ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZooNews2024 said:
'Allowance of free flight' is NOT the only alternative to 'taking out their flight feathers and putting them on a stick' - this is ridiculous exaggeration.
'Keeping birds in aviaries is cruel and inhumane - birds should be allowed free flight' is a common public statement given by often low-rent birds-of-prey exhibitors, when the reality is that their birds are kept very confined even tied up for the major part of their lives, and then starved into coming back to the fist. This might be dressed up as 'keeping them at a flying weight' - but the whole thing is an excuse for what is purely a circus act, which should have been outlawed along with the badger baiting and dancing bears, also popular during and post mediaeval times.
Click to expand...
I think there is some level of difference between 'sedentary' birds - weavers, mesas, most passerines - which fly only out of necessity but have mainly the same home range - and more broad fliers - such as hawks, eagles, and parrots.
Most 'broad flyers' are also larger, which makes building a whole-purpose aviary tricky.
I will say that there are some aviaries in the world that give good flying freedom for parrots - such as those in Singapore - but these can be rather expensive.

I think you will appreciate to know that not all falconers keep their birds under tether - many do keep them in 'freeloft' aviaries which allow for some degree of unrestrained flight - though of course not as much as the sky itself. Freeloft is a holding area. There is some debate amongst falconers as to which is the preferred method... but I don't consider myself to have the expertise to have a say on which. From what I understand part of the reason tethering is a thing at all is so that birds don't kill themselves upon flying into the walls of the holding area.

Not that I ever said it was the only alternative, anyway. I just said how it's an alternative.
 
Last edited:
ZooNews2024 said:
'Allowance of free flight' is NOT the only alternative to 'taking out their flight feathers and putting them on a stick' - this is ridiculous exaggeration.
'Keeping birds in aviaries is cruel and inhumane - birds should be allowed free flight' is a common public statement given by often low-rent birds-of-prey exhibitors, when the reality is that their birds are kept very confined even tied up for the major part of their lives, and then starved into coming back to the fist. This might be dressed up as 'keeping them at a flying weight' - but the whole thing is an excuse for what is purely a circus act, which should have been outlawed along with the badger baiting and dancing bears, also popular during and post mediaeval times.
Click to expand...
I don't see how a practice that clearly offers birds the ability to engage in prolonged flight which they do not have in most aviaries is comparable to a medieval circus. Likewise, I do not see how a single accidental escapee, which happens at zoos all throughout every country on the planet quite regularly, deserves the removal of a licence from a science and conservation-motivated zoological society that cares for over 500 species magnificently well.

You are right, of course, that there is another solution to flightless birds on sticks, that being free-flight huge aviaries. But you seem to underestimate just how long large birds such as parrots and especially birds of prey, such as eagles or kites, fly for in the wild. It is unrealistic for most zoos to afford to build such a structure, and indeed out of the 50 zoos in 7 countries that I have visited ('rookie numbers' compared to some on this forum, but enough to speak on the matter with some degree of experience), I have only on three occasions seen such large birds allowed to maintain flight for so long - the Turkey Vultures in the Desert at Burgers' Zoo, the Wrinkled Hornbills in the Bush at Burgers', and the various large parrots in Masoala at Zoo Zürich. Such a thing is likely beyond ZSL's budget, and far, far beyond the budget of most smaller, 'low-rent' falconries that you criticise. Even the largest and most remarkable bird of prey habitats that I have seen, at Chester, Dresden or Prague, for example, sadly cannot simulate what these animals achieve in the wild. Letting the animals out once a day for controlled periods of flight is, while not perfect, the best solution we have to allow smaller collections to continue keeping large birds without eliminating their ability to fly for a long time entirely, which I would argue is more akin to cruelty than flight shows are. No, they aren't the only alternative, but they are the most achievable, and are certainly not a circus act.
 
Last edited:
ZooNews2024 said:
Personally I do not consider the 'gain outweighs the risk' especially with an endangered species
and the release of a non-native species is a formal offence under both the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Zoo Licencing Act
and if the latter was being enforced consistently, should lead to the potential loss of a licence.
Click to expand...
I do not see why you say London has to lose their licence, but you defend South Lakes who have had multiple coati escapes and a plethora of other mishaps. London may or may not have problems, but I would argue this is not one of them.
 
dillotest0 said:
I think there is some level of difference between 'sedentary' birds - weavers, mesas, most passerines - which fly only out of necessity but have mainly the same home range - and more broad fliers - such as hawks, eagles, and parrots.
Most 'broad flyers' are also larger, which makes building a whole-purpose aviary tricky.
I will say that there are some aviaries in the world that give good flying freedom for parrots - such as those in Singapore - but these can be rather expensive.

I think you will appreciate to know that not all falconers keep their birds under tether - many do keep them in 'freeloft' aviaries which allow for some degree of unrestrained flight - though of course not as much as the sky itself. Freeloft is a holding area. There is some debate amongst falconers as to which is the preferred method... but I don't consider myself to have the expertise to have a say on which. From what I understand part of the reason tethering is a thing at all is so that birds don't kill themselves upon flying into the walls of the holding area.

Not that I ever said it was the only alternative, anyway. I just said how it's an alternative.
Click to expand...

Of course I know perfectly well that some 'falconers' do not tie up their birds.

But - I still do not see why it is acceptable to tie up a peregrine, but not tie up an elephant.

To deliberately release a non-native animal of a wild species (as part of a display or otherwise) which would naturally be nervous of humans, and will only return to them because it has been imprinted or is hungry - is a calculated act, not an accident, and one which I personally, do not approve of.
The escape of a capybara or a Japanese macaque or binturongs, red pandas or coatis are accidents, and not deliberate releases.
But, as I said, the law does not allow for intent.
Rohin said:
I do not see why you say London has to lose their licence, but you defend South Lakes who have had multiple coati escapes and a plethora of other mishaps. London may or may not have problems, but I would argue this is not one of them.
Click to expand...

I did not say that London has to loose their licence, and I have never defended South Lakes.
All I asked was that all collections should be subject to the same rules, and the same criticism or commendation.
 
Last edited:
Cobi said:
Not including birds in large aviaries - which is becoming more common - I believe Basel, which keeps flamingos in the open, have full-winged birds.
Click to expand...
Flamingos need a long run-up, usually into the wind to get air-borne, so often cannot do so from small enclosures. I remember gannets at Arnhem years ago, fully winged, with the same principle applying.
No cliffs in the middle of Holland to throw themselves off... an albatross at Avifauna too...
 
dillotest0 said:
I think there is some level of difference between 'sedentary' birds - weavers, mesas, most passerines .
Click to expand...
Surely in temperate climates at least, most (many?) passerines are actually migratory, flying distances equalling those of many birds-of-prey or cranes, waders and wildfowl, and potentially exceeding those of most parrots.
 
Kalaw said:
As do Paris (Vincennes) and Dresden, although I didn't see any utilising their immense flight space on my visits.
Click to expand...
Why would they? Flamingos dont fly for the sake of it. It takes much effort and a long run-up.
Flight is only a means of getting to-and-from feeding and breeding grounds, and is not necessary if both are in the same place.
 
ZooNews2024 said:
A release and an escape are both treated EXACTLY the same - there is no legal difference between the two. Intention does not come into it.
It is your reply which is 'utter nonsense'.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you keep saying this.

Under Section 14(1) WCA 1981 it is an either way offence to release into the wild, or to allow the escape of, any animal which is not ordinarily resident, or a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state: or which is included in Part 1 of Schedule 9. [...] In either instance, however, it is a defence under section 14(3) that the accused took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. (source)
​
I'm no lawyer, admittedly, but this sounds like intent does, in fact, come into it - there is an accidental escape where an animal unexpectedly went against its specific training and did not respond to the safeguards put in place (ie. food or devices - such as clickers or whistles - carried by the keepers as contingency for this exact scenario)... and then there is an "accidental escape" which occured entirely due to negligence, such as zoos not maintaining their enclosures to the degree required to them by law.

You should consider the risk of escape when you are considering using any nonnative animals in demonstrations outside of a secure enclosure. You should however ensure that these animals cannot escape into the wider environment and that you have contingency plans in place that can be enacted in the event of animals escaping into the wild. (source)
​
ZSL did have contingency plans in place in this instance: the animals in question will have been microchipped and / or ringed to aid with identification, will have recieved specific training to facilitate this free-flying behaviour (with evidence of a structured, science-based training programme being carried out), and will have procedures laid out for if animals do not return as expected (again, with evidence that the keepers were ready and prepared to enact these procedures at the point at which they took the birds out of the enclosure).

For anybody who is interested, there is a specific exemption in the Wildlife and Countryside Act for free-flying birds of prey:

In principle, we would not regard the long-standing and traditional practice of falconry as amounting to the commission of the offence. Such birds are clearly expected to return and competently done, there is no intention to allow the birds their freedom to establish in the wild. The legislation provides a defence if the accused can prove that all reasonable steps have been taken, and all due diligence has been exercised, in order to avoid committing the offence. Thus, the competence of the handler and the degree to which the bird has been properly trained will be relevant considerations. The release of surplus or unwanted birds, with no intention of retrieval, would constitute the offence. (source)
​
("Intention" is mentioned twice in this paragraph, by the way)
 
Tetradactyla said:
Interesting that you keep saying this.

Under Section 14(1) WCA 1981 it is an either way offence to release into the wild, or to allow the escape of, any animal which is not ordinarily resident, or a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state: or which is included in Part 1 of Schedule 9. [...] In either instance, however, it is a defence under section 14(3) that the accused took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. (source)
​
I'm no lawyer, admittedly, but this sounds like intent does, in fact, come into it - there is an accidental escape where an animal unexpectedly went against its specific training and did not respond to the safeguards put in place (ie. food or devices - such as clickers or whistles - carried by the keepers as contingency for this exact scenario)... and then there is an "accidental escape" which occured entirely due to negligence, such as zoos not maintaining their enclosures to the degree required to them by law.

You should consider the risk of escape when you are considering using any nonnative animals in demonstrations outside of a secure enclosure. You should however ensure that these animals cannot escape into the wider environment and that you have contingency plans in place that can be enacted in the event of animals escaping into the wild. (source)
​
ZSL did have contingency plans in place in this instance: the animals in question will have been microchipped and / or ringed to aid with identification, will have recieved specific training to facilitate this free-flying behaviour (with evidence of a structured, science-based training programme being carried out), and will have procedures laid out for if animals do not return as expected (again, with evidence that the keepers were ready and prepared to enact these procedures at the point at which they took the birds out of the enclosure).

For anybody who is interested, there is a specific exemption in the Wildlife and Countryside Act for free-flying birds of prey:

In principle, we would not regard the long-standing and traditional practice of falconry as amounting to the commission of the offence. Such birds are clearly expected to return and competently done, there is no intention to allow the birds their freedom to establish in the wild. The legislation provides a defence if the accused can prove that all reasonable steps have been taken, and all due diligence has been exercised, in order to avoid committing the offence. Thus, the competence of the handler and the degree to which the bird has been properly trained will be relevant considerations. The release of surplus or unwanted birds, with no intention of retrieval, would constitute the offence. (source)
​
("Intention" is mentioned twice in this paragraph, by the way)
Click to expand...


I am sure that London Zoo will does deny it, so does Colwyn Bay Zoo, but both zoos have a small population of Aesculapian Snake around the zoo, I am sure this keeps the rat population down, it is ironic that the only place this snake is found in the UK is around 2 zoos, what are the chances of that? Has anyone seen the snake?

https://www.londonzoo.org/zoo-stories/blog/aesculapian-snakes-londonI’m
 
Reptile House said:
I am sure that London Zoo will does deny it, so does Colwyn Bay Zoo, but both zoos have a small population of Aesculapian Snake around the zoo, I am sure this keeps the rat population down, it is ironic that the only place this snake is found in the UK is around 2 zoos, what are the chances of that? Has anyone seen the snake?

https://www.londonzoo.org/zoo-stories/blog/aesculapian-snakes-londonI’m
Click to expand...
There are at least three wild populations in the UK (the third is at Bridgend in south Wales: https://www.froglife.org/wp-content...ecord-of-the-aesculapian-snake-in-S-Wales.pdf).

The Colwyn Bay population is well-established as having originated from a zoo escape - what is your source for the zoo denying it?

The London population is equally well-established as not resulting from zoo animals but from a deliberate release from a research facility adjacent to the zoo (see, for example, Aesculapian Snakes in London for the history).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top