Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:36:41.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Circus and zoo animal welfare in Sweden: an epidemiological analysis of data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

PL Hitchens ,
J Hultgren ,
J Frössling ,
U Emanuelson  and
LJ Keeling
PL Hitchens*
Affiliation:
Equine Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Hwy, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, PO Box 7068, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
J Hultgren
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, PO Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
J Frössling
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, PO Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden National Veterinary Institute, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden
U Emanuelson
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, PO Box 7054, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
LJ Keeling
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, PO Box 7068, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: phitchens@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Good animal welfare is crucial for the success of circuses and zoos. Epidemiological studies of animal welfare that investigate associations between animal-based measures (ABMs) and resource- and management-based measures are needed. However, due to the relatively low numbers of animals within each species kept at individual facilities, such investigations can be difficult to carry out. In this paper, we report the analysis of a multi-facility epidemiological study using data from all regulatory inspections of circus and zoo animals in Sweden for 2010 to 2014. Information from 42 inspections of 38 circuses, and 318 inspections of 179 zoos was analysed. For ABMs assessed during routine inspections of circuses (n = 14) and zoos (n = 61), 9.1 and 14.3% did not comply with requirements for general care of hooves/claws and coat, 10.0 and 8.6% for body condition, and 0 and 1.7% for animal cleanliness, respectively. In addition, the zoo checklist assessed whether animals were kept in appropriate groups, finding non-compliance in 17.0% of inspections. The most frequent non-compliant resource- and management-based measures at routine inspections of circuses were for space (41.7%) and exercise requirements (38.5%). For zoos, 29.4% did not comply with space followed by 28.8% for enrichment requirements. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, zoos that had inadequate or unsafe housing and space design, inadequate bedding, or failed to meet nutritional requirements, were more likely to be non-compliant with at least one ABM. The checklists should be improved to better assess welfare status by including more ABMs; benchmarking of risks and trends over time is also recommended.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfarecircusepidemiologylegislationzoo
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 373 - 382
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Veissier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior 92: 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phys-beh.2007.02.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Box, GE and Tidwell, PW 1962 Transformation of the inde-pendent variables. Technometrics 4: 531–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1962.10490038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlstead, K, Mench, JA, Meehan, C and Brown, JL 2013 An epidemiological approach to welfare research in zoos: The Elephant Welfare Project. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 16: 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2013.827915CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chatterjee, S and Hadi, AS 1986 Influential observations, high leverage points, and outliers in linear regression. Statistical Science 1(3): 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013622Google Scholar
Clubb, R and Mason, G 2003 Animal welfare: captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. Nature 425: 473–474. https://doi.org/10.1038/425473aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clubb, R and Mason, GJ 2007 Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2006.05.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djurskyddsförordning (Animal Welfare Ordinance) 1988 (1988:539). Näringsdepartementet RS L: Sweden. http://rkratts-baser.gov.se/sfst?bet=1988:539Google Scholar
Djurskyddslagen (Animal Welfare Act) 1988 (1988: 534). DL 2-4, 9 §§. Näringsdepartementet RS L: Sweden. http://rkratts-baser.gov.se/sfst?bet=1988:534Google Scholar
Draper, C, Browne, W and Harris, S 2013 Do formal inspections ensure that British zoos meet and improve on minimum ani-mal welfare standards? Animals 3: 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3041058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, C and Harris, S 2012 The assessment of animal welfare in British zoos by Government-appointed inspectors. Animals 2:507–528. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2040507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, JH and Edwards, AWF 1984 Approximating the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Biometrics 40: 563–563Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare 2012 Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of ani-mals. EFSA Journal 10: 2767. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2767Google Scholar
European Commission 2015 EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document. Publications Office of the European Union: LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
Fox, J and Monette, G 1992 Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87: 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1992.10475190Google Scholar
Hitchens, PL, Hultgren, J, Frössling, J, Emanuelson, U and Keeling, LJ 2016 Prevalence and risk factors for overweight hors-es at premises in Sweden assessed using official animal welfare control data. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 58: 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-016-0242-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hitchens, PL, Hultgren, J, Frössling, J, Emanuelson, U and Keeling, LJ 2017 An epidemiological analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent autho-rities. Animal 11(7): 1237–1248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S 1751731116002512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosey, GR 2005 How does the zoo environment affect the behaviour of captive primates? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90:107–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, DW and Lemeshow, S 1980 Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 9: 1043–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610928008827941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, C and Scott, K 2011 Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare 20: 79–87Google Scholar
Kaiser, HF 1958 The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23: 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 2009a An analysis of animal-based versus resource-based comments in official animal welfare inspection reports from organic and conventional farms in Sweden. Animal Welfare 18: 391–397Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ 2009b An overview of the development of Welfare Quality® project assessment systems Welfare Quality Reports No12, pp 97. School of City and Regional Planning: Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. http://www.welfarequality.net/downloa-dattachment/43220/20191/WQR12.pdfGoogle Scholar
Meehan, CL, Mench, JA, Carlstead, K and Hogan, JN 2016 Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: An epidemiological approach. PLoS One 11: e0158124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, D and Beausoleil, N 2015 Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive wel-fare states. Animal Welfare 24: 241–253. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.3.241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ, Hunt, S and Gusset, M 2015 Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy. WAZA Executive Office: Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
O’Regan, HJ and Kitchener, AC 2005 The effects of captivity on the morphology of captive, domesticated and feral mammals. Mammal Review 35: 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00070.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pregibon, D 1980 Goodness of link tests for generalized linear models. Applied Statistics 29(1): 15–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2346405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royston, P 2013 BOXTID: Stata module to fit Box-Tidwell and expo-nential regression models. Statistical Software Components: Boston College, MA, USA. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457578.htmlGoogle Scholar
StataCorp 2013 Stata multivariate statistics reference manual: Release 13. StataCorp LP: College Station, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
Swedish Agency for Public Management 2011 Djurskyddskontrollens utveckling (2011:23). Stockholm, Sweden.[Title translation: Animal welfare control development]Google Scholar
Swedish Animal Welfare Agency 2004 Föreskrifter om djurhållning i djurparker (DFS 2004:19). Saknr L108: Sweden. [Title translation: Regulations on animal husbandry in zoos]Google Scholar
Swedish Animal Welfare Agency 2007 Föreskrifter och allmän-na råd om cirkusdjur (DFS 2007:3). Saknr L116: Sweden. [Title translation: Regulations and general advice on circus animals]Google Scholar
Whitham, JC and Wielebnowski, N 2013 New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 147:247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, SF 1982 Environmental influences on the activity of captive apes. Zoo Biology 1: 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430010304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hitchens et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 133.6 KB