A closer look at the policy reveals a more nuanced, and legitimate, position than the headlines suggest.

The so-called ‘woke’ Greens are once again under attack, this time over claims that they want to ban zoos and force dog owners to buy licences.

According to the right-wing tabloids, the proposals are nothing short of outrageous. The party is “barking mad,” the stories suggest, for wanting to shut down Britain’s zoos and put dog owners “on a very expensive lead.”

But a closer look at the policy reveals a more nuanced, and legitimate, position than the headlines suggest.

Despite the uproar, the party is not proposing to abolish zoos outright. Under the policy, zoo licences could still be granted to facilities that care for injured animals or breed endangered species for reintroduction into the wild.

The broader aim, according to the party’s official policy, is to oppose the “wholesale breeding, manipulation and destruction of those animals who are chosen as companions to the human race.”

In other words, the focus is on reducing unnecessary breeding and prioritising welfare and conservation.

But predictably, the announcement quickly ruffled feathers in the anti-woke media.

The Mail raged that “killjoy Greens want to abolish zoos and force every dog owner to have a licence.”

GB News thundered that the party “would force Britons to hold a licence to keep dogs as pets.”

The Express hollered: “Fury as Greens say they will force every UK dog owner to have one thing.”

Conservative figures joined the criticism. Shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins said:

“The Greens are barking mad for wanting to put dog owners on a very expensive lead and shut the UK’s highly-respected zoos.

“Zoos inspire millions of children about wildlife and do vital conservation work for endangered species.

“The Green killjoys want to throw this all away, while making dog ownership unaffordable. It’s a dog’s dinner of a policy.”

Amid the outrage, one key discussion is largely absent, that is the real pros and cons of zoos.

Supporters argue that zoos play an important role in education, tourism and conservation. Millions of visitors each year encounter wildlife they might never otherwise see, and many zoos claim to support breeding programmes for endangered species.

Yet critics say the conservation case is often overstated.

Animal protection charity Freedom for Animals analysed recent “stock” records from more than 200 of the 300-plus licensed zoos across Great Britain. Their findings suggest most animals are not endangered, many suffer high mortality rates, and a negligible amount are ever released into the wild.

The data paints a picture of captivity that is ineffective for conservation and often harmful, or even fatal, for the animals themselves.

So, what about dog licences?

The proposal to licence dog owners has also been met with loud condemnation but, again, the debate is more complex than the headlines suggest.

Supporters of licensing schemes argue they can improve reunification rates for lost pets, reduce stray dog populations, and increase accountability for irresponsible ownership

Yet these potential benefits are absent from the outraged coverage.

Given that stories about people being seriously injured, or even killed, by dogs appear regularly in the news cycle, it’s striking that the discussion rarely turns to preventive measures such as better regulation of ownership.

The real questions, about the ethics and effectiveness of zoos, and about how best to ensure responsible dog ownership, are complex and worth debating.

Unfortunately, they’re drowned out by the noise of ‘woke’ and ‘barking mad’ Greens.

Still, why are we surprised? As Macbeth would have it, “it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” Unfortunately, in this instance, what it does signify is the impossibility of having a serious grown-up national conversation yet again.

Comments are closed.