Zoo welfare reforms

[gentle lemur]

As for the outside area they will undoubtedly expand north into the existing fields. Option 1: to the west of the bridle path behind the current carpark (which is the easiest solution) perhaps with some smaller footbridges accessible from the east side of the lions for visitors to access viewing points or option 2: develop on land north of the lions which would require the elephants to have bridge access over the bridle path which is obviously a much more complicated build. I look forward to seeing what’s gonna be done and I hope they go BIG and bold with their plans.

I agree with most of this. I think using a slice of the car park is indeed the easiest solution; a bridge over Flag Lane for the elephants might be possible but I wonder if any zoo in the world has one? I suppose that an elephant underpass is also possible in theory, as is the Howletts solution of building a bridge for the traffic along Flag Lane, but the bridge at Howletts only carries a footpath rather than a bridle way, so there are quite a few steps there, which would not be possible at Chester.
The new guidelines also mention the provision of grazing for the elephants which is a factor that I had not considered previously. Before the sand was laid down in the current paddock, the earth used to become very muddy in wet weather; so it might be sensible to keep the current elephant paddock as an additional area if the new grassed paddock becomes unusable after heavy rainfall, as well as for isolation of a bull or for the cows when calves are very young.

 

[jde7582]

I agree with most of this. I think using a slice of the car park is indeed the easiest solution; a bridge over Flag Lane for the elephants might be possible but I wonder if any zoo in the world has one? I suppose that an elephant underpass is also possible in theory, as is the Howletts solution of building a bridge for the traffic along Flag Lane, but the bridge at Howletts only carries a footpath rather than a bridle way, so there are quite a few steps there, which would not be possible at Chester.
The new guidelines also mention the provision of grazing for the elephants which is a factor that I had not considered previously. Before the sand was laid down in the current paddock, the earth used to become very muddy in wet weather; so it might be sensible to keep the current elephant paddock as an additional area if the new grassed paddock becomes unusable after heavy rainfall, as well as for isolation of a bull or for the cows when calves are very young.

I guess it all depends on costs, building a bridge or underpass for bridal way may be costly, but if they feel the current house has many years left, it may be cheaper than building a new one and it keeps the old paddock in use, maybe for the bull

 

[GeeZee]

According to Dr Jo Judge,CEO of BIAZA, that its members have been working closely with Defra officials to meet the updated standards.

It’s like the “royal we” most executives would say this, they don’t actually mean all their members it’s like a figure of speech, it’s a little bit like a trade union saying they have support of “the” or “our” members, when clearly that would be impossible, typical executive speak.

I’ve also raised this on another thread but it’s more relevant here but the implications of implementing this new bureaucracy and legislature will have a big impact particularly on smaller zoos that may not have the money or space to do so, even though there has been no animal welfare concerns prior to this - what happens to the animals then?

 

[Lafone]

It’s like the “royal we” most executives would say this, they don’t actually mean all their members it’s like a figure of speech, it’s a little bit like a trade union saying they have support of “the” or “our” members, when clearly that would be impossible, typical executive speak.

I’ve also raised this on another thread but it’s more relevant here but the implications of implementing this new bureaucracy and legislature will have a big impact particularly on smaller zoos that may not have the money or space to do so, even though there has been no animal welfare concerns prior to this - what happens to the animals then?

It would be helpful to cite the specific section which causes problems for smaller zoos and to list the particular zoos / exhibits concerned.

Unless you are suggesting all smaller zoos cannot comply with any of it and their animals will all have to be moved on or destroyed? In that case you might wish to cite the sections that have been introduced that didn't occur before and where they will cause / introduce new welfare concerns.

As for BIAZA involvement, there was some as stated. What is the problem with zoos being consulted on reforms?

 

[Jonfla]

I guess it all depends on costs, building a bridge or underpass for bridal way may be costly, but if they feel the current house has many years left, it may be cheaper than building a new one and it keeps the old paddock in use, maybe for the bull

What about modifying Elephant bridge and allowing them access to the Indian rhino paddock?
That could be the easiest option, and move the rhino behind the lions.

 

[jde7582]

I wonder if anyone has ever contemplated or attempted an Asian mixed species reserve, elephants, rhino, deer, cattle.

 

[Jambo]

a bridge over Flag Lane for the elephants might be possible but I wonder if any zoo in the world has one?

Not over a road - but the Denver Zoo has one. And perhaps more recently, Werribee Open Range Zoo also has one apart of their new 50 acre complex. Only difference is that both go over paths (not roads), and if Chester were to consider such a bridge, it would absolutely need to be on a much bigger scale.

Denver:

Werribee:

 

[NMM]

An odd thought I had about these new regulations.

If this does limit the number of zoos capable of holding certain species, could it result in those that don't hold the species, but potentially could meet the new regulations, being encouraged to go into them.

For example, with the new enclosure size requirements for elephants, could places like Yorkshire or Marwell that don't have them, but do have very large exhibits (significantly larger than the new requirements) get tapped on the shoulder about them? Even though they may have suitably sized exhibits, there would still be significant cost involved in adapting them.

 

[jde7582]

Those bridges would be fine for the path, it's not any wider than that in the pictures, it's not over a road, just a wide path. Just maybe needs to be taller or the patch dropped aswell to allow horses and riders to pass under

 

[ZooNews2024]

Not over a road - but the Denver Zoo has one. And perhaps more recently, Werribee Open Range Zoo also has one apart of their new 50 acre complex. Only difference is that both go over paths (not roads), and if Chester were to consider such a bridge, it would absolutely need to be on a much bigger scale.

Denver:

Werribee:

The old Emmen Zoo in Holland had an underpass/bridge for giraffes!
I remember seeing them walking out to the paddocks, underneath me.

 

[ZooNews2024]

It would be helpful to cite the specific section which causes problems for smaller zoos and to list the particular zoos / exhibits concerned.

Unless you are suggesting all smaller zoos cannot comply with any of it and their animals will all have to be moved on or destroyed? In that case you might wish to cite the sections that have been introduced that didn't occur before and where they will cause / introduce new welfare concerns.

As for BIAZA involvement, there was some as stated. What is the problem with zoos being consulted on reforms?

So far a I know all zoos were consulted 2 years ago when the 185 page first draft was produced. The second round of discussions running up to the final document, appears to have been for select zoos only - so what was published this week is new to most.

I cant see the sections referring to space as above, and it appears that the big zoos will be the ones affected by this slow ban on elephants.

As I said above, small zoos, (all zoos) will be affected financially by the huge increase in red-tape, but that was already happening due to the anti-zoo stance at the top of the last Government.

British visitors needn't worry as a few pounds will buy you a cheap ticket to Europe where you can still see everything that is banned here, the elephants, the dolphins etc.
Welfare wont be improved, it will just be shifted; and the UK economy will loose out as even more tourists go abroad to see the things banned in the UK.

 

[Cobi]

Elephants aren’t banned and aren’t being banned.

 

[Dr. Loxodonta]

So far a I know all zoos were consulted 2 years ago when the 185 page first draft was produced. The second round of discussions running up to the final document, appears to have been for select zoos only - so what was published this week is new to most.

I cant see the sections referring to space as above, and it appears that the big zoos will be the ones affected by this slow ban on elephants.

As I said above, small zoos, (all zoos) will be affected financially by the huge increase in red-tape, but that was already happening due to the anti-zoo stance at the top of the last Government.

British visitors needn't worry as a few pounds will buy you a cheap ticket to Europe where you can still see everything that is banned here, the elephants, the dolphins etc.
Welfare wont be improved, it will just be shifted; and the UK economy will loose out as even more tourists go abroad to see the things banned in the UK.

I’m sorry @ZooNews2024, but I truly disagree with your claims, especially your last sentences. Firstly, saying that British visitors need not worry because they can easily travel to Europe to see elephants/dolphins, ignores the significant progress our country has made in improving animal welfare standards. As @Cobi says, elephants are not banned in U.K zoos, they are banned from circuses and many exploitative entertainment settings. Captive elephants in the U.K play a vital role in EEHV research, allowing scientists to closely monitor the animals for early signs of the virus and collect important medical data. This is not about simply shifting animal welfare concerns abroad; it is about the U.K taking responsibility to ensure that animals are treated humanely and encouraging others to follow suit.

Furthermore, arguing that welfare will just be “shifted” fails to acknowledge that the U.K’s strict regulations push for higher standards internationally. By banning certain uses of wild animals in entertainment, the U.K leads by example, creating pressure for better treatment globally. Simply suggesting tourists should go abroad to see these animals overlooks that many facilities outside our islands may not meet the welfare standards required here, meaning greatly intelligent animals could suffer more in such countries.

Finally, your economic argument that the U.K will lose out if it bans animals like elephants in certain attractions ignores changing tourist expectations. I get the impression that visitors increasingly prefer ethical wildlife experiences and support zoos and sanctuaries that prioritise animal welfare and conservation. Banning elephants from circuses was a step forward, not an economic loss, and it aligns with evolving public values that prioritise compassion and respect for animals.

 

[Lafone]

As @Cobi says, elephants are not banned in U.K zoos, they are banned from circuses and many exploitative entertainment settings. Captive elephants in the U.K play a vital role in EEHV research, allowing scientists to closely monitor the animals for early signs of the virus and collect important medical data. This is not about simply shifting animal welfare concerns abroad; it is about the U.K taking responsibility to ensure that animals are treated humanely and encouraging others to follow suit.

Furthermore, arguing that welfare will just be “shifted” fails to acknowledge that the U.K’s strict regulations push for higher standards internationally. By banning certain uses of wild animals in entertainment, the U.K leads by example, creating pressure for better treatment globally. Simply suggesting tourists should go abroad to see these animals overlooks that many facilities outside our islands may not meet the welfare standards required here, meaning greatly intelligent animals could suffer more in such countries.

Finally, your economic argument that the U.K will lose out if it bans animals like elephants in certain attractions ignores changing tourist expectations. I get the impression that visitors increasingly prefer ethical wildlife experiences and support zoos and sanctuaries that prioritise animal welfare and conservation. Banning elephants from circuses was a step forward, not an economic loss, and it aligns with evolving public values that prioritise compassion and respect for animals.

I agree. Keeping dolphins is not banned in the UK, though the welfare legislation changed and it became uneconomic to keep them. It's clear however that this change to elephant keeping is not the same as that in either fact or intention and the comparison is moot. If it was the same in terms of long term intention, we would already have heard about it from major zoos who have elephants. I also agree these changes are part of ensuring the high standards of welfare we should be pleased to see and where we should be setting an example, not just taking the view that worse things happen in other places. There are places in the world you can travel to to see cock fighting. That doesn't make the case to allow it here.

Any collections who don't meet the updated regulations for elephants also have time to make the changes required (deadline for the changes in paras 8.16 and 8.19 is 2040 for example) and no one has yet posted any evidence that UK collections don't want to / won't be able to.

 

[ZooNews2024]

I’m sorry @ZooNews2024, but I truly disagree with your claims, especially your last sentences. Firstly, saying that British visitors need not worry because they can easily travel to Europe to see elephants/dolphins, ignores the significant progress our country has made in improving animal welfare standards. As @Cobi says, elephants are not banned in U.K zoos, they are banned from circuses and many exploitative entertainment settings. Captive elephants in the U.K play a vital role in EEHV research, allowing scientists to closely monitor the animals for early signs of the virus and collect important medical data. This is not about simply shifting animal welfare concerns abroad; it is about the U.K taking responsibility to ensure that animals are treated humanely and encouraging others to follow suit.

Furthermore, arguing that welfare will just be “shifted” fails to acknowledge that the U.K’s strict regulations push for higher standards internationally. By banning certain uses of wild animals in entertainment, the U.K leads by example, creating pressure for better treatment globally. Simply suggesting tourists should go abroad to see these animals overlooks that many facilities outside our islands may not meet the welfare standards required here, meaning greatly intelligent animals could suffer more in such countries.

Finally, your economic argument that the U.K will lose out if it bans animals like elephants in certain attractions ignores changing tourist expectations. I get the impression that visitors increasingly prefer ethical wildlife experiences and support zoos and sanctuaries that prioritise animal welfare and conservation. Banning elephants from circuses was a step forward, not an economic loss, and it aligns with evolving public values that prioritise compassion and respect for animals.

I did not say that elephants were banned in UK zoos, I said that this legislation was potentially the start of a long term ban.
I did not suggest that tourists should go abroad to visit other countries with different standards, I said they could do so.
My son has just some back from a holiday in Portugal, and the zoos he went to made him feel decidedly uncomfortable, but their dolphin shows were hugely popular and full of British tourists unable to see the same things at home. There was no obvious evidence of 'changing tourist expectations'.
The rest of the World does not automatically follow the lead of what they might consider a self-important nonentity of a country in the north Atlantic; they follow their own lead, their own ethics, and the demands of their own people and economies.
I personally welcome any animal welfare improvements to come out of this legislation, and the imposition of consistent standards across the UK zoo community - IF, this results. It was long overdue and sorely needed.

 

[ZooNews2024]

Elephants aren’t banned and aren’t being banned.

Time will tell - I really hope you are right.

 

[Pertinax]

What about modifying Elephant bridge and allowing them access to the Indian rhino paddock?
That could be the easiest option, and move the rhino behind the lions.

I doubt this space would be considered anything like large enough. I often think it's not really big enough for the Rhino.

 

[Rajang-GOAT]

I doubt this space would be considered anything like large enough. I often think it's not really big enough for the Rhino.

The total space (including the house and separation paddocks) measures at about 7,500m2 according to google maps, so would likely just over double the outdoor space available but wouldn't be enough for the new regulations.

 

[Ed123]

I think the best solution is to expand into the carpark with no requirement for the elephants to cross the bridle path. But I think visitor viewing will need to be accessed from across the bridle path (to the west of the lions) with the GOHR to get a new enclosure to the east side

 

[Chlidonias]

I did not say that elephants were banned in UK zoos, I said that this legislation was potentially the start of a long term ban.

Then what are you saying here?

British visitors needn't worry as a few pounds will buy you a cheap ticket to Europe where you can still see everything that is banned here, the elephants, the dolphins etc.