Private Keeping of Dangerous Wild Animals in Great Britain.

We analysed the licences issued by British local government authorities under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which regulates the private keeping of wild animals categorised as "dangerous", to assess the scope and scale of private keeping of dangerous wild animals in Great Britain. Results are compared with historical data from England and Wales, showing that there has been an overall decrease both in the total population of dangerous wild animals privately kept under licence and the number of licences, resulting primarily from a decrease in the farming of wild boar and ostrich, and from certain other species no longer requiring a licence to be kept. Nonetheless, the private keeping of dangerous wild animals remains prevalent, with a total population of 3950 animals kept under licence, and at least one-third of local authorities in Britain licensing keepers of one or more such animals. The population of non-farmed dangerous taxa has increased by 59% in 20 years, with notable increases in crocodilians (198%), venomous snakes (94%), and wild cats (57%). We present evidence that the average cost of a licence to keep dangerous wild animals has fallen over time, and that there is a negative association between cost and licensing. The current schedule of species categorised as dangerous is compared to a formally recognised list of species kept in zoos assessed by risk to the public. Problems with the legislation, enforcement of the licensing system, and animal welfare for privately kept dangerous wild animals are identified and discussed.

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control.

Human-wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence-based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human-wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2-day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human-wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long-term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.

Do Formal Inspections Ensure that British Zoos Meet and Improve on Minimum Animal Welfare Standards?

We analysed two consecutive inspection reports for each of 136 British zoos made by government-appointed inspectors between 2005 and 2011 to assess how well British zoos were complying with minimum animal welfare standards; median interval between inspections was 1,107 days. There was no conclusive evidence for overall improvements in the levels of compliance by British zoos. Having the same zoo inspector at both inspections affected the outcome of an inspection; animal welfare criteria were more likely to be assessed as unchanged if the same inspector was present on both inspections. This, and erratic decisions as to whether a criterion applied to a particular zoo, suggest inconsistency in assessments between inspectors. Zoos that were members of a professional association (BIAZA) did not differ significantly from non-members in the overall number of criteria assessed as substandard at the second inspection but were more likely to meet the standards on both inspections and less likely to have criteria remaining substandard. Lack of consistency between inspectors, and the high proportion of zoos failing to meet minimum animal welfare standards nearly thirty years after the Zoo Licensing Act came into force, suggest that the current system of licensing and inspection is not meeting key objectives and requires revision.

The Assessment of Animal Welfare in British Zoos by Government-Appointed Inspectors.

We analysed the reports of government-appointed inspectors from 192 zoos between 2005-2008 to provide the first review of how animal welfare was assessed in British zoos since the enactment of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. We examined the effects of whether or not a veterinarian was included in the inspection team, type of inspection, licence status of the zoo and membership of a zoo association on the inspectors' assessments of animal welfare standards in five areas that approximate to the Five Freedoms. At least 11% of full licence inspections did not comply with the legal requirement for two inspectors. The inspectors' reports were unclear as to how animal welfare was assessed, whether all animals or only a sub-sample had been inspected, and were based predominantly on welfare inputs rather than outcomes. Of 9,024 animal welfare assessments across the 192 zoos, 7,511 (83%) were graded as meeting the standards, 782 (9%) as substandard and the rest were not graded. Of the 192 zoos, 47 (24%) were assessed as meeting all the animal welfare standards. Membership of a zoo association was not associated with a higher overall assessment of animal welfare standards, and specialist collections such as Farm Parks and Other Bird collections performed least well. We recommend a number of changes to the inspection process that should lead to greater clarity in the assessment of animal welfare in British zoos.