Zoos forum handbook

Whatever the cause s , employing an unofficial YES BUT outcome leads to a lack of consistency and clarity in the reporting process. To achieve an effective and consistent assessment of animal welfare, the background knowledge of ZIs and the resources available to them should be as complete as possible. Greenwood et al. This is not surprising, since there is a lack of biological and field data for many species held in zoos [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. This makes it difficult to assess their basic welfare standards, let alone special needs.

However, at the time of this study BIAZA listed just 17 separate guidelines for species or taxa, covering nine genera of mammals [ 27 ]. Guidelines for other species or taxa had been published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, but only a minority of commonly-kept species had specific guidelines to which ZIs could refer.

While the Association of Zoos and Aquariums was developing Animal Care Manuals for approximately species or groups [ 28 ], only 5 had been completed [ 29 ]. To put this into perspective, there were approximately species of mammal, species of bird, species of reptile and 85 species of amphibian in BIAZA-member zoos alone [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. It is also unclear how these guidelines will contribute to improving the welfare of zoo animals.

It can also be unclear whether such guidelines are science-based, have been scientifically validated, or are based on expert opinion [ 26 , 28 ]. The Zoos Forum Handbook recommends that zoo assessments are based on a number of welfare indicators, including visual inspection of animals and records [ 15 ]. While it recognises that the role for direct welfare inspection by ZIs may be more suited to auditing operating systems, this is not reflected in form ZOO 2, nor in many of the responses reported.

There is clearly an expectation that ZIs assess the welfare of individual animals. For example, question 3. Assessing the health of more than individual animals, i. In general, no indication was given by ZIs as to which, if any, of these or other indicators were employed in reaching their assessment of the health of all the animals on display, nor whether this was done by direct inspection or by auditing the operating procedures.

While it is easier to assess provision, a range of standards for both provisions and outcomes are needed to assess welfare accurately; these include resources, management, records and welfare state [ 8 , 33 , 34 ]. Some recent studies have assessed animal welfare at the farm or group level e. However, there are substantial differences between on-farm or livestock systems, where large numbers of a single species with defined age and often sex cohorts are held in relatively standardised conditions, and zoos, which hold small groups of a wide range of species with different ages, ontogenies and specific husbandry requirements.

Whilst assessing individual animal welfare must be the priority for zoo staff and veterinarians, individual welfare assessment is time-consuming and may not be suitable for a short duration, infrequent formal inspection system. It is more important that the formal inspection process incorporates a measure of the degree of compliance, rather than the current system of simple YES or NO answers to general questions encompassing all the animals in the zoo, which is basically group-level welfare assessment without any defined levels of acceptability, and as such is limited in its effectiveness.

It is also important to consider positive outcomes when assessing animal welfare. It is surprising, therefore, that unlike other sections of the reporting form, Section 4 only includes one question about provision of opportunities to express normal behaviour. This subjectivity, and the focus on resource provision rather than welfare outcomes, suggests that this section in particular is inadequate to assess zoo animal welfare, and that ZIs should be required to include positive welfare outcomes in their assessments [ 38 ].

Similarly, while zoos performed relatively well in Section 5 Provision of protection from fear and distress , the criteria assessed are arguably limited. Given the increasing body of evidence on the impact of visitor presence on the welfare of zoo animals see [ 39 ] for review , factors other than just physical contact between visitors and animals question 5. A quarter of a century after the ZLA came into effect, it might reasonably be expected that there would be a high level of compliance with the minimum animal welfare standards in British zoos.

Hence we focussed our analyses on the proportion of zoos that ZIs considered did not meet these minimum standards. Where a zoo was graded as not meeting these minimum standards, the current inspection system did not enable us to determine the proportion of animals involved. Furthermore, substandard assessments in one section of form ZOO 2 were associated with substandard assessments in other sections, showing that zoos that performed badly did so across a range of animal welfare measures.

While BIAZA members were expected to perform significantly better than non-members on most broad measures of animal welfare, this was not the case in three of the five sections, particularly Section 2 criteria relating to the Provision of a suitable environment , where BIAZA members were as likely to be judged substandard as non-members.

BIAZA members only performed significantly better than non-members in Section 3 The provision of animal health care , the area where zoos generally were assessed to be worse, and Section 5 Provision of protection from fear and distress. The reasons for the differences in assessment between types of zoo are unclear. The SMZP and current zoo licensing system can only play a part in the assessment of animal welfare in British zoos, much of which must be undertaken by the zoos themselves and by industry membership bodies such as BIAZA.

However, the lack of clarity as to how animal welfare in British zoos is assessed by ZIs, coupled with the levels of non-compliance with both the inspection process and conditions imposed on zoos, raises significant concerns about the delivery of the zoo licensing and inspection systems. Our analyses indicate that the following changes to the inspection process should lead to substantial improvements in the assessment of zoo animal welfare:. Auditing zoo records for accuracy and consistency is important, but should be a separate part of the inspection process.

An inspection should be an independent review in which ZIs are required to record which indicators were used to assess animal welfare. At the moment it is impossible to gauge the criteria used in zoo animal welfare assessments, or the proportion of animals in the collection that were assessed. Form ZOO 2 should include details of the indicators used to assess animal welfare. If all the animals in the collection and their records were not inspected, form ZOO 2 should require ZIs to include details of the level of sampling employed, and whether the sample was random or focussed on particular taxa.

ZIs used the optional grading system erratically and infrequently. Making it mandatory to use the current or some other grading system to indicate the level of variability in welfare assessments, and form ZOO 2, will provide a baseline against which changes can be monitored over time. Section 4 of form ZOO 2 in particular needs to be expanded to allow a better assessment of whether animals can express normal behaviour, and inspections by ZIs should assess welfare outcomes as well as provision of resources.

Similarly, Section 5 of form ZOO 2 needs to be expanded to include additional criteria that take account of the impact of visitor presence on the welfare of zoo animals, as well as physical contact between visitors and animals. There is an urgent need for the development of, and validation of, science-based species-specific guidelines for the care of animals in zoos.

Clearer rules are required as to the time that should be spent inspecting a zoo, based on the size and type of collection, to ensure sufficient scrutiny of records, facilities and individual animals. We analysed 47 questions that related to the assessment of animal welfare in British zoos. Of necessity, we had to treat all questions as being of equal importance. Weighting the assessment criteria would complement an improved system of grading infringements. Such a weighting system should be developed using a panel of experts and consensus techniques to ensure objectivity and would complement an improved system of grading infringements see point Similarly, past welfare assessments could be used to identify zoos where more detailed assessments should be undertaken.

There should also be different reporting forms for different types of zoo, particularly Farm Parks, Aquariums and other specialist collections, a recommendation also made by ADAS [ 21 ]. The Animals Scientific Procedures Act provides a useful example of how infringements could be graded and addressed [ 23 ]. There should be a regular national analysis e. For this it should be mandatory for ZIs to send their reports to the national authority or, more appropriately, the reporting system should be computerised to facilitate data analysis.

We thank the Born Free Foundation for funding and Ros Clubb, David Main and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on drafts of this paper. BFF provided funding, study leave and logistical support for data collection to CD but had no part in the study design, analysis, interpretation and conclusions presented, which remain those of the authors.

National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Animals Basel v. Animals Basel. Published online Sep Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Simple Summary Since , British zoos have been required to meet the animal welfare standards set out under the Zoo Licensing Act Abstract We analysed the reports of government-appointed inspectors from zoos between — to provide the first review of how animal welfare was assessed in British zoos since the enactment of the Zoo Licensing Act Keywords: animal welfare, captive wild animals, government inspections, local authority, risk factors, Zoo Licensing Act.

Introduction Captivity is widely acknowledged to affect the welfare of wild animals e. Table 1 Questions on form ZOO 2 relating to animal welfare that were assessed by ZIs during renewal and periodic inspections. Provision of food and water 1. Is each animal provided with a high standard of nutrition? Are supplies of food and water: a. Open in a separate window. Experimental Section Copies of the most recent inspection reports submitted for the zoos in their administrative area were requested from all local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales.

Results and Discussion Copies of reports were received for formal i. The Inspection Process One inspection took place over two days; all other inspections were completed within a day.

Table 2 Details of six occasions when two zoos were inspected by the same ZI on the same day. Date Distanceapart km Type ofinspection Type of zoo 1 No. Table 7 Effect of type of zoo on animal welfare performance in each section. Conclusions Our analysis complements earlier reviews by Greenwood et al. Animal Welfare Assessment in Zoos To achieve an effective and consistent assessment of animal welfare, the background knowledge of ZIs and the resources available to them should be as complete as possible.

Differences in Animal Welfare Assessments Between Zoos A quarter of a century after the ZLA came into effect, it might reasonably be expected that there would be a high level of compliance with the minimum animal welfare standards in British zoos. Animal Welfare Implications The SMZP and current zoo licensing system can only play a part in the assessment of animal welfare in British zoos, much of which must be undertaken by the zoos themselves and by industry membership bodies such as BIAZA.

Our analyses indicate that the following changes to the inspection process should lead to substantial improvements in the assessment of zoo animal welfare: Auditing zoo records for accuracy and consistency is important, but should be a separate part of the inspection process.

Acknowledgments We thank the Born Free Foundation for funding and Ros Clubb, David Main and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on drafts of this paper.

References and Notes 1. Clubb R. Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. Morgan K. Sources of stress in captivity. Mason G. Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Fisken F. Zoos and aquariums of the world. Zoo Yearbook. Scottish Government Rural Directorate. Personal Communication.

Jan 19, Whitham J. Animal-based welfare monitoring: Using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biol. Annual Report. British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Defra; London, UK: Kirkwood J. United Kingdom: Licensing. In: Bell C. Zoos Forum: Handbook. Defra; London, UK: [ accessed on 19 January ]. Greenwood A. Defra Research Contract Pbc Webster A. Farm animal welfare: The five freedoms and the free market.

Welsh Assembly Government. Aug 11, Welfare, husbandry and veterinary care of wild animals in captivity: Changes in attitudes, progress in knowledge and techniques. Watters J.

Introduction to the special issue on zoo animal welfare. Melfi V. There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: A case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Barber J. Programmatic approaches to assessing and improving animal welfare in zoos and aquariums. Animal Care Manuals.

Aves Inventory. Mammalia Inventory. Reptilia and Amphibia Inventory. Main D. Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance schemes. Acta Agr. A Anim. Leach M. Identification of appropriate measures for the assessment of laboratory mouse welfare. Botreau R. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare.

Part 1: A review of existing methods. Part 2: Analysis of constraints. Yeates J. To help us improve GOV. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in.

Cookies on GOV. UK We use some essential cookies to make this website work. Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies. Hide this message. Home Environment Wildlife, animals, biodiversity and ecosystems Animal and plant health. Guidance Zoos expert committee handbook. Request an accessible format. Published 21 November Explore the topic Animal welfare Animal and plant health Food and farming. Is this page useful? Maybe Yes this page is useful No this page is not useful.