Borth Animalarium Animals o be removed from Borth Animalarium!

Paix

Paix

Well-Known Member
I just noticed, that CAPS have posted this link onto their Facebook Page, and I thought some of you may be interested in this article:

"ENDANGERED animals will be removed from Borth Animalarium after the owners admitted displaying animals without the correct paperwork.

Animals including spur-thighed tortoises, ring tail lemurs, black and white ruff lemurs, a leopard and a lynx, will be found new homes by animal health authorities after Alan and Jean Mumbray admitted not having the paperwork needed for the animals to be displayed in a commercial premises.

And defence solicitor Alison Mathias has said the loss of the animals will be a heavier punishment for the animalarium owners than anything else the court could impose.

Prosecutor Vaughan Pritchard Jones said the couple were accused of displaying the animals without an Article 10 certificate allowing them to be displayed commercially."

Animals to be removed from Borth attraction | News

There is more to the article, but I do not have a subscription to Cambrian News! Could this spell the end of Borth Animalarium, as many of the major attractions are obviously being removed?

EDIT: Title should be "Animals TO be removed from Borth Animalarium!"
 
Paix said:
I just noticed, that CAPS have posted this link onto their Facebook Page, and I thought some of you may be interested in this article:

"ENDANGERED animals will be removed from Borth Animalarium after the owners admitted displaying animals without the correct paperwork.

Animals including spur-thighed tortoises, ring tail lemurs, black and white ruff lemurs, a leopard and a lynx, will be found new homes by animal health authorities after Alan and Jean Mumbray admitted not having the paperwork needed for the animals to be displayed in a commercial premises.

And defence solicitor Alison Mathias has said the loss of the animals will be a heavier punishment for the animalarium owners than anything else the court could impose.

Prosecutor Vaughan Pritchard Jones said the couple were accused of displaying the animals without an Article 10 certificate allowing them to be displayed commercially."

Animals to be removed from Borth attraction | News

There is more to the article, but I do not have a subscription to Cambrian News! Could this spell the end of Borth Animalarium, as many of the major attractions are obviously being removed?

EDIT: Title should be "Animals TO be removed from Borth Animalarium!"
Click to expand...

This could be the last straw for Borth Zoo? A similar thing happened at Southport Zoo not long before it closed although for different reasons of course , what amazes me is that why has it taken the authorities so long to discover this , those animals in question gave been there for years , as did those at Southport , in fact most were elderly animals, maybe it was a tip-off from someone perhaps? The place seems doomed now and perhaps the only answer is simply to close the place , much as hate to see any zoo close its gates this might be the only long-term answer in this case? Much of the other stock would be fairly easy to place elsewhere , alot of the domestic stock ,reptiles and smaller mammals could be found homes privately. Does anyone know if the site is suitable for building on in terms of housing , I know it is fairly flat , it could be worth more as a building plot?
 
Nanook said:
what amazes me is that why has it taken the authorities so long to discover this
Click to expand...

Agreed, what astounds me even more is that the religious group (some eastern religion, I forget which one) that keeps an Indian Elephant, also in Wales, never seem to have been scrutinised re conditions, licences, etc.

Maybe CAPS and the RSPCA don't fancy taking on a religion?
 
The elephant owned by the monastery has definately been investigated both for the animals welfare and whether they should have a zoo licence.
They believe the several thousand people that go to see the elephant each year are not visiting public but "pilgrims"
 
No sympathy from me.

Zoos have an obligation to be beyond reproach in their compliance with regulations and standards. To not do so is to do immense damage to the entire zoo community - it plays into the hands of those who want to shut the industry down.

If Borth cut corners and held animals they weren't licensed to hold, then too bad. That this will probably be the final blow that shuts the Animalarium down is immaterial.
 
pinkback said:
The elephant owned by the monastery has definately been investigated both for the animals welfare and whether they should have a zoo licence.
They believe the several thousand people that go to see the elephant each year are not visiting public but "pilgrims"
Click to expand...

Same old thing using religion as an excuse for bad practice!
 
CGSwans said:
No sympathy from me.

Zoos have an obligation to be beyond reproach in their compliance with regulations and standards. To not do so is to do immense damage to the entire zoo community - it plays into the hands of those who want to shut the industry down.

If Borth cut corners and held animals they weren't licensed to hold, then too bad. That this will probably be the final blow that shuts the Animalarium down is immaterial.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point but the article 10 certificate is not a new requirement and we are talking about long-term captive animlas which have been in collections for many years , I could understand it if further animals had been brought in recently requiring A10s. Another point , and its not an excuse , but some "elderly zoo owners" are really not up to speed with all zoo legislation , this has been the case many times before which has led to either prosecution or closure of the zoo in the end. I don`t believe they deliberately meant to do anything wrong , they were probably totally unaware that they were!
 
Any zoo operators are fully responsibility to give accurate information on endangered species where they are keeping in the premises.

I recall a leopard was for sale in Cage & Aviary Birds a few years ago, presumably the owners bought the animal. As on Cage & Aviary Birds Birdmart notice states it is prohibited to offer endangered species for sale unless an exemption has been granted by the DEFRA.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/zoos/documents/zoo-article60.pdf
 
Gentle Giant said:
Any zoo operators are fully responsibility to give accurate information on endangered species where they are keeping in the premises.

I recall a leopard was for sale in Cage & Aviary Birds a few years ago, presumably the owners bought the animal. As on Cage & Aviary Birds Birdmart notice states it is prohibited to offer endangered species for sale unless an exemption has been granted by the DEFRA.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/zoos/documents/zoo-article60.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes , Leopard cubs , and other species ,have been sold from certain zoos , in some cases to private individuals in the past , often via Cage & Aviary birds and other places , obviously since then the laws have been tightened up. In fact Borth Zoos male African Leopard came from a private collection.
 
pinkback said:
The elephant owned by the monastery has definately been investigated both for the animals welfare and whether they should have a zoo licence.
They believe the several thousand people that go to see the elephant each year are not visiting public but "pilgrims"
Click to expand...

OK, I can see the argument that a zoo licence isn't required -does that mean it's got a DWA licence?

Stop press: through judicious googling I've clarified the animal is held on a DWA licence -fair enough.
 
Last edited:
Shorts said:
OK, I can see the argument that a zoo licence isn't required -does that mean it's got a DWA licence?

Stop press: through judicious googling I've clarified the animal is held on a DWA licence -fair enough.
Click to expand...

Yes it would have to have irrespective of a zoo licence just as any DWA species kept privately would have to have.
 
why can the owners not apply for the correct paperwork retropectively if they were genuinely not aware of the proper channels. It seems unfair to uproot animals that have been in a collection for many years.
 
Gavin123 said:
why can the owners not apply for the correct paperwork retropectively if they were genuinely not aware of the proper channels. It seems unfair to uproot animals that have been in a collection for many years.
Click to expand...

I totally agree , but the laws on this are quite strict and I doubt if the authorties involved would be as understanding. Finding another home for a male African Leopard for instance will not be easy as these days collections are concentrating their efforts on the rarer Leopard species.
When the animals were taken from Southport zoo under similar circumstances I know that the Tamarins and Ocelot were elderly , with one Tamarin suffering from rickets and moving them was a great upheaval for them.
 
I cannot understand why, if the animals have been there for a long time, that the lack of proper paperwork was not questioned in the process of their zoo license. Compliance with relevent legislation is a specific question on the report form and should have been checked by whoever carries out there zoo inspections. I feel the local authority is partly to blame for this negligence!
 
pinkback said:
I cannot understand why, if the animals have been there for a long time, that the lack of proper paperwork was not questioned in the process of their zoo license. Compliance with relevent legislation is a specific question on the report form and should have been checked by whoever carries out there zoo inspections. I feel the local authority is partly to blame for this negligence!
Click to expand...

Yes , maybe but I would imagine they obtained their original zoo licence many years ago before the newer legislation came into force , though , as you say , when the licence is renewed the authorities should check all requirements of the licence in relation to the species held and which paperwork is required in addition if any? It is a very unfortunate situation which I dont believe is entirely the owners fault.
 
Am I the only one worried about the animals? Who is going to take on a bunch of lemurs? And a leopard who hates other leopards due to being hand reared and kept as a house pet? He doesn't sound like a desirable animal to me.
 
Devi said:
Am I the only one worried about the animals? Who is going to take on a bunch of lemurs? And a leopard who hates other leopards due to being hand reared and kept as a house pet? He doesn't sound like a desirable animal to me.
Click to expand...

That is my point, most zoos are now concentrating on the rarer Leopard subspecies. Zoos are full of lemurs , I know several surplus groups of lemurs that have been surplus for many years and nobody wants them. But the authorities are not worried about the consequences for these animals.
 
If the people in the know had any common sense then surely they would have issued a license or what ever it needed to keep these animals at the zoo until they could fined a collection willing to take them or they could of said to the zoo that they could keep these animals until they passed on but could not replace them.
This would have been best but may not of been ideal but it could of saved the animals from stress and so what I here some of the animals were old.
Now a days common sense does not exsist with some people because it's too easy.
 
Last edited:
I really did not expect to see such a turn around at Borth, and the plans you have listed seem quite good! :D The news that the Leopard enclosure will be extended is great to hear, and I look forward to hearing the zoos development.

Maybe a revisit will be in order in a few years, and it would be great to see a few (alot of) changes from my 2008 visit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top