So could you put your hand up if you've heard of a place called the Tiger Temple in Thailand? Excellent. Preaching to converted-- that's what we like. So I'm going to go through this very, very quickly then. So it's going to be a talk of two halves. In the first half, I want to set the scene. And the second half, I want to tell you the stuff I've been doing since 2015 when the study in the first half came out. So this is the Tiger Temple in Thailand. These words-- promotional materials. As you can see, in 2015, they had the 2015 Travelers' Choice TripAdvisor logo stamped up there. And it said that it was founded in 1994 as a first monastery and sanctuary for numerous wild animals. It took in several tiger cubs, where the mothers had been killed by poachers, so often to tiger cubs. And the hands-on approach of the monks resulted in happy tigers and successful breeding program.  The entry fee from the 300 to 600 visitors every day -- fund will be used in the future, at some unspecified point, to fund building a larger tiger sanctuary, which will allow the animals to live in an almost  natural environment. The temple is reforesting a large amount of land nearby to possibly release the tigers into the wild. And, for a large period of time, if you're a tourist in Thailand, you would be absolutely forgiven for thinking these are nice people who are doing wonderful things for tigers, which, in retrospect -- as of last year -- is pretty much seen not to be the case. It was closed by the Thai authorities in May in 2016 -- sorry, not last year. They took out 137 tigers. They found 40 carcasses of tiger cubs in the freezer. They apprehended the monk and two other guys leaving the temple in a lorry containing tiger skins, 700 amulets made from tiger parts, and 10 tiger fangs. And Thai police found what was thought to be a slaughterhouse and tiger holding facility used in suspected animal trafficking network they believed  was used by the Tiger Temple to hold live tigers before slaughtering them for their skins, meat, and bones to be exported. There's an almost comical -- or, it would be comical, were it not for the fate of the tigers -- difference between how it is portraying itself and the actual standards going on there.  And this, to me, was entirely news  when I started looking into this area in about 2014. I was a bit of a latecomer. So I was asked to answer some questions. So is this an exception? What sort of animal attractions are out there? How many tourist animals are involved? And what are the impacts? What I wasn't looking at was zoos. What I was interested in were what I call wildlife tourist attractions, where people go to a specific institution with the expectation of having a direct interaction -- meaning, hands-on, typically -- with a specific animal. So we're talking about dolphin area, we're talking about tigers and lions and bears, oh my -- that sort of thing. And I think it's not an exaggeration to say that before we sat down and looked at this, you couldn't -- there was nobody who could tell you what was out there, what was being done, how many types of interaction there were, what numbers we were talking about, and what the impacts were. We only know very roughly now -- I mean, what I'm about to show you from a desk survey. We absolutely didn't go in and audit everything -- that would have taken several lifetimes. But we just looked at the best evidence, and created some logical framework. So it let us find out. So we categorized about five broad types of interaction you can have with animals. You've got captive interactions -- these things like bear parks in Japan, where you can feed bears and they dance for food -- the tiger interaction. So these are animals that are kept captive for the purpose pretty much of listing money from tourists. Now you've got sanctuaries, which are set up in order to take animals from one set of circumstances, with the intention of providing a better set of circumstances and/or releasing them to the wild at some point.  Things like -- so orangutan sanctuaries, dolphin  sanctuaries. Farmed wild life -- there are plenty of places where they make money out of farming wildlife, so they create a product from wild animals. But also, there's a side venture in tourism where you can go and have a look around. So if you really want to, you can go and have a look around a bear bile farm or a civet coffee farm -- things like that. Or a crocodile farm.  You have plenty of street performance -- street dancing with cats, hyena men. I should probably give some examples, by the way. So for the captive interactions, we're  probably talking about one and a half million visitors a year.  And we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands  of animals involved.  So that's things like that.  Sanctuaries, we're talking, again, probably  about a million-odd visitors a year and tens of thousands  of animals.  Farmed animals, we're talking probably, again, one and a half  to two million visitors a year.  And a couple of 100,000 animals.  These are sort of the best estimates you can possibly  get from this or literature, and the internet,  and what's out there.  In terms of street performances, you're  talking about half a million visitors-- something  like that-- and a few thousand animals.  And then there are wild interactions,  which are things like we've just seen--  trekking to see gorillas in the wild.  Or if you wanted to go and trek to see gibbons in the wild.  Or you can go and see polar bears, and things like that.  So what are the likely conservation  of animal welfare impacts?  I'm going to go into this very, very quickly, because this  is the scene setting.  I'm happy to go through it with the methodology used  to gather these things, which was very rough but,  hopefully, fairly robust.  So what we have here is a minus 3  to plus 3 scale for conservation.  And, perhaps, the minus 3 to plus 3 scale for welfare--  I told you it was rough.  This is what you get with a desk study.  So, basically, everything in the top right  is good for animal welfare, and likely  to be good for conservation.  Everything in the bottom left is probably bad for both.  All of our attractions fell into these three quadrants.  These guys up here are the sanctuaries.  So these are the places that, because of the way  they source their animals, they tended to source animals  from already captive environments  and take them into other captive environments,  but in which they are attempting to improve  the loss of the animals involved.  Gibbon watching, here, has, as far  as we can tell, very little impact  on the individual gibbons.  But there were vast tracts of forest  that are being preserved as a result of tourists.  So that's ecotourism working pretty much as it should.  So that's these guys.  These guys down here are the ones for which they probably  have a positive conservation impact,  but probably have some level of negative impact  on the animals involved.  So gorilla trekking -- again, we've  mentioned the gorillas in Rwanda.  It's very probable that that population probably  wouldn't exist, or would be severely more threatened  than it is, were it not for the tourists going and paying  money.  And people having some benefit from the presence  of those gorillas.  However, there are clear ways in which  the presence of human beings are going to be detracting  from the gorillas' lifestyle.  I probably -- if I was doing this again -- lion encounters,  I probably wouldn't put there.  The vague snuck into the positive conservation category  on the count that they claim to have  really good educational benefits for tourists.  You turn up, and there's a sort of an educational benefit--  look you're seeing lions. But, as far as I'm aware, the educational benefits of seeing lions and familiarizing yourself  with this very amazing beast is not   dependent upon having lots and lots of cubs   that you can bottle-feed. So that's something I'd probably do differently if we were doing it again. So that's those guys. And then here's everything else. So to cut a fairly long story very short, these were 24 types of attraction. So within any one type, there are probably   hundreds of individual venues.   They're half of the ones we found.   We found about 48 different types of interaction   with animals out outside of a zoo environment. Probably negatively impacted on the welfare status -- it's about 230,000 to 550,000 individual animals. And about 120,000 to 340,000 were employed in attractions that were bad for their species conservation status, usually because there is some evidence that there were individuals being sourced from the wild in order to feed into the attractions. And, by our estimation, that meant only about 1,500 to 13,000 individual animals that were in attractions that were probably good for animal welfare and species conservation. And that means, of the 3.6 to 6 million tourists going to these places and paying to see these animals, probably  about 60% -- whether they knew it or not -- we supporting, through patronage,   practices that are probably exploitative. You can see, there's a lot of probabilities in there. That's the problem with a desk study. But this was not what I was expecting to see.  And it led to the question, well,  what the hell did the tourists think?  But, fortunately-- [INAUDIBLE]---- and to give you a heads-up on what the tourists think -- they thought "enjoyable day, but couldn't help feeling a bit sorry for the animals."  Which has cognitive dissonance written through it like a stick of rock, basically.  And cognitive dissonance, I think,  is one reason why you have to be very careful with TripAdvisor reviews. So, fortunately, we can find out what tourists think because they leave reviews. And, obviously, these are self-selecting people -- they do online reviews. Lots of problems with that, but you can see, in the people who rated anywhere as "excellent"  and "very good," really want other people to go and see it, whereas people who found it as "poor" and "terrible,"  are probably discouraging you from going and seeing it. We have to be a bit careful because some people might not have liked the coffee or the staff were rude to them.  So I trolled through thousands of reviews of animal  attractions on TripAdvisor.  Go it and say, OK, that was probably because they didn't like the welfare. This one, someone was rude to them. And that was most depressing three months of my entire life.  And to give you an idea of how bad tourists are at judging the impact -- that highlighted 24 there -- that's the maximum number of tourists who had a negative -- left negative reviews was 24%. And that was for crocodile farms, where the crocodiles are basically hauled around quite visibly  in front of the tourists. And so to give you a very quick example, of three wildlife tourist attractions in Thailand, which keep --  where you can interact with tigers, including the Tiger Temple, because we're not seeing this research. You haven't yet been shut down. 3,205 rated it is as "excellent" and "very good." And 18%-- 699-- said it was "poor" or "terrible." So that's four stars, and that gets you a certificate  of their excellence.  So the long and the short of it is  that there was a correlation between what we said an attraction's likely welfare impacts were and what tourists thought about it. But that correlation was bounded between 6% and 17%  leaving a negative review.  So tourist feedback is not sufficient to regulate  wildlife, to regular standards at these venues, which  is a problem, because, as we know,  there is no global regulation these things. And, notwithstanding the excellent work  that ABTA are trying to do, there are tons of tourists who just turn up on spec, in-country, and go, right, what can I go and do? So what I've been involved with recently is asking the question, in the absence of regulation, can tourists be prompted to recognize exploitative interactions and avoid them? So we created this survey and we surveyed 3,200 respondents. Basically, we co-opted a market research company to find us respondents of the type of people who would go on holidays where they would interact with animals -- fairly affluent, fairly middle class  like to an overseas holiday every year.  400 from Australia, 400 from Canada, 400 from the USA, 400 from the UK, and 1,600 from China because we -- again, tourists are the future, as we heard earlier.  And all we did was we sat them down and we showed them  10 mock attractions they might want to go and see.  And we said, how much on a 1 to 5 scale would you like to go and see these things? So here are the attractions-- is Tiger Territory in Koh Paimai, which doesn't exist, in Thailand. There your travel helper reviews. And here's a list of stuff you can do. You can take selfies with tigers. You can bottle-feed and play with cubs.  You can handle and stroke the tigers. Similarly, here's a Japanese bear park, where you can take photographs as the bears perform for food, and watch them ride bicycles and dance. And here, you can go for elephant rides, and take selfies, and watch elephants perform and take pictures. And the dolphin encounter, where you get to hug and kiss ride them-- you probably see a theme developing here. And sloth jungle trek, where-- this is a great one, certainly. This is happening in Menan quite a lot where, basically, they have wildlife attached to a tree. And there's a nice trek being led, and they go, oh, look-- we found a sloth. You're very lucky today. Untie the sloth. Here you go. And the sloth gets handed around, and then tied back to the tree when the tourists have left. So these five mock attractions were designed not-- they were designed to sound attractive, but to make it clear that you get to handle the animals. And the animals don't have any choice but to be handled. Then we have five that were designed where you don't get to handle the animals. So here you have the Gibbon Trek, where you get to photograph wild gibbon. You hear them singing in the forest. Similarly with elephants, you see the natural herd here. You don't get to handle the elephants. You can see the bears in the bear park. You can see the orangutans from the viewing platform. And you can take photographs of the lions at viewing time. So the only difference between these, in the way that they're phrased, is it's just clear that one lot you get to handle, and the other you don't. So we had got all of our tourists to rate how much do we want to go and do these things--  our potential tourists, rather.  But, first, we took half of them aside  and asked them some priming questions.  So half of them from every nationality. So the first priming question was,  people give lots of reasons for keeping wild animals at tourist attractions.  Do you think these are good reasons or bad reasons?  So is it good or bad, the reason that they  kept to entertain tourists?  Is it good or bad reason they're kept  to make money from tourists?  Or how about, they're kept to conserve their species,  or educate tourists, or give them better living conditions and welfare?  So nothing that's going to put you into a box,  but it's something that'll hopefully  get you thinking about why are these things being  kept captive?  Similarly, here's a list of things  people have said about keeping wild animals.  Do you agree or disagree?  "They're always good for animals."  "I can tell if the animals are being well cared for."  "I'm good at judging if they can help to conserve species."  "Tourists have a duty to make sure they only visit attractions where the animals are well cared for."  Again, trying to get people thinking a little bit,  but not putting them into an attitudinal box. So these are the results. Very quickly, the gray boxes at the top  here are people saying, "I would definitely visit it,"  or "I'd be very likely to visit it" So these are Australians,  and we have the bad and the good.  So the bad are the handling-- this is terribly coarse, but the bad are the ones where you get to hug the animals. The good are the ones where you don't get to hug the animals.  And, as you can see, about 50% of Australians  would go to the bad one. But about 60% would go to the good one.  And then the ones in the bottom are the people  who would go, "I would probably not visit"  or "I'd definitely not visit."  So about 30% wouldn't go to the bad, and about 20%  wouldn't go to the good, if you see what I mean.  So here are our results.  So for the Australians, the Canadians,  the people from the UK -- more people wanted to go to the good attractions then wanted to go to the bad attractions. So that's a nice thing -- they we're able to tell the difference. People from the America couldn't. And people from China, more people wanted to go to the bad attractions than the good, which is a bit of a concern. Because it's more fun. You get to hug the animals. So just as we were saying earlier, there's this thing where you have an expectation of hugging the animals. These are the unprimed people. These are people who just saw the survey straight. The people we asked the priming questions to, it didn't have much of effect on the percentage of people wanting to go to the bad attractions,  but it did for the percentages wanting  to go to the good attractions.  Fewer people wanted the -- fewer of the Australians, Canadians,  people from the UK, and the Americans  wanted to go to the bad attractions.  So you can see the contraction in the dark shaded boxes  at the top, and then expansion in the shaded boxes  in the bottom.  The Chinese, not so much of an effect. And I can go on at length about why that is.  We have some pretty good evidence.  And what we then did, was we said, right.  Well, thank you for answering these questions.  These are our ratings for we think  the likely impacts of these places are.  And then showed them exactly the same attractions they had just  seen, but now with our ratings.  So this is Tiger Territory.  And you can see that it gets a pretty bad welfare  rating and a pretty bad conservation rating.  And then, said, would you like to change  your mind about your answer?  And this was the effect.  So people from Australia, the UK -- counted the UK and USA -- hardly anyone wants to go to the bad attractions. It shifted people's attitudes in China a little bit,  to the extent that priming did for everybody else.  So there's some hope there, but -- So respondents recognized that wildlife tourist attractions --  they recognized difference between those wildlife tourist attractions likely to have beneficial and detrimental  outcomes.  And priming them, getting them thinking a little bit, about what their choice actually could lead to  made them less likely to want to go  to the places that are likely to have some sort of bad outcome.  Informing them -- actually showing them -- what the standards are likely to be from our point of view, made them even less likely to use them.  And, incidentally, we left the box  at the end of the survey saying, what  did you think of this survey?  Did you find it informative?  And so many people said, why on earth isn't this information freely available?  What -- and one person got incredibly angry with us and said, why are you duping us?  And, how dare you?  So, basically, there's an increasing suite  of serious conservation and welfare issues  that arise from individuals acting as consumers. We need to make a change in tourists' social norms so that they know that they are expected to consider the outcome of their consumption.  And the substantial effect of just giving people information saying, look, that's the impact, in an easy to digest format, basically  argues that that should really prominently available.  Thank you.