Is the Big Cat Public Safety Act good or bad?

[15399]

I have previously stated on another thread that I am not a big fan of non-domestic mammals being used for educational shows especially by members of the AZA. I hate to sound like an animal rights activist but I think there are other ways to educate the public other than putting a cheetah on a leash. Sure the event may be memorable to the audience due to the novelty of seeing an exotic animal on a leash, but I am not sure if the information told to the guests would stick on them. I'd also argue that having a cheetah or a clouded leopard on a leash undermines that these animals are wild animals and could cause harm.

I guess this is where we partially agree. I'm all for not using leashes with wild mammals (if a zoo puts a rabbit on a leash, or other domestic, I'm all for it), however there are plenty of ways to use mammals as ambassadors when they aren't leashed. Some zoos have built exercise yards for these sorts of presentations, where visitors can get an up-close look at animal ambassadors while they are displaying natural behaviors. Furthermore, even if there aren't a designated exercise yard, zoos can use temporary pens/gates to contain an animal while it isn't on a leash. Alternatively (and I'd argue even better), is to train animal ambassadors such that they don't need a leash. Especially if you always have two staff members nearby, and choose appropriate individuals of appropriate species, I don't see any reason that using mammal ambassadors inherently need to be leashed. Truthfully, it's been very rare that I've seen zoos with exotic mammal ambassadors leashed, and I've seen quite a number of ambassador mammals.

To add on, when you say no non-domesticated mammals, where do you draw this line? I can understand being against using big cats, or even stuff like fennec foxes, on this regard, but what about a lot of small mammals? For instance, many zoos use hedgehogs or tenrecs as ambassador animals, oftentimes displayed on a presenter's glove, and I don't see any reason why this should be considered unacceptable, if it's acceptable to use a rabbit, ferret, or chinchilla. Taking it to the next level, what about native non-releasable wildlife? Ambassador animal departments have often been a great home for orphaned or otherwise non-releasable striped skunks, virginia oppossums, groundhogs, or other similar species. It'd be a real shame, in my opinion, if these animals stop getting these great permanent homes just because they are mammals. Another species, that in my opinion makes one of the best animal ambassadors, but is a mammal, is armadillos. Despite being a mammal, these are very misunderstood animals, and usually aren't displayed using a leash. So I guess that's where we differ. I think that the leash is the problem, not the animal inherently is the problem, as there are many great mammal ambassadors that don't require leashes and are great for educational opportunities (especially looking beyond "shows"- visits to schools, camps, etc. is way more of what an animal ambassador does at most zoos).

 

[PossumRoach]

To add on, when you say no non-domesticated mammals, where do you draw this line? I can understand being against using big cats, or even stuff like fennec foxes, on this regard, but what about a lot of small mammals? For instance, many zoos use hedgehogs or tenrecs as ambassador animals, oftentimes displayed on a presenter's glove, and I don't see any reason why this should be considered unacceptable, if it's acceptable to use a rabbit, ferret, or chinchilla. Taking it to the next level, what about native non-releasable wildlife? Ambassador animal departments have often been a great home for orphaned or otherwise non-releasable striped skunks, virginia oppossums, groundhogs, or other similar species. It'd be a real shame, in my opinion, if these animals stop getting these great permanent homes just because they are mammals. Another species, that in my opinion makes one of the best animal ambassadors, but is a mammal, is armadillos. Despite being a mammal, these are very misunderstood animals, and usually aren't displayed using a leash. So I guess that's where we differ. I think that the leash is the problem, not the animal inherently is the problem, as there are many great mammal ambassadors that don't require leashes and are great for educational opportunities (especially looking beyond "shows"- visits to schools, camps, etc. is way more of what an animal ambassador does at most zoos).

The line for me would be basically "petshop" mammals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, ferrets, hedgehogs, chinchillas, rats, and maybe gerbils and hamsters as well (given that they are legal in the state they are kept).

The simple solution for non releasable native animals would either be putting them into a proper enclosure or bts.

I don't think leashes are the only problem. I would consider handling and stage presentations as also problematic. I think the most acceptable training situation would be to have a barier betwrrn the keepar an animal like how most trainig sessions are done.

 

[TinoPup]

okay, it's one of those things that I'm not sure in practice how it will be used. For instance, if it's a 3-4 foot tall fence (as is often the case), then technically someone could jump over the fence and get closer, so on so forth. I could easily see a particularly strict AWA inspector saying that a fence wasn't compliant as it's still *possible* for visitors to touch the fence, but we will have to see how it is actually executed. Furthermore, this section could give more legal trouble to zoos when those rare incidents where visitors breach habitat barriers occur, such as when someone got over the exterior fence of the Bronx Zoo's lion exhibit.

The only other concern I have with this law, is I want to know how it will affect zoos with breeding facilities not open to the public, such as National Zoo's SCBI (I don't think they have any species that count, but other facilities of this style), or other private, reputable breeders who work with AZA zoos. If a facility isn't open to the public, doesn't this mean they'd be licensed as a Class A breeder, or possibly not at all? @TinoPup may be able to provide a better answer than I (since I know they've done a lot of research with AWA reports), but when I tried looking for an SCBI AWA Inspection Report, I didn't see the facility listed at all, meaning I'm not sure if they even need to be licensed due to the type of facility. Does this bill mean that in the future SCBI wouldn't be able to work with any of the affected species? Are there other private breeders/facilities the AZA cooperates with that will be affected as a result of being closed to the public? I already checked White Oak and EFBC, as they were the first that came to mind, and they are both USDA Class C, but I'm going to do some more research and see who might be affected as a result of license type.

Breeding centers that are run by AZA zoos fall under that facility's license, you're allowed to have multiple locations.

I don't think there's any private breeders of big cats that AZA works with currently, it's mostly ungulates. Some have a breeder or dealer license, but most don't have any federal license, just state/local ones.

SCBI/Smithsonian is just weird because it's also a federal facility.

 

[15399]

Breeding centers that are run by AZA zoos fall under that facility's license, you're allowed to have multiple locations.

I don't think there's any private breeders of big cats that AZA works with currently, it's mostly ungulates. Some have a breeder or dealer license, but most don't have any federal license, just state/local ones.

SCBI/Smithsonian is just weird because it's also a federal facility.

Okay, thanks for the help! It's not just ungulates that the AZA works with private breeders with (although that might be most of the mammals), I know at least a handful of reputable places they work with for birds (especially waterfowl), and a lot of reptiles are acquired from outside the AZA as well (from well-vetted facilities). I wasn't aware of any working with cats or not, other than EFBC and White Oak, both of which I checked and have USDA-C.

 

[TinoPup]

Okay, thanks for the help! It's not just ungulates that the AZA works with private breeders with (although that might be most of the mammals), I know at least a handful of reputable places they work with for birds (especially waterfowl), and a lot of reptiles are acquired from outside the AZA as well (from well-vetted facilities). I wasn't aware of any working with cats or not, other than EFBC and White Oak, both of which I checked and have USDA-C.

Non-mammals don't need federal licenses at all, so I didn't mention them since that's what's being discussed.

 

[15399]

Non-mammals don't need federal licenses at all, so I didn't mention them since that's what's being discussed.

True, it's so unfortunate that the AWA only covers mammals, and not even all mammals. Rats, mice, horses, and anything being used for meat or hide. Ridiculous.

 

[Aardwolf]

True, it's so unfortunate that the AWA only covers mammals, and not even all mammals. Rats, mice, horses, and anything being used for meat or hide. Ridiculous.

After years of building up to it, USDA is starting to move ahead with plans to cover birds as part of APHIS inspections… though part of me will still only believe it when I see it

 

[15399]

After years of building up to it, USDA is starting to move ahead with plans to cover birds as part of APHIS inspections… though part of me will still only believe it when I see it

Part of me is also skeptical of how effective that will be unless the inspectors are more well-versed in a wider array of taxa. Since the only requirement to be an inspector is a vet, a lot of the time you get inspectors who don't always know what they are looking at, and in turn whether or not its welfare is up to (the admittedly much too low) standard. While I'd love to see it, and including birds would be a great start to covering more animals, it'll be even less likely now for inspectors to be well-versed in all the taxa they are responsible for inspecting, as the way it is right now there's already many who may be experts in some animals, but aren't well-versed in the welfare of all mammals from aardvarks to zebras.

 

[Aardwolf]

Part of me is also skeptical of how effective that will be unless the inspectors are more well-versed in a wider array of taxa. Since the only requirement to be an inspector is a vet, a lot of the time you get inspectors who don't always know what they are looking at, and in turn whether or not its welfare is up to (the admittedly much too low) standard. While I'd love to see it, and including birds would be a great start to covering more animals, it'll be even less likely now for inspectors to be well-versed in all the taxa they are responsible for inspecting, as the way it is right now there's already many who may be experts in some animals, but aren't well-versed in the welfare of all mammals from aardvarks to zebras.

Oh, I hear you. Even with mammals it can be hit or miss - if you aren't familiar with a species and what's normal for it, how can you really tell if something is wrong? Is it supposed to be that thin? Is it okay for it to be out in this weather? Is being alone an acceptable social group? If an inspector has zero knowledge of natural history and biology, they're just... guessing.

 

[TinoPup]

Oh, I hear you. Even with mammals it can be hit or miss - if you aren't familiar with a species and what's normal for it, how can you really tell if something is wrong? Is it supposed to be that thin? Is it okay for it to be out in this weather? Is being alone an acceptable social group? If an inspector has zero knowledge of natural history and biology, they're just... guessing.

And can't ID species

 

[NAIB Volunteer]

The Bill was signed by President Biden today. Individuals in possession of any of the prohibited breeds are required to register each animal with the Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days of the Bill's enactment.

 

[NAIB Volunteer]

The scientific name was changed by IUCN in 2008, before this bill was first introduced. Yeah, if it was like last year or something that wouldn't bug me too much, but it just goes to show that when drafting this bill someone didn't do their full research, which is problematic in its own right.

The scientific name under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers part of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, is Uncia uncia. The Bill has to match previous listings under other Federal wildlife regulations which still uses the old, although still recognized, scientific name. FWS can issue a new rule updating such names, but if there is no urgent need for it, there are always other pressing issues.

 

[JVM]

I think this bill is an absolute win.

There is no reason these animals should be in private hands unregistered and anyone reputable enough to be anywhere near a good zoo is almost certainly registered or prepared to do so. I cannot imagine an accredited zoo accepting a tiger of unknown provenance unless it were a rescue situation. There is a valid argument as to how effective it might be to try to control this but I am on the side that it is certainly better than handing people a 'well, it isn't technically illegal' license.

As much as my inner child would have liked to pet a tiger cub in some fantasy situation, the reality is that having a cottage industry at roadside zoos of petting big cat cubs encourages breeding to ensure a constant flow of cuddly cubs, and obviously tigers, leopards or jaguars are not animals meant to be held in massive numbers. Furthermore, the kind of breeding these facilities engage in is not the careful, controlled kind that any of us are used to at proper accredited facilities that rely on managed studbooks, but the kind of careless breeding they have explicitly discouraged in the past with color variants and hybrids. These cubs are doing nothing to help wild populations nor ending up as part of sustainable captive programs.

In regards to the zoogoing side of all this, I think we should all feel encouraged to see AZA facilities among those excluded. I have often feared that any legislation of this nature would, in the current day and age when even accredited facilities are such popular targets by animal rights groups, and in our current polarized political climate, be more negatively affected by bills that try to affect how wildlife are kept and cared for. It's a sign that the AZA is still in relatively good political standing and that activists have not made them all become too "toxic" to receive public support from political figures.

I can't conclusively say this will kill off the Tiger King story or prevent another Zanesville, but it's a step forward.

EDIT: I retract the above post.

 

[15399]

In regards to the zoogoing side of all this, I think we should all feel encouraged to see AZA facilities among those excluded. I have often feared that any legislation of this nature would, in the current day and age when even accredited facilities are such popular targets by animal rights groups, and in our current polarized political climate, be more negatively affected by bills that try to affect how wildlife are kept and cared for. It's a sign that the AZA is still in relatively good political standing and that activists have not made them all become too "toxic" to receive public support from political figures.

Note that the AZA isn't singled out as excluded. All USDA-C licensed facilities (which by default includes any public zoo that has a mammal on exhibit) is exempt from the law provided that they meet the criteria listed (no public contact with big cats being the big one). Furthermore, singling out the AZA as exempt from the law (or any law for that matter) wouldn't have been a good political or legal move, as it'd open it up to lawsuits over discriminating against unaccredited facilities. The AZA isn't a part of the US Government, so it's not easy for them to just say "everyone except the AZA needs to follow this law", so instead it'd need to be all zoos or no zoos (in this case it's no zoos), which in my opinion is the way it should be. Accreditation by the AZA, while something deserving of praise, isn't the end-all-be-all, and if a law is truly a good thing, then it should be good enough for the AZA as well as everyone else.

 

[JVM]

I see. Given that previous threads have established the USDA inspections can hardly tell even different kinds of monkey apart, I retract my previous post and support for the bill. I will be more careful next time.

 

[D2K4]

There's a wonderful facility in Arkansas called Turpentine Creek that rescues big cats from Tiger King type situations and gives them, essentially, a retirement home focused on quality of life. The stories of those animals are all incredibly heart breaking. Any act that will help put an end to the places those poor animals came from, or at the very least strike a blow against them, is a good thing.