Exotic animals in captivity: can we meet their welfare needs?

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (25) ◽  
pp. 758-759

Matthew Limb reports from a debate at the Animal Welfare Foundation Discussion Forum on keeping exotic animals as pets.

2018 ◽  
Vol 182 (5) ◽  
pp. 148.1-148

Every veterinary professional dedicates their career to ensuring the health and welfare of animals committed to their care. But what does this mean for the modern vet? This question, explains Erika Singh, Animal Welfare Foundation (AWF) Manager, will be explored at this year’s AWF Discussion Forum.


2018 ◽  
Vol 183 (1) ◽  
pp. 35.1-35

AWF Manager Erika Singh sums up the recent Animal Welfare Foundation Discussion Forum.


Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lambert ◽  
Carder ◽  
D’Cruze

We searched a selection of the scientific literature to document evidence for, and explorations into reptile sentience. The intention of this review was to highlight; (1) to what extent reptile capability for emotions have been documented in the scientific literature; (2) to discuss the implications this evidence has for the trade in reptiles; and (3) to outline what future research is needed to maximise their captive welfare needs. We used 168 keywords associated with sentience, to search through four journal databases and one open-access journal. We recorded studies that explored sentience in reptiles and those that recognised reptile sentience in their experiments. We found that reptiles were assumed to be capable of the following emotions and states; anxiety, distress, excitement, fear, frustration, pain, stress, and suffering, in 37 articles. We also found four articles that explored and found evidence for the capacity of reptiles to feel pleasure, emotion, and anxiety. These findings show that reptiles are considered to be capable of experiencing a range of emotions and states. This has implications for how reptiles are treated in captivity, as a better understanding could help to inform a range of different operational initiatives aimed at reducing negative animal welfare impacts, including improved husbandry and consumer behaviour change programmes.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allyson J. Bennett ◽  
Erin G. Schoenbeck

AbstractNonhuman animals are housed in captivity for a range of purposes in the US and other countries. The regulation, oversight, and public transparency of decisions related to the care and use of those animals varies by species and activity. The goals of this paper are 1) to provide a concise and accessible summary of the number and types of facilities either registered or licensed by the USDA and overseen by the federal agency; and 2) to provide concise comparisons of the relative proportion of different types of use of nonhuman animals that fall under the AWA (Animal Welfare Act). Analysis of the publicly-available list of USDA certificate holders produced descriptive data for each state and the US overall. Licensed exhibitors (N=2,640; 33% of total) and breeders (N=2,701; 34% of total) comprise two-thirds of the 8,002 USDA certificate holders. Registered research facilities (N=1,110) account for 14% of the total USDA certificates. The final 19% consists of licensed dealers (N=763; 9%) and registered carriers or interim handlers (N=788; 10%). The number and distribution of types of certificates varies across states. The largest number of exhibitors and dealers are in Florida, while the largest number of breeders are in Missouri. California has the largest number of research registered facilities. Finally, a comparison of the estimated number of animals in the US that are pets, used in agriculture, exhibition, and research suggests that animals in research are between 0.07-2.3% of the total. The comparison also highlights areas in which public information about captive animals in the US is uneven or missing altogether. Together, the current report provides a concise view of basic information and data relevant to public consideration and policy decisions about animals housed in the set of captive settings to which the AWA applies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 187 (3) ◽  
pp. 125.2-125

Following the cancellation of this year’s Discussion Forum, Erika Singh from the Animal Welfare Foundation recommends catching up on the CPD-accredited sessions from past Discussion Forums.


2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (18) ◽  
pp. 565.1-565

AWF Manager Erika Singh invites you to join the debate on the big animal welfare issues at this year’s Animal Welfare Foundation Discussion Forum.


Behaviour ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 153 (5) ◽  
pp. 551-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie L. Branch ◽  
Dovid Y. Kozlovsky ◽  
Rebecca Croston ◽  
Angela Pitera ◽  
Vladimir V. Pravosudov

There is little work investigating the relationship between environmental changes and associated hippocampal effects on animal homing. We took advantage of previous studies in which wild, non-migratory mountain chickadees spent six months in captivity prior to being released. Over the following three years, 45.8% of the birds were resighted, and in all cases birds were identified less than 300 m from their initial capture locations at their respective elevation, despite previous studies documentingca30% captivity-related reduction of the hippocampus. Reproductive success of birds that spent six months in captivity did not differ from control birds that did not experience captivity. Our findings suggest that chickadees are highly site faithful and can return to their original capture location after spending time in captivity. Our results also have important implications for animal welfare practices as birds held in captivity bred successfully and may not need to be sacrificed following captivity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document