Born Free ditches Martin Clunes – an opportunity missed.

Can we really trust this man to humanely look after his elephants?

Has the Born Free Foundation missed an opportunity?

The Born Free foundation has severed its ties with actor Martin Clunes following his ill advised decision to ride on an elephant and worse still to pull on its ear in the process. He has been denounced across social media and unfortunately has lost all his kudos as an ambassador for animals.

To be fair, Martin Clunes has shown beyond doubt in many of his programmes that he is a genuine animal lover, so should we judge him so savagely. It was a very bad error of judgement by him and he is probably mortified. He allegedly voiced his concerns to the production crew about hurting the elephant by pulling at its ear and climbing up on it.

TV producers and directors are the ones at fault.

The TV production company and its producers, advisers and director are mostly at fault for their crass decision to include such a shot in the show in the first place , but have escaped most, if not all, of the censure. Rather than use the situation to highlight the plight of these elephants they chose the audience pleaser route of pressurising Mr Clunes to make an exhibition of himself with little thought to the outrage it would cause. The whole incident highlights the media approach to and misunderstanding of animal welfare and rights issues, and reinforces their ethos that animals are purely there to be utilised for entertainment and as audience pullers particularly when you can have a gullible celebrity presenter paid to front it and perform as they are told.

Unfortunately, Mr Clunes has now added himself to the list of presenters who perpetuate this creed that is acceptable to misuse animals for entertainment purposes irrespective of their rights and dignity.

Getting up close and personal is too irresistible for some animal lovers.

elephant, cruelty to elephants, chained elephant,
Is this any way to treat such a intelligent and dignified animal.

Being an animal lover is a double edged sword and many find it difficult to draw the line between being lovers and abusers.  Animal loving instincts can lead us all astray at some stage as for most people the whole point of “loving” is  to surround themselves with animals and take every opportunity to interact with them preferably at close quarters.

The lure of getting up close and personal can prove too irresistible and when presented with perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity of riding an elephant, swimming with a dolphin, or having a selfie with a bird of prey,  monkey or snake many find it difficult to ignore. We kid ourselves that just the odd encounter does not really matter, little realising that these animals are put through this manhandling and stress continually.  There is an extreme conflict of interest involved in these situations and unfortunately many cannot resist.

It could be argued that the Born Free Foundation has missed a trick with this heaven sent opportunity to use this highly publicised incident to their advantage by initiating an ad campaign with Martin Clunes to highlight that everyone is vulnerable and capable of making such a bad decision, but once they have made the error they might think twice in the future.

For more articles like this visit:

More reading on the subject:

Tourists abroad risking life and limb.

The lure of close up animal attractions.

Fund-raising Giant Pandas for rent and loan.

Giant Pandas are “rented” out by China to zoos across the world on ten-year contracts costing a million dollars per year and all the proceeds are allegedly used to fund their conservation, the breeding centres and their release back into the wild.

They always come in pairs in the hope they will breed. The zoos pray they will breed as any cubs born will boost their visitors and make them tens of millions in revenue. Any cub born costs the zoos a further “baby tax” and are returned to China for breeding at 2 to 3 years old to support a healthy gene pool.

I don’t know whether it is me, but there seems something wrong with all this. China seems to do a very good job at breeding them at home so why ship them to zoos to breed? Although the Pandas are not harmed it can almost be likened to killing big game in Africa and using the proceeds from the hunting licences to protect other animals and their habitat.

My main concern is that the system seems to revolve around making money for the zoos and not any conservation purpose or perhaps I am being too cynical. In fact only 90 cubs  have apparently been born outside China in 35 years. There is no doubt though, that a zoo which can afford to keep a pair of pandas is on to a winner.

Pandas can assure a zoo’s financial future

Zoos want them and are willing to pay the astronomical prices for them because they can bolster their financial future by drawing in the crowds. In 2012, Toronto Zoo paid the going price of $1 million per annum for a pair and they produced two cubs which resulted in visitor numbers shooting up and the bucks rolling in.

In 2017, the zoo allowed their move to Calgary Zoo which spent $30 million on facilities to house them and cope with the expected increase in visitors, but will make tens of millions more on the investment. At least four zoos in the USA have Pandas and pay the yearly fee for the “privilege of housing” them.

Visitor numbers shoot up.

Edinburgh zoo rented a pair in 2011 with the 10 year contract costing £600,000 a year and they must be returned at the end of  this agreement. Not that the zoo is too worried as visitor numbers shot up by 4 million in the first two years at £16 plus a head.

But the crowds have a habit of losing interest if a cub is not born to reinvigorate the attraction and so zoo owners pray that they will mate. Luckily a cub was born in 2017 to much excitement and media coverage and probably to the relief of the zoo’s accountants.

Captive numbers have increased, but for what?

The number of wild and captive Pandas has increased to over 2,000 and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have downgraded their endangered species label to “vulnerable”, but this does not mean that they are plentiful in the wild or will ever be, as there is very little room in suitable habitats for their release.

China has bred and reared over 400 giant pandas and love to show off all the cute babies to world acclaim, but allegedly only 10 have ever been released into the wild since 1983 and only two of these have survived which appears to make a total nonsense of breeding them  for release.

Few are being released into the wild successfully

Some cynics have suggested that the Giant Panda is used as a “strategic asset for geopolitical reasons” because of the many trade agreements coinciding with their arrival in a country. The Pandas at Edinburgh coincided with a £2.6 billion worth of trade contracts for Britain. Zoos in France, Canada, Australia, Malaysia and Thailand also received Pandas following trade agreements.

So what we have is dozens of Pandas being shipped around the world as fund-raisers for zoos and their own conservation. Is this a bad thing or is this the future for conserving species and a policy based on commercialism that we have to increasingly accept.

With so few apparently being released into the wild successfully and their habitat decreasing due to human encroachment, they are probably destined to continue to exist only as zoo exhibits making huge revenue for zoos and China. Lets hope not.

The lure of ‘get up close’ animal attractions

What is Zoonasia?

%d bloggers like this: