Getting It Straight: Accommodating Rectilinear Behavior in Captive Snakes-A Review of Recommendations and Their Evidence Base.

Snakes are sentient animals and should be subject to the accepted general welfare principles of other species. However, they are also the only vertebrates commonly housed in conditions that prevent them from adopting rectilinear behavior (ability to fully stretch out). To assess the evidence bases for historical and current guidance on snake spatial considerations, we conducted a literature search and review regarding recommendations consistent with or specifying ≥1 × and <1 × snake length enclosure size. We identified 65 publications referring to snake enclosure sizes, which were separated into three categories: peer-reviewed literature (article or chapter appearing in a peer-reviewed journal or book, n = 31), grey literature (government or other report or scientific letter, n = 18), and opaque literature (non-scientifically indexed reports, care sheets, articles, husbandry books, website or other information for which originating source is not based on scientific evidence or where scientific evidence was not provided, n = 16). We found that recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes shorter than the snakes were based entirely on decades-old 'rule of thumb' practices that were unsupported by scientific evidence. In contrast, recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes that allowed snakes to fully stretch utilized scientific evidence and considerations of animal welfare. Providing snakes with enclosures that enable them to fully stretch does not suggest that so doing allows adequate space for all necessary normal and important considerations. However, such enclosures are vital to allow for a limited number of essential welfare-associated behaviors, of which rectilinear posturing is one, making them absolute minimum facilities even for short-term housing.

Health implications associated with exposure to farmed and wild sea turtles.

Exposure to sea turtles may be increasing with expanding tourism, although reports of problems arising from interaction with free-living animals appear of negligible human health and safety concern. Exposure both to wild-caught and captive-housed sea turtles, including consumption of turtle products, raises several health concerns for the public, including: microbiological (bacteria, viruses, parasites and fungi), macrobiological (macroparasites), and organic and inorganic toxic contaminants (biotoxins, organochlorines and heavy metals). We conducted a review of sea turtle associated human disease and its causative agents as well as a case study of the commercial sea turtle facility known as the Cayman Turtle Farm (which receives approximately 240,000 visitors annually) including the use of water sampling and laboratory microbial analysis which identified Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Aeromonas spp., Vibrio spp. and Salmonella spp. Our assessment is that pathogens and toxic contaminants may be loosely categorized to represent the following levels of potential risk: viruses and fungi = very low; protozoan parasites = very low to low; metazoan parasites, bacteria and environmental toxic contaminants = low or moderate to high; and biotoxin contaminant = moderate to very high. Farmed turtles and their consumable products may constitute a significant reservoir of potential human pathogen and toxin contamination. Greater awareness among health-care professionals regarding both potential pathogens and toxic contaminants from sea turtles, as well as key signs and symptoms of sea turtle-related human disease, is important for the prevention and control of salient disease.

Visitor behaviour and public health implications associated with exotic pet markets: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct on-site assessments of public health implications at key European pet markets. DESIGN: Observational study of visitor behaviour at stalls that displayed and sold animals, mainly amphibians and reptiles, to assess potential contamination risk from zoonotic pathogens. We noted initial modes of contact as 'direct' (handling animals) as well as 'indirect' (touching presumed contaminated animal-related sources) and observed whether these visitors subsequently touched their own head or mouth (H1), body (H2) or another person (H3). SETTING: Publicly accessible exotic animal markets in the UK, Germany and Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymous members of the public in a public place. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence and frequency of public contact (direct, indirect or no contact) with a presumed contaminated source. RESULTS: A total of 813 public visitors were observed as they attended vendors. Of these, 29 (3.6%) made direct contact with an animal and 222 (27.3%) made indirect contact with a presumed contaminated source, with subsequent modes of contact being H1 18.7%, H2 52.2% and H3 9.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations indicate that opportunities for direct and indirect contact at pet markets with presumed contaminated animals and inanimate items constitute a significant and major concern, and that public attendees are exposed to rapid contamination on their person, whether or not these contaminations become associated with any episode of disease involving themselves or others. These public health risks appear unresolvable given the format of the market environment.