The BALAI regulations which require all mammals entering an Approved Bodies premises from a non-Approved Body to go into a months isolation, do not separate one kind of dog from another...
Actually, I've just remembered- when I visited HWP two years ago now they allowed dogs, as long as they stayed in cars- we have a dog and were on holiday in the area so could not just 'leave it at home' and they must get quite a lot of visitors in that situation. There was a small exercise area for dogs near the entrance also. It seems from looking at their website that they have changed their policy since then though.
Birdland in Bourton-on-the-Water, Glos allow dogs. So do Filey Bird and Animal Gardens and the Seal Sanctuary at Greek in Cornwall. I have also done quite a bit of research into zoos in Germany/Belgium/Netherlands who allow dogs in, as we were planning a trip there at some stage - the following all allow dogs according to their websites - Amersfoort, Ouwehands, Bouillon, Olmen Balen, Bochum, ZOOM Gelsenkirchen, Kaiserslautern, Krefeld, Allwetterzoo Munster, Neunkirchen, Nordhorn, Naturzoo Rheine, Saarbrucken and Osnabruck. There were a lot more, but these were all ones within reasonable reach driving from the UK.
Thank you. Our European neighbours seem somewhat more relaxed than us about dogs. We have been to Bird land and the Seal Sanctuary before we had our dog and when you are not a dog owner you don't notice the same. Cornwall I have noticed is generally more relaxed about dogs than the rest of the UK in my experience and as Newquay also don't allow dogs, it pushed me to ask the question here.
With the apparent increase in dog ownership generally in the UK, many businesses like public houses and hotels/motels have had to become a lot more dog friendly than previously, in order to keep their trade, but I don't think that will ever apply to zoos for the various reasons above.
Perhaps it just me, but I hate seeing dogs dragged round crowded places in the summer heat or shivering in the winter while the owners stand around. Last time I saw a dog in a zoo it was barking at one of the big cats, which the owners funny. It's like everything in the dog ownership world a few bad owners and every one gets penalised. Dogs in pubs etc I don't have a problem with, some of these places charge extra if you want to have a dog in your room
Our Licensing Authority would certainly not allow animals in areas where food is consumed by humans. Is this yet another area where standards are being applied in a discriminatory manner?
It is possible (likely?) that these zoos are not BALAI Approved. The 'uneven' enforcement of the regulations across Approved Bodies, is an interesting tangental issue.
Most(?) pubs allow dogs in the 'bar' areas, but not in their restaurants/eating areas etc. I don't know what happens when people are eating outside, you often see dogs in outside areas where food is also served.
We are required to prohibit all eating and drinking from areas where there is animal contact, indoors or outdoors. This is a requirement of the Environmental Health Department of the Local Authority, who also police bars, pubs, restaurants, take-aways etc - not the Zoo Licensing Act.
Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers (including restaurant and bar owners) have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled people can access services. This includes amending a ‘no dogs’ policy to allow guide dogs and other assistance dogs. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal Environmental Health Institute Scotland have confirmed that guide dogs and other assistance dogs should be allowed entry to restaurants, food shops and other food premises as their very special training means that they are unlikely to be a risk to hygiene in these premises.
'Very special training' is not covered anywhere in the BALAI regulations, which only differentiates between Approved Bodies and non-Approved Bodies - and as I said, we are required to prohibit all eating and drinking from areas where there is animal contact, indoors or outdoors. This is a requirement of the Environmental Health Department of the Local Authority, and does not specify the species.
The Equality Act is law and would, I suspect, override any BALAI regulations. If Environmental Health officers have taken that stance then it's probably because, to date, no disabled person has challenged them.
Environmental Health officers do not enforce BALAI - it is dealt with by Animal Health, formerly DEFRA or MAFF. I have attempted in good faith to describe the situation we are in; in the hope it would help to explain and correct some of the background to this thread. Our experience as described is fact, and not personal opinion. To suggest that somehow BALAI is not law and is 'trumped' by other legislation, combined with your not knowing the difference between Local and National Government, could question who you are and what your credentials are - but there seems little point in my simply repeating the facts again and again.
Angel is correct with the regulations affording to Assistance dogs. Law | ADUK Assistance dogs: a guide for all businesses | Equality and Human Rights Commission The BALAI Directive also applies but does not trump, the directive has other matters in mind. Currently London Zoo has ongoing legal case regarding the allowing of Assistance dogs and are working through various methods to resolve the problem. All zoos must adhere to various rules, regulations and law and all play their parts but are interweaving with each other. A zoo like any other service provider must comply with all regulations and requirements as laid down in statute. However, if a service provider can show that if is applying and complying with a reasonable adjustment as required in law, and the cost has no detrimental impact on the disabled person, then the service provider is seen as complying. An example of this can be seen where a zoo allows Assistance dogs in but has a strict rule on visiting certain areas within that zoo, this is compliance. A zoo may also allow kennels but must then have in place a method of allowing the disabled person in and around the zoo, this may be done via a human helper. A zoo legally cannot bar a disabled person or a person using an Assistance dog, that would leave themselves open to court action irrespective of any other condition or law, where the fine is classed as being as limitless. A zoo will have quarantine areas, areas marked off. It would be both correct legally and commin sense that an Assistance dog would not be allowed near. The licencing authority that being the local authority will give guidance on the rules, regulations and the laws to follow and comply with. DEFRA has no part in the giving or supplying a zoo with an appropriate licence, the local authority is the licence body and any matters pertaining to the licence and that of entering such a place will lay with them.
At no point did I or anyone say that DEFRA supplied the zoo license. As repeated above, I have carefully explained that the movement of any mammal onto an BALAI Approved Bodies premises (approved for mammals) without it undergoing a months isolation, will result in the loss of the bodies Approved status. Without Approved status import permits will not be granted. Assistance dogs are NOT exempted. DEFRA also require two days formal notice of the movement of any animal out of an Approved Body. Casual visits by publicly owned animals cannot comply with either. Current lists of Approved Bodies are available at the DEFRA website. These show that some very large and well known collections have had their status withdrawn (for reasons not given), and a number of smaller ones including some listed above are not listed at all.
Law | ADUK Assistance dogs: a guide for all businesses | Equality and Human Rights Commission The BALAI directive has no effect and sway on the above noted and to that of Equality Act, if a zoo discriminates by the refusal of allowing a disabled person and that of an Assistance dog then that establishment will be breaking the law irrespective of the BALAI directive, and it is a directive, not a UK statute. There is nothing whatsoever within the BALAI directive that mentions disabled people and Assistance dogs, or for that matter anything that refers to the notion of Assistance dogs. Far too many service providers within the UK fail to understand the legality of the Equality Act and fall foul to it. If you feel that the BALAI directive prohibits disabled people and Assistance dogs, please take that up with your licensing authority/local council who issue zoo licences, as well as seek legal advice, irrespective if you own, run or manage a zoo. The law surrounding disabled people is there for the greater good.
For the fourth time I will repeat that the BALAI Directive is administered by DEFRA, not by the 'licensing authority/local council who issue zoo licenses...'
I may be wrong but I believe the BALAI Directive does not apply to domestic animals such as cattle, pigs, goats, sheep and pets. This would mean that it wouldn’t have any impact on dogs, assistance or otherwise.
You are wrong. The BALAI controls the premises. It might not apply to domestic animals in an agricultural or domestic setting. It is is the 'Body' (ie the premises) which is 'Approved', be it for mammals, birds etc; or combinations thereof, and its applies to ALL those species you list and all others within the approved categories, on the approved premises. It is animal health legislation so does not exclude domestics. Again to repeat what I said above (at the risk of having this removed because it is 'off thread'), full details of it; of the currently approved collections (some zoos, some private collections, some farms); and of those formerly approved zoos which have had their approval withdrawn (and therefore cannot import animals) are on DEFRA's website. I downloaded the list yesterday to ensure the information I gave here, was current.
