Zoo welfare reforms

[GeeZee]

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.

Good points, I completely agree - UK zoos have always been ahead of their European counterparts when it comes to welfare, this is just more red tape which isn’t needed and it does seem like a “drip by drip” method which will eventually result in larger animals being even more difficult to keep particularly for smaller zoos, and in the future perhaps even a ban all together.

I’ve debated this on another thread, but I do feel that personally the UK (as in the public) are generally more anti zoo than compared to other European countries, animal rights groups (of which the UK has the most longstanding and influential in the world) will never like zoos no matter what good they do for the world and will never be satisfied.

 

[petra128]

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.

I'm new to this site but I visit YWP regularly and the staff there have told me they highly doubt they will ever get elephants, partly due to costs but also due to concerns on elephant welfare in captivity.

 

[ZooNews2024]

Good points, I completely agree - UK zoos have always been ahead of their European counterparts when it comes to welfare, this is just more red tape which isn’t needed and it does seem like a “drip by drip” method which will eventually result in larger animals being even more difficult to keep particularly for smaller zoos, and in the future perhaps even a ban all together.

I’ve debated this on another thread, but I do feel that personally the UK (as in the public) are generally more anti zoo than compared to other European countries, animal rights groups (of which the UK has the most longstanding and influential in the world) will never like zoos no matter what good they do for the world and will never be satisfied.

I agree with you, in all aspects. Much of the new legislation is deliberately designed to start the ban process, and inch its way towards it. It has been cleverly dressed and spun up as 'progress' hitting the animal welfare buttons, but this is a smoke screen. That was the personal objective of a previous Prime Ministers wife who used her position and contacts to progress her agenda - and she was clearly a very intelligent lady.
I am the first to demand the highest possible standards, but they should be imposed equally and fairly on ALL. This Act is unfair and pitches one zoo against another as different teams of inspectors have different soap-boxes. It allowed and still allows no legal appeal against a decision, and allows neighbouring zoos to be judged by different standards, set by their respective inspection-teams - and is by default, discriminatory.

 

[Jurek7]

It looks indeed like an attempt to indirectly ban zoos by setting requirements impossible to follow. This law looks like a relic of the bygone era, when supposedly animals could live free and happy in the wild and people could travel to see them on safari in Africa.

In the 2020s, there is more species endangered in the wild than ever, zoos more financially squeezed than ever and British people having less opportunities to see animals in the wild than ever, with travel being climate-unfriendly and outright too pricey. In the crisis, a proposal to put large new cost on zoos is plainly silly.

I can name many ways how such a law counter-productively can harm animals. It can force zoos to send 'problem' animals to worse conditions abroad. For social species like elephants where a social environment is the most important for welfare, absurd space requirements will lead to groups being smaller and existing herds being broken up. And most importantly, interest in animals and conservation will diminish. Nobody will care that animals will go extinct - nobody was ever accused for not saving an endangered species. British environmental organizations are already (in-)famous because children can name more kind of Pokemon than species of animals.

 

[Lafone]

It looks indeed like an attempt to indirectly ban zoos by setting requirements impossible to follow. This law looks like a relic of the bygone era, when supposedly animals could live free and happy in the wild and people could travel to see them on safari in Africa.

In the 2020s, there is more species endangered in the wild than ever, zoos more financially squeezed than ever and British people having less opportunities to see animals in the wild than ever, with travel being climate-unfriendly and outright too pricey. In the crisis, a proposal to put large new cost on zoos is plainly silly.

I can name many ways how such a law counter-productively can harm animals. It can force zoos to send 'problem' animals to worse conditions abroad. For social species like elephants where a social environment is the most important for welfare, absurd space requirements will lead to groups being smaller and existing herds being broken up. And most importantly, interest in animals and conservation will diminish. Nobody will care that animals will go extinct - nobody was ever accused for not saving an endangered species. British environmental organizations are already (in-)famous because children can name more kind of Pokemon than species of animals.

It would help if you referenced (by section and or page number the full legislation is a public pdf) the requirements that are ‘impossible to follow’ and listed or named the zoos that cannot follow them along with the specific reasons why not.

Otherwise the ‘ban’ argument just continues to look alarmist at best.

I do understand the argument being made about this all being a conspiracy fits a narrative of convenience for you and others and that’s fine, but you have not listed any specifics that support your argument. All we have now is a lot of insinuation that British people don’t know anything about animals and some hyperbole about travel being too expensive which has nothing to do with the legislation at all.

 

[JoB198]

I British environmental organizations are already (in-)famous because children can name more kind of Pokemon than species of animals.

This bit isn't strictly true. The study was in 2017 and specifically focused on British plants and animals: Badger or Bulbasaur - have children lost touch with nature?

'The researchers made a set of 100 picture cards, each showing a common species of British plant or wildlife, including adder, bluebell, heron, otter, puffin and wren. They also made a set of 100 picture cards, each showing a “common species” of Pokémon character, including Arbok, Beedrill, Hitmonchan, Omanyte, Psyduck and Wigglytuff'

I suspect most children can still name lions, tigers, giraffes, etc. - the common fare of British zoos (almost certainly capybaras too...!). There isn't a huge amount of native wildlife in most British zoos (aside from specialist ones) so you're reliant upon seeing them in the wild for the most part - and many are nocturnal. I'm interested in wildlife, and I can safely say I've never seen an adder, otter or wren in the wild in the UK.

 

[Lafone]

This bit isn't strictly true. The study was in 2017 and specifically focused on British plants and animals: Badger or Bulbasaur - have children lost touch with nature?

'The researchers made a set of 100 picture cards, each showing a common species of British plant or wildlife, including adder, bluebell, heron, otter, puffin and wren. They also made a set of 100 picture cards, each showing a “common species” of Pokémon character, including Arbok, Beedrill, Hitmonchan, Omanyte, Psyduck and Wigglytuff'

I suspect most children can still name lions, tigers, giraffes, etc. - the common fare of British zoos (almost certainly capybaras too...!). There isn't a huge amount of native wildlife in most British zoos (aside from specialist ones) so you're reliant upon seeing them in the wild for the most part - and many are nocturnal. I'm interested in wildlife, and I can safely say I've never seen an adder, otter or wren in the wild in the UK.

Useful to see and reinforces my view that a lot of statements made about this legislation are hype and exaggeration - that one finding rendering every U.K. environmental organisation ‘infamous’ seems far fetched to me.

I think I’d take the general body of work of (for example) wildlife trusts, RSPB, WWT etc over that. Many native species are in decline and we should be supporting organisations working to stop that and highlighting their work vs running them down on grounds of Nationality.

 

[ZooNews2024]

It would help if you referenced (by section and or page number the full legislation is a public pdf) the requirements that are ‘impossible to follow’ and listed or named the zoos that cannot follow them along with the specific reasons why not.

Otherwise the ‘ban’ argument just continues to look alarmist at best.

I do understand the argument being made about this all being a conspiracy fits a narrative of convenience for you and others and that’s fine, but you have not listed any specifics that support your argument. All we have now is a lot of insinuation that British people don’t know anything about animals and some hyperbole about travel being too expensive which has nothing to do with the legislation at all.

It has everything to do with the legislation. The legislation could have been brought in at any stage stage over the past two decades. The Government has specifically chosen to do so at a time when zoo populations and conservation programmes are weakened to the point of collapse by the results of Brexit. Just looks at the facts about animal transport produced by BIAZA and others. Your dismissal of these problems as just 'some hyperbole', shows how little you know of the subject.
A ban could never be introduced outright. The public would never accept it and the lives of millions of animals and thousands of staff would be affected. This is a very clever and calculated drip-by-drip way of achieving the same end, whilst spinning public support and banging the animal-welfare gong.
All part of the plan. Take advantage of the isolation of Brexit, and the huge rise in costs, massively increase taxes and staff costs, and then start squeezing using the legislation - simples.

 

[Nathano]

I’ve debated this on another thread, but I do feel that personally the UK (as in the public) are generally more anti zoo than compared to other European countries, animal rights groups (of which the UK has the most longstanding and influential in the world) will never like zoos no matter what good they do for the world and will never be satisfied.

I don't think this is true, personally - I certainly think that the anti-zoo community is much less active in the UK than it is in America or as it was 30 years ago (where London Zoo nearly got closed down).

Whether this was because the movement itself became less vocal, Fleet Street got bored and moved on, or changes in welfare standards meant the subject of outrage became vaguer is unclear. We certainly don't have animal rights groups as vocal (or as notorious) as PETA over here - Born Free and CAPS (or whatever they call themselves now) are not really well-known organisations by most people.

I would also question the idea that there is less of a community attachment in the UK - maybe this is just a Northern thing, but the broader Cheshire/Merseyside community are very attached to Chester and Knowsley.

It has everything to do with the legislation. The legislation could have been brought in at any stage stage over the past two decades. The Government has specifically chosen to do so at a time when zoo populations and conservation programmes are weakened to the point of collapse by the results of Brexit. Just looks at the facts about animal transport produced by BIAZA and others. Your dismissal of these problems as just 'some hyperbole', shows how little you know of the subject.
A ban could never be introduced outright. The public would never accept it and the lives of millions of animals and thousands of staff would be affected. This is a very clever and calculated drip-by-drip way of achieving the same end, whilst spinning public support and banging the animal-welfare gong.
All part of the plan. Take advantage of the isolation of Brexit, and the huge rise in costs, massively increase taxes and staff costs, and then start squeezing using the legislation - simples.

This is just conspiracy-mongering - you and others need to provide proof that supports your argument - which requirements are ‘impossible to follow’, which zoos cannot follow them and the reasons why they can't. Accusing other people of not being able to "see" is not an answer.

Any anti-zoo movement isn't terribly active in politics over here - I can't name any specific MPs off the top of my head that have expressed such sentiments. Certainly, the pandemic showed us that Britain's zoos enjoy pretty broad cross-party support (even Carrie Johnson followed London and Whipsnade on Twitter).

As for this current lot, Will Travers can certainly claim that the proposals have been "watered down" by the Big Zoo lobby... but he doesn't have any evidence that they actually were.

(If anything, the anti-zoo lot were more ticked off by the proposals than anything else).

 

[Jurek7]

It would help if you referenced (by section and or page number the full legislation is a public pdf)

Just an example of elephants, pages 123-124 for the lazy ones. A zoo wishing to keep elephants would have to lay about 2,5 hectare of space for up to 5 animals. Since an EEP recommends a breeding group of 2 adult bulls and a female herd, this becomes 6-9 hectares, depending whether an interpretation is that an adult elephant bull is 'group-living' with a female group. Calculate the cost of such land, plus building facilities, and the cost becomes out of reach of British zoos. Which was to be proven.

Of course, elephants in zoos already have large minimum space allowance, which cost means that, to my knowledge, only 1 new zoo in Britain started keeping elephants in the last 25 years. Of course, other animal species will need further investments at the same time.

This bit isn't strictly true. The study was in 2017 and specifically focused on British plants and animals:

Do you really think that British children know exotic animals better than native ones - other than lions and 50 or so other species common in memes on social media? The decades-old anti-zoo narrative that TV and internet can replace contact with real animals is simply not true.

We certainly don't have animal rights groups as vocal (or as notorious) as PETA over here

Zoos have changed, the movement died out, the general public supports zoos. But I think a minority of people still come up with the idea 'attacking zoos over welfare of animals is an easy and popular thing to do'.

This is just conspiracy-mongering

Repeatedly changing requirements of expensive, long-term investments (like animal enclosures in a zoo) is a well known way to indirectly destroy business.

DEFRA itself written that the requirements 'have not changed for over a decade'. An average zoo can, at best, rebuild 3-4 major exhibits in a decade, because of the time to gather money and that the visitors will not go to a zoo which is half a building site. A zoo exhibit for big animals can easily take a decade or more from the concept to finish. This is the reality of zoo business.

Looking deeper, this proposal seems also to contain an excessive bureaucracy. Just for elephants, a zoos should make a Long-Term Management Plan (LTMP) and for every single elephant, an Individual Welfare Plan (IWP). The plan should cover at least 30 years in future, I doubt a zoo can realistically foresee the legal, financial and conservation situation in 30 years time? This looks like bureaucrats creating a need of themselves.

The cost of zoo bureaucracy is already substantial and hampers real animal welfare. As an example, recently one European zoo complained that transport a zoo orangutan between Britain and Europe at first, seemed not to have a legal way at all, and finally the paper weighted about 15 kg and took over 1,5 year to complete.

This is a law from the times of plenty, when public had lots of money for entertainment and charity, and zoos could afford expensive investments. But 2020s are different. This legislation seems out of touch with reality.

 

[Lafone]

Just an example of elephants, pages 123-124 for the lazy ones. A zoo wishing to keep elephants would have to lay about 2,5 hectare of space for up to 5 animals. Since an EEP recommends a breeding group of 2 bulls and a female herd this becomes 6-9 hectares, depending whether an interpretation is that an adult elephant bull is 'group-living' with a female group. Calculate the cost of such land, plus building facilities, and the cost becomes out of reach of British zoos. Which was to be proven.

Of course, elephants in zoos already have large minimum space allowance, which cost means that, to my knowledge, only 1 new zoo in Britain started keeping elephants in the last 25 years. Of course, other animal species will need further investments at the same time.



Do you really think that British children know exotic animals better than native ones - other than lions and 50 or so other species common in memes on social media? The decades-old anti-zoo narrative that TV and internet can replace contact with real animals is simply not true.



Zoos have changed, the movement died out, the general public supports zoos. But I think a people still think something like 'attacking zoos over welfare of animals is an easy and popular thing to do'.



Repeatedly changing requirements of expensive, long-term investments (like animal enclosures in a zoo) is a well known way to indirectly destroy business.

DEFRA itself written that the requirements 'have not changed for over a decade'. An average zoo can, at best, rebuild 3-4 exhibits in a decade, because of the time to gather money and that the visitors will not go to a zoo which is half a building site. A zoo exhibit for big animals can easily take a decade or more from the concept to finish. This is the reality of zoo business.

Looking deeper, this proposal seems also to contain an excessive bureaucracy. Just for elephants, a zoos should make a Long-Term Management Plan (LTMP) and for every single elephant, an Individual Welfare Plan (IWP). The plan should cover at least 30 years in future, I doubt a zoo can realistically foresee the legal, financial and conservation situation in 30 years time? This looks like bureaucrats creating a need of themselves.

The cost of zoo bureaucracy is already substantial and hampers real animal welfare. As an example, recently one European zoo complained that transport a zoo orangutan between Britain and Europe at first, seemed not to have a legal way at all, and finally the paper weighted about 15 kg and took over 1,5 year to complete.

This is a law from the times of plenty, when public had lots of money for entertainment and charity, and zoos could afford expensive investments. But 2020s are different. This legislation seems out of touch with reality.

Obviously the question posed was unclear. List the zoos that have stated they cannot and will not comply with specific legislation (by reference) or the ones you expect to do so.

On the subject of the 2017 survey it was you who cited it as an example of the failings of 'British environment groups' no one else raised it. You have now decided British children don't know any animals beyond some common ones. More hyperbole.

 

[Chlidonias]

pages 123-124 for the lazy ones

I'd just like to point out that requiring a source does not constitute being lazy. The person making an argument or claim is the one who has to provide their source - it is not the job of the other person to search out the source for someone else's claim. The only "lazy one" is the person making an argument or claim without doing so.

 

[ZooNews2024]

This is just conspiracy-mongering - you and others need to provide proof that supports your argument - which requirements are ‘impossible to follow’, which zoos cannot follow them and the reasons why they can't. .

I have never said that any of the requirements are impossible to follow, so don't miss-quote me. To dismiss the concerns as 'just conspiracy mongering' shows that you have little knowledge of the subject, and that it would be best to actually speak to people who actually know the effects before commenting in this way.

 

[ZooNews2024]

.
Repeatedly changing requirements of expensive, long-term investments (like animal enclosures in a zoo) is a well known way to indirectly destroy business.

DEFRA itself written that the requirements 'have not changed for over a decade'. An average zoo can, at best, rebuild 3-4 major exhibits in a decade, because of the time to gather money and that the visitors will not go to a zoo which is half a building site. A zoo exhibit for big animals can easily take a decade or more from the concept to finish. This is the reality of zoo business.

Yes absolutely, the changes already made under the old requirements would be contradictory and opposing every THREE years, between one inspection and the next - even for the same zoo, with the same animals, the same staff and the same inspectors; with one team over-turning everything put in place by the previous one.
No industry can plan, invest, train and recruit (and survive) with these pressures.
The new requirements give inspectors more powers and this will increase not decrease. The discrimination resulting already, was a major arguement put forward by some zoos in the first round of consultations, but has been ignored by Government who did the opposite and deliberately made the situation worse.
If you ignore this, you are blinkered and naive. Go on dismissing the truth as a conspiracy will not affect the outcome. Time will tell. We have to live with it as there is no arguement and no appeal.

 

[JoB198]

Do you really think that British children know exotic animals better than native ones - other than lions and 50 or so other species common in memes on social media? The decades-old anti-zoo narrative that TV and internet can replace contact with real animals is simply not true.

I said I suspected they recognised more 'zoo' animals than native animals, because a lot of native animals are only commonly seen in the wild. I also think we're confusing knowledge with interest generally. I can tell you something is an oryx but not exactly which species. It doesn't mean I don't like seeing them.

And yes, I suspect native wildlife is less recognisable to them generally. I suspect the same about most people, to be honest. Actually, the more I think about that study, the more it's quite inherently flawed in my opinion.

In my experience of British children (pretty extensive) they are generally quite interested, even if not to the extent of knowing Latin names for things.

 

[GeeZee]

I have never said that any of the requirements are impossible to follow, so don't miss-quote me. To dismiss the concerns as 'just conspiracy mongering' shows that you have little knowledge of the subject, and that it would be best to actually speak to people who actually know the effects before commenting in this way.

It’s rather funny , these days if you get personal and label someone a conspiracy theorist you’ve practically lost the arguement as you don’t have any substance to your own arguement

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

Much of the new legislation is deliberately designed to start the ban process, and inch its way towards it.

And your evidence for this is ... ?

 

[Kalaw]

UK zoos have always been ahead of their European counterparts when it comes to welfare

Massively off-topic but I don't think that's true at all.

Do you really think that British children know exotic animals better than native ones - other than lions and 50 or so other species common in memes on social media?

Yes. '50 or so other species common on social media' is enough to give the exotics an advantage because sadly I find it hard to image a British child naming that many native species.

 

[Lafone]

It’s rather funny , these days if you get personal and label someone a conspiracy theorist you’ve practically lost the arguement as you don’t have any substance to your own arguement

It's indeed rather funny these days when you present arguments with no evidence to back them up that you want to be seen as having substance to your argument. Welcome to the social media tactic of 'going on the offensive' while staying firmly off topic on specifics...you do it very well. All the same I'd love to see those references linked to the specific zoos you are concerned about.

 

[Chlidonias]

It’s rather funny , these days if you get personal and label someone a conspiracy theorist you’ve practically lost the arguement as you don’t have any substance to your own arguement

I really don't think that's how that works ...