed any animal inzoos based on this fundamental principle.However, putting the issue of animal rights toone side, the findings of the study reveal significantanimal welfare problems caused by the confinementof birds in zoos. Most important are factors relatingto restraint and restriction, primarily pinioningand tethering. Surgically mutilating birds topermanently deprive them of the ability to fly, ortethering (tying) them to a perch for hours at atime – or even for days, weeks or months –cannot be seen as practices to be continued andit is suggested that these practices should beopposed in the strongest terms.The ‘one size fits all’ approach to enclosures,whereby birds are housed in enclosures of auniform nature, regardless of their species-specificneeds, had been observed by the study author inover a decade of monitoring conditions in zoos,but have been confirmed by the analysisconducted here. The lack of a varied environment,pond or species-appropriate features all reveal alack of thought put into what birds require toexpress normal behaviours, which is not only arequirement of zoo licensing legislation butshould be a basic desire of any zoo.Many of the enclosures seen during the visits totwenty randomly sampled zoos left a hauntingimpression. The approach to housing birds inthe zoos studied speaks volumes as to the zoos’attitudes towards the individuals in their care,birds they claim to display as ‘ambassadors fortheir species’.Some welfare issues are not so clear to theaverage visitor, but this does not diminish theirimportance. Most visitors to a zoo with largenumbers of waterfowl who have had half of oneof their wings cut off (pinioned) may never evennotice. They may enjoy a day watching birds whothey think are experiencing the freedom of lakesand extensive grassed areas, oblivious to themutilation. However, when aware of it andspecifically looking for effects of pinioning, theflapping and stumbling of the birds is clear. Whenfirst clearly observed on a large bird such as acrane, the visual nature of pinioning is a shock.Tethering is a practice which cannot be hiddenfrom public view, but it is claimed that these birdsare flown daily so this is not great a restriction.Yet this study shows that this is not always thecase and even when birds are flown it may onlybe for a few minutes.Mortality rates are also not known by visitors, andthis research reveals they may not be noticed bytoo many zoo inspectors either. Despite this,annual death rates appear higher than wouldbe expected, particularly as zoos are meant toprotect birds from the usual causes of death suchas illness, starvation or predation.Ask most people their opinion on the role ofzoos and conservation is likely to be the numberone point. What role do zoos exactly play inconserving avian species? Over 80% of theindividual birds in the sampled zoos are notof threatened species. There appears to beminimal involvement in co-ordinated breedingprogrammes and even less in actuallyreintroducing species to their natural habitats.We have already seen how poor welfare leads toa negative educational perspective for visitors. Butwhat of ‘traditional’ forms of education? 12% ofenclosure signs did not even correctly identify thespecies held and printed materials and websites,where they existed, largely failed to provide muchinformation either.Presentations and talks provide the idealopportunity to present a whole package tothe visitor: discussion of welfare, educationalmessages about the species and informationabout the threats they face and what eachindividual person can do to make positivechanges. Yet sadly these opportunities appearlost. Not one of the 24 individual presentationsobserved gave any detailed information onconservation; no presentations or talks adequatelyexplained why the zoos kept the species theydid, even if they were endangered.If zoos were providing high standards of animalwelfare, were educating visitors about the biologyor natural habitats of the birds they confined, orseriously conducting conservation programmesthat protected natural habitats and reintroducedthreatened species, then their activities wouldmatch the level of the grand claims they make.However, this study shows that they are failing todo this. Even if they were, it does not negate theethical objections to keeping thousands of wildbirds on display to serve the requirement of aninquisitive public to be entertained.The study raises a number of important questions,some of them (such as flight restrictions) rarelypreviously seen as a topic of debate. It is clearfrom the work carried out to date that there isa need for further research, but now is the timeto start encouraging a more open debate aboutthe future of zoos and an effective andcompassionate alternative for conservation.17

ReferencesADAS, 2012. Review of Zoos’ Conservation and Education Contributionwww.archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/zoos/documents/review-zoosconservation.pdfAccessed 20.2.2013Anderson, P.K. 2010. Human-Bird Interactions. In: (Eds) Duncan, I.J.H.,Hawkins, P. The Welfare of Domestic Fowl and Other Captive Birds.Springer, 2010Bekoff, M. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals. New World Library,2007BIAZA, 2013. Good zoos and aquariums Accessed 20.2.2013Casamitjana, J. 2003. Enclosure Size in Captive Wild Mammals.A comparison between UK zoological collections and the wild. TheCaptive Animal’s Protection Society, 2003. http://www.captiveanimals.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Enclosure-size.pdfClubb, R. and Mason, G. 2002. A review of the welfare of zooelephants in Europe. Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, 2002Clubb, R. and Mason, G. 2003. Captivity effects on wide-rangingcarnivores. Nature, 425, 473-474. 2003Cornell, H., Marzluff, J., & Pecoraro, S. 2012. Social learning spreadsknowledge about dangerous humans among American crows.Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 499-508Cromie, R., and Nicholls, M. 1995. The welfare and conservationaspects of keeping birds of prey in captivity. A report to the RSPCA byDrs Ruth Cromie and Mike Nicholls. Royal Society for the Prevention ofCruelty to Animals, 1995DEFRA, 2012a. Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2012.http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/standards-of-zoo-practice.pdfDEFRA, 2012d. Zoos Expert Committee Handbook. Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, November 2012.http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/11/21/zoo-expertcommittee-handbook-pb13815/Department of Primary Industries, 2013. Chicken MeatProduction. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia.http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/animals-andlivestock/Poultry/poultry-management/chicken-production.Accessed 26.1.13Dickinson, P. 2011. An opinion on to pinion or not to pinion. 8 July2011. http://peterdickinson.hubpages.com/hub/An-opinion-on-topinion-or-not-to-pinion.Accessed 26.11.12EFSA. 2005. The Impact of the Current Housing and HusbandrySystems on the Health and Welfare of Farmed Domestic Rabbits.European Food Safety Authority – Panel on Animal Health andWelfare, 2005Fiby, M. 2008. Trends in Zoo Design - Changing Needs in Keeping WildAnimals for a Visiting Audience. Topos, The International Review ofLandscape Architecture and Urban Design, Number 62, 2008Fox, N.C. and Chick, J. 2007. Falconry in the United Kingdom:An audit of the current position prepared by the Hawk Board.Hawk Board Publications, 2007GFAS, 2011. Standards for Animal Care of Arboreal/Perching Birds.Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, April 2011GFAS, 2012. About GFAS. Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.http://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/about-gfas/ Accessed12.12.12Hancocks, D. 2010. Interview. Release, Summer 2010. Captive Animals’Protection SocietyHawk Board. 2011. Welfare Guidelines for Nocturnal and Diurnal Birdsof Prey. The Hawk BoardHosey, G., Melfi, V. and Pankhurst, S. 2009. Zoo animals: behaviour,management, and welfare. Oxford University Press, 2009IAATE, 2008. Position statement: tethering birds. The InternationalAssociation of Avian Trainers and Educators, 2008The IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)maintains the Red List of Threatened Species. This “is widely recognizedas the most comprehensive, objective global approach for evaluatingthe conservation status of plant and animal species” (IUCN, 2012).Jensen, D. 2007. Thought to exist in the wild: Awakening from thenightmare of zoos. NVU, 2007Kalmar, I.D, Janssens, G.P.J & Moons, C.P.H. 2010. Guidelines andEthical Considerations for Housing and Management of PsittacineBirds Used in Research. ILAR Journal, Volume 51, Number 4 2010.pp.409-423. Institute for Laboratory Animal ResearchKohler, I.V., Preston, S.H. & Bingaman Lackey, L. 2006. Comparativemortality levels among selected species of captive animals.Demographic Research, Vol. 15, Article 14, pp. 413-434, 2006Malamud, R. 2009. Interview. Release, Summer 2009. Captive Animals’Protection SocietyMartin, S. 2012. To Jess or Not To Jess, That is the Question. SteveMartin, Natural Encounters, Inc. http://www.naturalencounters.com/documents/JessesArticle.pdf. Accessed 5.12.12Murn, C. & Hunt, S. 2008. An assessment of two methods used torelease red kites (Milvus milvus). Avian Biology Research, 1 (2), 2008,pp53-57Parry-Jones, M. 1994. Training Birds of Prey. David & Charles, 1994Prior, H., Schwarz, A. & Gu, O. 2008. Mirror-Induced Behavior in theMagpie (Pica pica): Evidence of Self-Recognition, PLoS Biology, 6, 8,1642-1650Redmond, C. 2009. The Ethics of Animal Captivity: Circuses, Rodeosand Zoos. In: (Ed) Bekoff, M. The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights andAnimal Welfare. Greenwood, 2009 and Redmond, C. 2010. Zoos:Failing animals, conservation and education. Critical Society, Issue 4,Autumn 2010, pp24-34Rees, P.A. 2011. An Introduction to Zoo Biology and Management.Wiley-Blackwell, 2011Rose, N.A., Parsons. E.C.M. & Farinato, R. 2009. The Case AgainstMarine Mammals in Captivity, 4th edition. The Humane Societyof the United States and the World Society for the Protection ofAnimals, 2009Sawyer, R.C.J. 1997. Twenty five years at Cobham. AviculturalMagazine Vol. 103 No. 2 (1997)Startup, C. 1967. The Clipping and Pinioning of Wings. J. small Anim.Pmact. Vol. 8, 1967, pp. 401 to 403Stern, A. 2008. Animals fare better in zoos as experts learn more.Reuters, May 30 2008. http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN3044801120080530?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=401Turner, J., Garcés, L. and Smith, W. 2005. The Welfare of BroilerChickens in the European Union. Compassion in World FarmingTrust, 2005VIVA, 2013. A Recipe for Disaster. Vegetarian's InternationalVoice for Animals. http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/chickens/broilerfactsheet.htm. Accessed 26.1.13Zhang, S.L., Yang, S.H., Li, B., Xu, Y.C., Ma, J.H., Xu, J.F., Zhang, X.G.2011. An Alternate and Reversible Method for Flight Restraint ofCranes. Zoo Biology 30: 342–348 (2011)Design: www.designsolutions.me.uk18

Yes! I’d like to support CAPS!Please fill in this form and return. You can call us if youwould prefer to pay securely over the phone +44 (0)845 3303911 or +44 (0)161 869 0020 (Monday-Friday 9am-5pm)or visit www.captiveanimals.org/donate to pay via asecure payment site.NameAddressTelephoneE-mailPostcodeI’d like to join CAPS£24 Standard Membership (UK)£30/ €38 Standard Membership (Overseas)£18 E-MembershipI would like to make a donation insteadI would like to make a donation to CAPS to the value of(please enter)British PoundsEurosGift Aid Declaration (UK only)Please tick to include Gift Aid at no extra cost to youI am a UK taxpayer and want any donations that I have made inthe last 4 years and all future donations, until I notify otherwise,treated as Gift Aid donations (You must pay an amount ofIncome/Capital Gains Tax equal to the tax we reclaim on yourdonations, currently 25p in the £1)Method of paymentI would like to pay by standing order (please fill in the details below):To the Manager ofBank/Building SocietyBank FULL addressPlease pay Captive Animals’ Protection Society the sum of £from my account each month/year (please select) Commencing on/ / until further notice.Account number Sort Code - -Signature Date / /I would like to pay by credit/debit card (please fill in details below)Please debit my Visa/Mastercard/Maestro Card for the following amount:British PoundsCard numberExpiry Date / / Valid From / /Issue Number3-digit codeEurosSignature Date / /I enclose a cheque/postal order payable toCaptive Animals’ Protection Society for £(UK only)CAPSCaptive Animals’ Protection SocietyPO Box 540, Salford, M5 0DS, UKPhone: +44 (0)845 330 3911 (local-call rate)or +44 (0)161 869 0020E-mail: info@captiveanimals.orgWebsites: www.captiveanimals.orgwww.irishcircuses.orgThe Captive Animals' Protection Society is aregistered charity in England and Wales No.1124436Please return this form to:CAPS, PO Box 540, Salford, M5 0DS, UK Many thanks