Trying to avoid discussing politics outright on these forums, Labour and the Tories both seem to be trying to take the high ground as it relates to animal rights at the moment. Reading through the Labour animal welfare plan (Labour's Plan for Animal Welfare), I couldn't help but notice that they wish to: Establish a full-time, independent zoo inspectorate to draw up revised standards of animal welfare in the UK’s zoos to ensure consistency in licensing and inspection. I wonder firstly, whether this is a result of the debacles at South Lakes, Borth and other places over the last few years and months and secondly what exactly this national zoo inspectorate would look like in practice. Does anyone have any interesting thoughts on the matter?
I think there are several flaws with the present system. 1. Giving the licensing powers to District Councils is too localised. They don't have the expertise and there's the danger of local factors outweighing the actual issues (seaside resort grants a licence to a poor collection because it "attracts visitors", urban council refuses licence to a good collection for ideological reasons). 2. In the past the pool of inspectors has been so small that there's been an issue around "prejudicial interests". I recall being party to a conversation between two zoo curators (since both retired) who had inspected each other's collections ... And wouldn't we all love to be full-time, independent zoo inspectors?
I think this has been floating around for a long time, though South Lakes - in particular - may have highlighted the issue.
I think it would be very much like the Care Quality Commission for zoos and would evaluate whether the zoos are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led, giving them a rating of either outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate in each area and then an overall rating, as well as having the power to take various levels of enforcement action against zoos which fail to meet required standards. From first hand experience, I would not trust a local council to babysit a cactus, let alone to evaluate whether a zoo is fit for purpose - so this can only be a good move. So long as the inspectors are suitably qualified, then I think it is great.
I’ve got a fair amount of experience, from both sides, of school inspections. It’s part of a teacher’s contract that they have to moan about inspections. However, I think it is doubtlessly true that English and Welsh schools have been improved by the system of inspection that has been in place for the past two decades or so - and I think that the same could be true of zoos. It works well, with schools, when inspection is largely from peers. However, there is a much larger pool of education professionals than of zoo professionals - and thus it is much easier to avoid the incestuousness of which @SHAVINGTONZOO writes above. And another thing: the chief inspector has the power to set the tone, to decide what it is that will be valued. Fine if they are sensible and measured; less good if their priorities are odd! Finally, being inspected is an expensive business. If you’re a Chester or a ZSL equivalent, then fine. But I do wonder how the school equivalents of Borth or Porfell cope with the expense....
The CQC is not without its critics: indeed virtually all regulatory bodies come in for criticism sooner or later. A panel of full-time independent zoo inspectors is a good idea on paper, but they would need plenty of experience of zoo management and/or wild animal veterinary practice. Even if they were hired from abroad, the zoo world is a small one and they would probably know some of the senior staff at almost every UK zoo. It would also be expensive, so much higher fees would have to be charged for a zoo licence (as sooty mangabey posted while I was typing this). I think the lesson of South Lakes is that the weak link in the chain is the local council, who may be reluctant to take effective action against a zoo which provides jobs and attracts visitors into their area. I don't know of any evidence that the Inspectors pull their punches, but councillors have a vested interest in keeping their local zoo open. On the other hand the council has to be involved in some way, as it wouldn't make much sense to have them licensing private keepers, under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, without having some part in licensing a local zoo as well.
I certainly think that was one of the outstanding problems surrounding SL and extended the problem there many years longer than might otherwise have been the case.
This is a problem. At least one small place, a tortoise orphanage in Cornwall, was forced to close and give away tortoises. It was unable to either pay the bureaucracy of being a 'zoo', or maintain itself without donations from visitors. Even if it may not be the full reason that particular place closed (I am not interested). This is a proof that costs of bureaucracy matter for small institutions and they directly compete with money available for actual care for animals. Tortoise sanctuary given 24 hours
