Search

Simple Summary: Mobile zoos are events in which non-domesticated (exotic) and domesticated species are transported to different venues for the purposes of education, entertainment, or social and therapeutic assistance. We conducted literature searches and surveyed related government agencies regarding existing provisions within laws and policies, number of mobile zoos, and formal guidance issued concerning operation of such events in 74 countries or regions. We also examined guidance standards for mobile zoos, assessed promotional or educational materials for scientific accuracy, recorded the diversity of species in use, and evaluated those species for their suitability for keeping. We recorded 14 areas of concern regarding animal biology and public health and safety, and 8 areas of false and misleading content in promotional or educational materials. At least 341 species were used for mobile zoos, which are largely unregulated, unmonitored, and uncontrolled, and appear to be increasing. Poor animal welfare, public health and safety, and education raise serious concerns. Using the precautionary principle, we advise that exotic species should not be used for mobile zoos. Mobile zoos are events in which non-domesticated (exotic) and domesticated species are transported to venues such as schools, hospitals, parties, and community centres, for the purposes of education, entertainment, or social and therapeutic assistance. We conducted literature searches and surveyed related government agencies regarding existing provisions within laws and policies, number of mobile zoos, and formal guidance issued concerning operation of such events in 74 countries or regions. We also examined governmental and non-governmental guidance standards for mobile zoos, as well as websites for mobile zoo operations, assessed promotional or educational materials for scientific accuracy, and recorded the diversity of species in use. We used the EMODE (Easy, Moderate, Difficult, or Extreme) algorithm, to evaluate identified species associated with mobile zoos for their suitability for keeping. We recorded 14 areas of concern regarding animal biology and public health and safety, and 8 areas of false and misleading content in promotional or educational materials. We identified at least 341 species used for mobile zoos. Mobile zoos are largely unregulated, unmonitored, and uncontrolled, and appear to be increasing. Issues regarding poor animal welfare, public health and safety, and education raise several serious concerns. Using the precautionary principle when empirical evidence was not available, we advise that exotic species should not be used for mobile zoos and similar itinerant events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Current European legislation that protects animals used for scientific purposes excludes decapod crustaceans (for example, lobster, crab and crayfish) on the grounds that they are non-sentient and, therefore, incapable of suffering. However, recent work suggests that this view requires substantial revision. Our current understanding of the nervous systems and behavior of decapods suggests an urgent need to amend and update all relevant legislation. This paper examines recent experiments that suggest sentience and how that work has changed current opinion. It reflects on the use of decapods as models in biomedical research and in ecotoxicology, and it recommends that these animals should be included in the European protection legislation. Decapod crustaceans are widely used as experimental models, due to their biology, their sensitivity to pollutants and/or their convenience of collection and use. Decapods have been viewed as being non-sentient, and are not covered by current legislation from the European Parliament. However, recent studies suggest it is likely that they experience pain and may have the capacity to suffer. Accordingly, there is ethical concern regarding their continued use in research in the absence of protective measures. We argue that their welfare should be taken into account and included in ethical review processes that include the assessment of welfare and the minimization or alleviation of potential pain. We review the current use of these animals in research and the recent experiments that suggest sentience in this group. We also review recent changes in the views of scientists, veterinary scientists and animal charity groups, and their conclusion that these animals are likely to be sentient, and that changes in legislation are needed to protect them. A precautionary approach should be adopted to safeguard these animals from possible pain and suffering. Finally, we recommend that decapods be included in the European legislation concerning the welfare of animals used in experimentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In regulating the trading and keeping of exotic pets, lawmakers seek to protect animal welfare, prevent species declines, and safeguard biodiversity. The public also requires protection from pet-related injuries and animal-to-human diseases. Most legislation concerning exotic pet trading and keeping involves restricting or banning problematic species, a practice known as "negative listing". However, an alternative approach adopted by some governments permits only those species that meet certain scientifically proven criteria to be sold and kept as pets. Thus, governments may "positively list" only those species that are suitable to keep in domestic settings and that do not present a disproportionate risk to people or the environment. We reviewed international, national, and regional legislation in Europe, the United States, and Canada and found that largely unpublished and often inconsistent criteria are used for the development of negative and positive lists. We also conducted online surveys of governments, which received limited responses, although telephone interviews with governments either considering or developing positive lists revealed insights regarding their interest and motivation towards positive lists. We discuss key issues raised by civil servants including the perceived advantages of positive lists and challenges they anticipate in drawing up suitable lists of species. We compare functions of negative and positive lists and offer recommendations to governments concerning the development and implementation of positive lists. The trading and keeping of exotic pets are associated with animal welfare, conservation, environmental protection, agricultural animal health, and public health concerns and present serious regulatory challenges to legislators and enforcers. Most legislation concerning exotic pet trading and keeping involves restricting or banning problematic species, a practice known as "negative listing". However, an alternative approach adopted by some governments permits only the keeping of animals that meet certain scientifically proven criteria as suitable in respect of species, environmental, and public health and safety protections. We conducted an evaluation of positive lists for the regulation of pet trading and keeping within the context of the more prevalent system of restricting or prohibiting species via negative lists. Our examination of international, national, and regional regulations in Europe, the United States, and Canada found that criteria used for the development of both negative and positive lists were inconsistent or non-specific. Our online surveys of governments received limited responses, although telephone interviews with officials from governments either considering or developing positive lists provided useful insights into their attitudes and motivations towards adopting positive lists. We discuss key issues raised by civil servants including perceived advantages of positive lists and anticipated challenges when developing lists of suitable species. In addition, we compare functions of negative and positive lists, and recommend key principles that we hope will be helpful to governments concerning development and implementation of regulations based on positive lists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Hare coursing is a widespread and controversial activity in the Republic of Ireland in which the speed and agility of greyhounds are measured against that of a hare. Every year, several thousands of hares are taken from the wild by coursing clubs under licenses issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. While the majority are returned to the wild at the end of the coursing season, no research has been done on the impact of hare coursing on the welfare of individual hares. Despite greyhounds in licensed coursing events being muzzled since 1993, hares may be pinned to the ground by the dogs and killed or so severely injured that they have to be euthanized by a veterinary practitioner. In addition to animal welfare concerns, the recent emergence in Ireland of rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD2) has led to calls for licensed hare coursing to be prohibited on animal welfare, disease control, conservation and ethical grounds. In this paper, publicly available information provided by licensed hare coursing clubs on the number of hares captured, used for coursing events, killed or injured and the percentage returned to the wild, over four coursing seasons is reviewed. A reported 19,402 hares were taken from the wild over the four coursing seasons. Whilst 19,080 hares (98%) were returned to the wild, 75 were killed by greyhounds or had to be euthanized due to their injuries. Policy makers should take animal welfare, disease control, conservation, ethics and public opinion into account and fund independent research where gaps in knowledge are identified. Hare coursing is legal in the Republic of Ireland under licenses issued to coursing clubs but is illegal in other jurisdictions in the British Isles including Northern Ireland. Supporters of coursing maintain that coursing contributes to the conservation of the hare whilst opponents claim that coursing is cruel and the welfare of the hares is compromised. However, while the contribution of coursing to conservation has been considered, the impact of coursing on hare welfare has not been investigated. This paper reviews publicly available information from licensed hare coursing clubs over four coursing seasons, including the number of hares taken from the wild, numbers coursed, and numbers pinned to the ground by dogs, killed or injured during coursing events. In total, 19,402 hares were taken from the wild—98% of which were subsequently released back to the wild at the end of the coursing season. Almost 600 hares were pinned by greyhounds during coursing events and 75 were either killed or had to be euthanized as a result of their injuries. While the number of hares killed or injured is relatively small compared to the number caught, the welfare of all captured hares will have been compromised and has not been investigated. Policy makers must fill this knowledge gap or take a precautionary approach and further regulate or indeed prohibit the capture of hares which are otherwise fully protected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The domestic cat, Felis catus, is often cross-bred with other species in the cat family to produce hybrid or 'designer' cats that are sought by people as pets. However, hybrid cats are often surrendered to wildlife shelters, or released, which leads to concern that they may establish free-roaming populations and damage native wildlife. In 2008, the Australian government rejected an application, on precautionary grounds, to import savannah cats (hybrids of the domestic cat and serval Leptailurus serval) into the country. We review the limited information informing this decision and then present a framework that identifies the native mammal species likely to have been most at risk of predation from savannah cats if importation and establishment had occurred. Assuming that savannah cats hunt similar prey to those that are hunted by both parent species, we estimate that 91% of Australia's extant terrestrial mammal fauna would likely face some risk of predation from savannah cats, including 93% of non-volant mammal species that have threatened conservation status. The framework results strongly validate the decision to ban savannah cats from Australia. We suggest that our framework approach could be adapted to assess the likely risks that are posed by the arrival of other hybrid cats or hybrids of other animals. Hybrid cats—created by crossing different species within the family Felidae—are popular pets, but they could potentially threaten native species if they escape and establish free-roaming populations. To forestall this possibility, the Australian government imposed a specific ban on importation of the savannah cat, a hybrid created by crossing the domestic cat Felis catus and serval Leptailurus serval, in 2008. We develop a decision–framework that identifies those species of non-volant native mammals in Australia that would likely have been susceptible to predation by savannah cats if importation and establishment had occurred. We assumed that savannah cats would hunt ecologically similar prey to those that are depredated by both the domestic cat and the serval, and categorised native mammals as having different levels of susceptibility to predation by savannah cats based on their size, habitat range, and behaviour. Using this framework, we assessed savannah cats as likely to add at least 28 extant native mammal species to the 168 that are known already to be susceptible to predation by the domestic cat, posing a risk to 91% of Australia's extant non-volant terrestrial mammal species (n = 216) and to 93% of threatened mammal species. The framework could be generalised to assess risks from any other hybrid taxa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]