As for inspections as Maguari has already provide a link to show that we do,though I will have to admit that the standards of some of the different inspectors to vary alot,to the level that some say that you have to paddlock,a fish tank with Goldfish in it so that people cannot get into it!
There is an argument that assessment by an industry body would produce more effective inspection - however I suspect there's no way BFF, CAPS or even the RSPCA would accept an inspection controlled by a zoo industry body and this would only cause a flaring-up of hostilities if pursued.
I just browsed through the Gentleshaw gallery and I never made a single disparaging comment about that establishment. I believe that you have confused me with someone else as I couldn't see anything negative at all and I looked at every photo.
Also, I am honestly curious as to whether there is a zoo inspection team in Britain like there is in North America (AZA accreditation every 5 years). I'm not trying to be awkward but I'm genuinely interested if that is the case.
Lastly, on my most recent road trip I visited 50 zoos/aquariums in 50 days and many of them were quite small and could be seen in 2 hours or less...thus I am now especially fond of many tiny, yet impressive, facilities.
@zoogiraffe: I am glad to see that I am innocent of all charges in relation to comments about Gentleshaw, and I must have been confused with someone else. I have definitely ripped into plenty of small establishments with shoddy enclosures, but not that particular one. I am equally critical of many American zoos, as my 150+ zoo reviews over the years will testify.
@Maguari: thanks for the link! It is fairly worrisome to read "Dispensations from the Act may be granted for smaller collections" and "the full requirements of the Act...will not necessarily be appropriate for small collections". Do the tiny, homegrown zoos get a free pass when it comes to inspections or an inspection that is not as detailed? To be quite honest that would explain a lot.
@Maguari: thanks for the link! It is fairly worrisome to read "Dispensations from the Act may be granted for smaller collections" and "the full requirements of the Act...will not necessarily be appropriate for small collections". Do the tiny, homegrown zoos get a free pass when it comes to inspections or an inspection that is not as detailed? To be quite honest that would explain a lot.
I think that's more in relation to requirements for conservation work and research involvement, which might not be a fair demand from a very small zoo (though many excel in both, of course). I could be wrong, but I wouldn't have thought that would apply to the animal welfare aspects of inspection.
Personally I wonder if it might be more likely for larger collections to get away with sub-standard enclosures on the basis:
1. They're better experienced at playing politics;
2. They can argue that that the sub-standard enclosure is one of a few "black spots" which will be dealt with eventually as part of a five year plan roll-out (which then unfortunately might have to be delayed further due to unforseen circumstances arising);
3. I think it's probably a bit more daunting for an inspector to threaten a larger establishment with closure or sanctions (i.e. they can threaten legal action to recoup lost profits if they can argue the sanctions were not needed or were unreasonable/excessive).
Historically, at least, I wonder if some of the above may have applied relating to certain Chessington and Twycross enclosures.
I'm with snow leopard, this is an entirely inappropriate enclosure for the species. It looks tacky and the barrier takes up at least 75% of the footprint. I don't see how anyone can defend this.. A traditional 'cage' would have been more than sufficient, made 100% of the space usuable for the species and provided a means to provide many more climbing opportunities.
Like it or not it's shoddy exhibits like this that leave some people with the opinion all zoo's are terrible.
I'm with snow leopard, this is an entirely inappropriate enclosure for the species. It looks tacky and the barrier takes up at least 75% of the footprint. I don't see how anyone can defend this.. A traditional 'cage' would have been more than sufficient, made 100% of the space usuable for the species and provided a means to provide many more climbing opportunities.
Like it or not it's shoddy exhibits like this that leave some people with the opinion all zoo's are terrible.
