SO the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) has made an award to Blackpool Zoo.

Well, considering UFAW was founded to improve the conditions under which experimental animals -- those used by the vivisection business -- were kept, this doesn't carry much weight if you know the background.

UFAW now includes under its remit animals kept in zoos. Its director general, Professor James Kirkwood, worked for many years as the chief veterinary officer at London Zoo.

UFAW, by what it does, supports the promotion and sanitisation of zoos. It ostensibly "improves" animal welfare -- whatever that is. It does not support animal freedom. For Blackpool Zoo and the council to claim that their award is of world significance is yet another piece of "spin" to confuse the public.

UFAW can be said to be a part of the zoo industry by promoting it and by having zoo supporters among its staff. How, therefore, can a UFAW award be anything more than self-gratification? It lacks any form of objectivity.

Blackpool Zoo is just that -- a zoo. It is not an ark for wildlife. Just what contribution has it made to real conservation? I don't mean by that the self-congratulatory praises of the numerous "tags" and specialist groups set up by the zoos themselves.

And by the way, isn't Mr Redmond a consultant for the Born Free Foundation? (A group that claims to be opposed to the keeping of animals in zoos). It would seem he is a little confused about where he stands on the issue.

Louise McGettigan,

South Street,

Lytham.