All Captivity is Morally Objectionable

This article from The Stage claiming there is "'Little evidence' to support wild animals ban in travelling shows" perfectly illustrates why a vegan approach is essential to stopping circuses from exploit other animals. According to the article:

[A] report by the Circus Working Group, commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and involving representatives from animal rights and welfare groups and members of the circus industry, found that "there appears to be little evidence to demonstrate that the welfare of animals kept in travelling circuses is any better or worse than that of animals kept in other captive environments."

Of course there isn't going to be evidence of a difference when comparing the welfare of animals exploited in circuses with the welfare of other captive animals. After all, it's captivity that's the problem in the first place.

The article quotes Martin Burton, the pro-exploitation director of Zippos Circus, as stating:

Is it not a little strange that after more than 50 years of campaigning against animals in circuses, and raising millions upon millions of pounds in the process, the animal rights industry were unable to field any credible or scientific evidence to support their argument?

Obviously, the years of campaigning that Burton is referring to didn't make captivity an issue, which means they never took the exploitation of other animals seriously. Traveling circuses that exploit animals are only "vindicated" to the extent they can point to others engaged in the same or similar use of animals and claim to be no better or worse. The only way to truly hold them accountable is to address the exploitation as a whole.

Burton also said:

I'm not in favour of banning any wild animals. However, things should be regulated. There should be modern regulation for all species of animals and it should be strictly enforced. What we now need to do is to reassure the public that there is no moral objection - and we must explain to the public very clearly the difference between animal welfare and animal rights.

It's true that if you accept the captive exploitation of animals, then, yes, there seems to be no moral objection. But if we take the vegan perspective that other animals shouldn't be exploited, then the moral objection becomes crystal clear. In this respect, I agree with Burton that we must explain to the public very clearly the difference between speciesist acceptance of how other animals are exploited and opposing that exploitation as inherently oppressive. And we can start by stating clearly and confidently that captivity is exploitation, and all exploitation of other animals for human use is morally objectionable.