New Animal Welfare Law & list of official zoos in Finland

[aeemeli]

The Animal Protecting Law of Finland (from 1996) was replaced by Animal Welfare Act in 2024, and this also affected the Finnish zoos. Before the law change, the zoos were basically required just to take good care of the animals and to educate people. This means that many small places keeping only domestic animals were also operating under a zoo license.

Now, the new law states the following:

A zoo must contribute to the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity. To this end, a zoo shall provide the public with information about the species on display and their natural habitat.

The zoo must also participate in:
1) research to promote the conservation of animal species;
2) training in the conservation of species;
3) the exchange of information on the conservation of species; and
4) where appropriate, the breeding, and reintroduction or reinforcement of species.

Now that the authorities have gone through all old zoo licenses and seen if the institutions operate under the new requirements, there are officially 12 zoos in Finland.

EAZA member zoos:

• Korkeasaaren eläintarha (Korkeasaari Zoo), Helsinki
• Ranuan eläinpuisto (Ranua Zoo), Ranua
• Ähtärin eläinpuisto (Ähtäri Zoo), Ähtäri

Other zoos:

• Kiteen eläinpuisto, Kitee
• Kuusamon Suurpetokeskus, Kuusamo
• Lomamäen lemmikkipuisto, Inkoo
• Materatium (aquarium), Kotka
• Sea Life Helsinki (aquarium), Helsinki
• Särkänniemen akvaario (aquarium), Tampere
• Tropicario, Helsinki
• Visenttipuisto, Kuusamo
• Zoolandia, Lieto

Many places previously called zoos are not meeting the new standards, and their zoo licenses have been revoked. They can still continue to operate as an "permanent animal exhibit" or an "farm yard" (basically a petting zoo), but they cannot keep wild animals.

Sources:
Yle 9.7.2025 "Laki eläinten hyvinvoinnista muuttui, ja seuraukset näkyvät nyt eläintarhoilla"
Finlex 693/2023 "Laki eläinten hyvinvoinnista"
Korkeasaari Zoo website "Legistlation and inspections"

 

[Jana]

Many places previously called zoos are not meeting the new standards, and their zoo licenses have been revoked. They can still continue to operate as an "permanent animal exhibit" or an "farm yard" (basically a petting zoo), but they cannot keep wild animals.

Has this impacted those places that lost their zoo licence? Did they have to get rid of any animals? Have they problems in fundraising or taking grants / donations? Or any other impact...

 

[aeemeli]

Has this impacted those places that lost their zoo licence? Did they have to get rid of any animals? Have they problems in fundraising or taking grants / donations? Or any other impact...

There hasn't been many news about the subject. But Kukka- ja eläinpuisto Escurial at least had some dramatic turns, partly because of the new law and partly because the owners are getting old and can't keep up with the needed renovations. For example, they had a Facebook livestream where they shot one of their tortoises... Their reasoning was that they got mixed answers about the enclosure requirements, so they got frustrated.

Yle News mentions Elämyspiha Pikkukili, an "experience farmyard", that had its license revoked. They had "only a few wild animals on display" and no species in need of special protection, but the article doesn't state what happened to those wild animals and how many there actually were. I guess they might have moved to one of the places that kept their license.

But truthfully, in my opinion the screening hasn't been strict enough. For example there has been a lot of problems with Kuusamon Suurpetokeskus. They have been lying where their bears come from (saying that they are orphan wildborn bears, even tho they are the result of inbreeding at "zoo"), bears have escaped multiple times, the lack of enrichments, animals have had severe health problems and there is an ongoing police investigation about it... But still, they managed to keep their license. Also the Yle News says that Kitee Zoo didn't send their statement about their work to authorities during the given time period, and authorities had to ask them twice for them to update the statement before it could be accepted. Seems very strange.

Most of the non-EAZA zoos are privately owned and have only few staff members, so they just get their funding from ticket sales. There's very strict laws about fundraising and accepting grants here, so basically only few rescue centers can do that (+ Korkeasaari Zoo and Ähtäri Zoo do it for conservation projects).

 

[Chlidonias]

For example, they had a Facebook livestream where they shot one of their tortoises... Their reasoning was that they got mixed answers about the enclosure requirements, so they got frustrated.

Shot as in, killed it with a gun?

One would hope they will have all their animals taken off them if they shot a tortoise because "they got frustrated" by legal requirements!

 

[dillotest0]

Shot as in, killed it with a gun?

One would hope they will have all their animals taken off them if they shot a tortoise because "they got frustrated" by legal requirements!

...wouldn't the bullet ricochet?
I remember hearing someone shooting an armadillo only for the bullet to ricochet off the shell, break through the man's house's window and strike his wife's shoulder

 

[Chlidonias]

...wouldn't the bullet ricochet?
I remember hearing someone shooting an armadillo only for the bullet to ricochet off the shell, break through the man's house's window and strike his wife's shoulder

Whether the tortoise was killed or not is irrelevant to the point I was making though - if he deliberately shot a captive animal at his zoo, and live-streamed himself doing it, simply because he didn't like new regulations, then he shouldn't be allowed to keep animals. Ideally he'd be prosecuted in my opinion, but I don't know what the animal laws are in Finland.

 

[aeemeli]

Shot as in, killed it with a gun?

Yup, to the head. Also the tortoise was put on snow before shooting it. This Ilta-Sanomat news article contains a screenshot from the video before the trigger was pulled. The video had a shared text post by the owners, which I translated roughly: "Dear so-called friends, now you all can do those reports for being worried about us, neighbour's Tapio the killer will do the job, Thank you for the suffering, (owners' names)".

Escurial has remained closed to the public "temporarily" for over a year now, but there are still animals on the property. The animal number in October 2024 was said to be 268, which is about 200 less than previously. The owners say that most have died due to old age, and that they are looking for a suitable buyer for the business, but haven't yet found one.

Last spring, Escurial had once again posted updates on social media suggesting that animals may be put down. They told the media that the updates were a protest against the new law: if Escurial finds a buyer to their liking, but the zoo status is taken away, the new owner may not be able to keep all the wild animals there. And that is exactly what has happened – but they haven't been able to sell the place, and there hasn't been any articles telling what happened to those animals after the licence got taken away.

So they still own the place, and are still taking care of the remaining animals (mostly different kinds of birds and farm animals) mostly by themselves. Even though they are already 83 and 65 years old, and not in great shape physically: the younger one has had his leg amputated due to the Bird fancier's lung disease. Some volunteers have been helping them, fixing broken structures and cleaning dirty indoor areas.

EDIT: oh, and the Finnish law about euthanasia. The law says it must be done as quickly as possible. Only a person who knows how to do it is allowed to do so: he or she must have sufficient knowledge of the method of killing the animal in question. In addition, the animal to be killed must be restrained in order to avoid all avoidable pain and suffering. The district vet commented: "I have never come across this kind of killing [shooting] of a tortoise/turtle (it's the same word in Finnish) by shooting. It's not the most common, but it's possible by the law."

 

[MRJ]

Now, the new law states the following:

The new British regulations include requirements for conservation as well. The requirements listed here seem to be a fairly low barrier and would seem to be fairly easy to meet. Do you have any thoughts or information about how this law will be administered in relation to conservation?

The district vet commented: "I have never come across this kind of killing [shooting] of a tortoise/turtle (it's the same word in Finnish) by shooting. It's not the most common, but it's possible by the law."

He would probably be right, but crazy to live stream it.

 

[aeemeli]

The requirements listed here seem to be a fairly low barrier and would seem to be fairly easy to meet. Do you have any thoughts or information about how this law will be administered in relation to conservation?

As per the news, the section requiring participation in research has caused problems with interpretation. The law does not specify if this can be done independently, or if it requires co-operation with research institutes. For example, the EAZA zoos are co-operating with universities, releasing peer-reviewed research papers and sending material to biobanks, but a smaller zoo might just be testing some things by themselves and call it a day. The authorities are currently drafting official guidance to make things clearer.

I'm also wondering the part about the exchange of information on the conservation. The EAZA members automatically do this, but there is also an unofficial Finnish Zoo Association that has annual meetings to exchange information. As its operations are unofficial, its membership is free and requires very little from the members. The association would seem like a easy way to contribute, but still, not all zoos are members: only Korkeasaari, Ähtäri, Ranua, Maretarium, Tropicario, Särkänniemi and Sea Life are (+ Luonnonvarakeskus, which is a research institute, and Hirvikartano, a permanent animal exhibit with only few local animal species).

I don't think that places like Suurpetokeskus or Lomamäen lemmikkipuisto have anything to do with conservation, but they have somehow managed to make it through the first round with the new law. I hope that the authorities will take a critical look at their activities after the guidance has been done, and intervene with a low threshold...

 

[Mymmeli]

It is likely that many places will have changes. And the new law has already changed things. Discussion around places like Suurpetokeskus are more than welcome.
Escurialis is a sad example about things. It is very good that we are now more strict with animal welfare.

The new law has also caused some trouble with organizations helping wild animals: birds, hedgehogs etc.
And that to me is also worrying.

If I understood correctly the new law did clarify the process of how and with what grounds a wild born animal can be added into a zoo. Saw one of the Finnsh EAZA zoo's postin about it.

Not of course as an active action, but ie. if it is a rare bird that gets injured, and thus unable to be returned to the nature.

 

[aeemeli]

The new law has also caused some trouble with organizations helping wild animals: birds, hedgehogs etc.

I think the law has some good renewals about wild animal care, as it has been like a wild wild west before: anyone anywhere could've just started nursing injured or orphan animals, with or without proper knowledge. For example, now a helpless animal must be transferred to a care facility, meaning that a random person can only give urgent first aid to it. Also these care facilities need to be registered and they have requirements about the staff, so the authorities have at least a hunch what is happening. I would have actually wished the law to be event stricter about this, it would have been a good thing if these facilities would have been screened after registration to secure proper treatment to animals. But maybe that is the next step in the future.

29 § Care of a Wild Animal in a Helpless Condition
After first aid, the animal must, if its condition allows, be released back into the wild or transferred to a care facility (as referred to in Section 61). If the animal cannot be released and its care cannot be arranged, it must be euthanized.

30 § Competence and Sufficiency of Animal Caretakers
The keeper of an animal and other caretakers must have sufficient competence to ensure the proper care of the animal.

A person who keeps animals professionally or on a large scale must have appropriate education or otherwise acquired sufficient qualifications to carry out their duties. The animal keeper must ensure that a sufficient number of qualified caretakers are available to care for the animals. The animal keeper must provide instructions and guidance to employees involved in the care and handling of animals to ensure proper animal care.

Further provisions on the training and qualifications of animal keepers and other animal caretakers, as well as on the sufficient number of caretakers, may be issued by government decree.

If I understood correctly the new law did clarify the process of how and with what grounds a wild born animal can be added into a zoo. ---Not of course as an active action, but ie. if it is a rare bird that gets injured, and thus unable to be returned to the nature.

The law makes placing injurec etc wild animals (that are not suitable to rerelease) to zoos possible just like before:

61 § Operation of Care Facilities for Wild Animals in a Helpless Condition
--- Before beginning long-term care of a wild animal brought to a care facility, it must be determined whether a special permit is required for keeping the animal, in accordance with the Nature Conservation Act or the Hunting Act. The possession of invasive alien species is regulated by the Act on Managing the Risks Caused by Invasive Alien Species.

A wild animal brought to a care facility must be released back into the wild if its condition allows. If the animal cannot be released due to injury, illness, or other reasons, and cannot be permanently placed in a zoo, it must be euthanized.

The process is not stated in the law, but well established zoos should know how its works, as I have understood the process itself has not changed.

Also the law makes it possible to take some animals from the wild without a "proper reason" like an injury, but if I remember correctly this is basically the same text that was in the old law. For example, a few years back some Finnish forest reindeer males were caught from the wild to the EAZA zoos to gain more versatile genes to the EEP and to secure future reintroductions. Of course actions like this need special permissions from the authorities event though the law states it possible, so I don't think this section is misunderstood or misused.

28 § Taking a Wild Animal into Captivity
A wild vertebrate animal may not be taken into captivity.
The prohibition does not apply to the capturing and possession of an animal if a permit has been granted under sections 48 or 49 of the Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996), sections 40 or 41 of the Hunting Act, or section 47 of the Fishing Act (379/2015).

Unless otherwise provided by other legislation, exceptions to the prohibition may also be made if the capturing and possession of the animal is for:

1) keeping the animal in a zoo;
2) fish farming, stocking, educational purposes, or other similar fisheries-related purposes as defined in the Fishing Act;
3) game management purposes as defined in the Hunting Act;
4) scientific research purposes; or
5) providing care for an animal in a helpless condition.