Three Owls Correspondence: Part One

The following are letters published in the Rochdale Observer Saturday edition (6th March 2010). The letters are published unedited.

Grey area in zoo rules.

As an invited consultee in the Animal Welfare Bill the issues pertaining to secondary legislation and seeing sanctuaries controlled under licence or registration was covered at a number of meetings I attended with DEFRA.

I raised the issues pertaining to wildlife Sanctuaries opening to the public with (DEFRA) stating in our consultation paper that we believed that wildlife rehabilitation centres/sanctuaries should not be open to the public and that sanctuaries should either work with domestic animals or wildlife as the two should not be kept in the same location.

It was considered that perhaps a Zoo licensing scheme would be too expensive and it looked favourable that sanctuaries would come under a registration scheme, although this still has to be put out for consultation.

So it is fair to assume I was greatly intrigued by reading a case where animal rights organisation Born Free had approached Rochdale Council about the status of the Three Owls sanctuary's license under the relevant legislation.

This enquiry from an animal rights group that has no connection to UK wildlife only that of a UK Shark survey, so it seemed strange as to why a bird sanctuary was picked out and the issue of as to whether it held a zoo licence.

A zoo is defined in the act as being 'an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition - to which members of the public have access, with or without charges for admission, on more than seven dates in any period of 12 consecutive months'.

Now this must be relevant to many sanctuaries across the UK and this apparent test case could well have compromised animal welfare and as this has brought about the closure of Three Owls surely this little known piece of Government legislation will undoubtedly see the closure of many more.

The Government need to immediately address this ridiculous issue and set the record straight.

As it appears that any animal sanctuary that opens to the public and allows visitors to see the animals needs a zoo licence and apparently this Act recognises the wide range of establishments by allowing dispensations to be granted for small zoos.

We have Animals in Need in Irchester, near Wellingborough that opens to the public and takes in wild animals and keeps both domestic animals and wildlife and could be seen as a risk in regard to spread of disease and if the 1981 act is enforced this will mean that all safety measures must be implemented such as guard rails installed along with guided tours in line with how a zoo works.

This has left a grey area concerning those that solely work within the realms of true wildlife rehabilitation and do not open to the public. There need [sic] to be a clearly defined working practice so that it is one law for all and not picking on the individuals.

I had worked for over 45 years within the realms of avi-culture and wildlife rehabilitation and have never opened to the public. We handled in excess of 4000 animals a year and worked closely with many organisations and after reading the appalling actions of Born Free and red tape bureaucracy within the Government departments I am truly pleased we have ceased our work.

ANDREW MEADS

Safewings Wildlife Conservation Projects
Isham
Northants