BirdsFirst
Inspection of public access areas of the National Parrot Zoo and ‘Sanctuary’ Near Boston, Lincs. On 20th February 2011
1. Background.
BirdsFirst is dedicated to the welfare of captive birds. We are not opposed to zoos, but are opposed to the conditions in which some zoos keep their birds. The premises are situated at Dickon Hill Road, Friskney, Nr Boston, Lincs. PE22 8PF. The zoo is licensed by East Lindsey District Council (ELDC). It acquires most of its birds by donation with these being mainly ex-pet (indoor) parrots. Donors are requested (almost ‘required’) to give £100 to £250 when leaving their parrot at the zoo/sanctuary, and to make futher donations via a minimum monthly donation of £5 for the first year. We first visited these premises in March 2009, following complaints from several members of the public, including those who had donated some of their own birds to this ‘sanctuary’ and later regretted having done so due to conditions in which the birds are housed and managed. We received further complaints in 2010. These complaints prompted this, our second visit. This report’s findings are limited to those areas open to the public. We do not know in what conditions birds are held where these are not on public display. BirdsFirst workers who visited the premises have themselves kept parrots for many years; most of these birds also being donated as ‘unwanted’ former pet birds. Our volunteers are familiar with the husbandry needs of a wide range of parrot species. Greg Glendell has written many articles on bird care for the veterinary and bird-keeping press. He also contributed, with the RSPCA, to “The Welfare of Domestic Fowl and Other Birds” Hawkins and Duncan (Eds) 2010, has written several other books on parrot care and carried out staff training for the RSPCA. He also lectures on bird care issues at various UK universities.
2. Conditions observed on 20th February 2011.
2. 1 Entrance area.
There was virtually no literature available in the shop giving information about parrots. The ticketing assistant gave one of our group a few quick words of advice about entering the ‘walk through’ aviary. She recommended removal of jewellery and said not to worry about the other lose free flying birds around the site as they were known about. One of us asked for a map but we were told it was not necessary as everything was clearly presented. The outdoor parrot stands and perches, which had previously held some macaws and cockatoos, were still arranged near the entrance, but there were no birds on them during our visit. The NPZ website states these stands are still used by ‘friendly parrots’ to ‘greet people’.
2.2 Walk-through aviary
This aviary holds a mixed collection of parrot-like species, mainly ring-necked parakeets, cockatiels, conures, budgies and other species. The public are encouraged to ‘enjoy being in company with these birds’. This aviary is now in poor condition and unkempt. As on our previous visit, there were no members of staff to supervise visitors or offer advice, or protect the birds from any inappropriate actions by the visitors. A CCTV camera in the area may have been in use, but we could not confirm this. Several of the birds alighted on visitors and in our case attempted to climb/snuggle into our clothing; the birds felt cold to the touch. The main pathways and barriers in the aviary used by visitors were soiled with bird faeces. The birds’ drinking facility (the ‘fountain’) contained very little water and was badly fouled with droppings and had obviously also not been cleaned for several days (see photo1). There was little protection/shelter for birds at night from wind or during severe weather. Food and faeces covered many surfaces, including the entrance and exit latches and handles (photo 2.). This could be a health hazard for some people. Much food was allowed to fall on the floor, where it becomes mixed with the birds’ faeces. The birds were seen rummaging about in this mixture of seeds, faeces and loose substrate to feed themselves (photo 3). Some aggression was seen between some of the birds. A Vasa parrot had a minor injury to the nares.
2.3 Large Macaw aviary
There had been no improvements to this aviary since our last visit. Food comprised a dry seed-based mixture provided in lengths of plastic rainwater guttering. This was filthy and had not been cleaned for some time. Dozens of wild birds (mainly house sparrows) were seen sitting in and around this gutter/feeding trough. Old bananas and banana skins that had been hung from posts were left in place. Several perches were coated with the birds’ faeces (see photo 4). The area in general was dirty and unkempt. There was little provision of environmental enrichment in this aviary for the many birds it held. There was an inadequate amount of perches and birds jostled for a position by clinging onto the wire mesh (photo 5). The size of the inside shelters does not appear adequate for the number of birds and there was no apparent provision for heating for these birds; all of which are tropical species. We could not see the conditions inside these shelters.
2.4 Large Cockatoo aviary
This also held 2 macaws and one cockatoo in a small enclosure within the flight. There was no provision for separate drinking water. Water was still provided merely by use of plastic greenhouse trays on the floor. These can be used, fouled and spilt by both the birds and by the domestic rabbits which are also housed in this aviary. The mesh size was 1” X 3” which allows small wild birds and rodents to enter, feed, bathe and defecate at will. There was evidence of rodent burrowing activity near this flight. The floor/substrate of the aviary was fouled by a mixture of seed husk, bird faeces and rabbit/rodent droppings. This substrate did not appear to be removed or cleaned from the aviary appropriately: instead we saw how the staff merely ‘turned it over’ or swept some areas to one side. Again, and like the macaw aviary there was very little environmental enrichment for the many birds held in this flight. There were merely a few old tattered ropes which had not been replaced/renewed for some time. Cockatoos especially, because of their strong urge and need to chew should be supplied with chewing toys, but there were very few of these in this flight. These birds do not appear to have any protection from sub-zero temperatures.
2.5 Grey parrot aviary
There had been little change here since our last visit. The floor had stale food and faeces scattered about. The amount of perches, considering the numbers of birds held here was inadequate. There was little environmental enrichment, other than old perches themselves for the birds to chew. The size of the flight is not adequate for the numbers of birds it contains. There was nowhere for the birds to be protected from sub-zero temperatures and other extremes of weather. See photo above.
2.6 Main Amazon aviary.
This was in a similar condition to the greys’ aviary and there had been no improvement since our last visit. The floor was filthy with a mixture of bark mulch, seed and seed husk remains and excrement over much of its surface (photo 6). There was no environmental enrichment for the birds; and insufficient number of perching spaces. Perches were old, covered in algal growth and had obviously not be changed for a long time. We saw no protection from subzero temperatures or other extremes of weather.
2.7 The ‘Special needs’ birds area (called Special Needs ‘Arena’ on NPS website).
A sign explains that this area ‘arena’ is where old or disabled birds are housed. The birds are in small suspended cages with small shelters attached. There had been no apparent improvements to this section since our last visit in March 2009. We could not confirm that these birds had access to any heating in their shelters. Again, the birds had little or no environmental enrichment. The area is shabby, unkempt. A Bared-eyed Cockatoo ‘in residence’ was in very poor feather condition which did not appear to have been treated.
2.8 Moluccan Cockatoos
Previously there were more than a dozen of these birds on exhibit, but we saw only two or three Moluccans during our visit. We asked about the absence of the others and were told this was because some had ‘issues’ with their CITES paperwork and thus the zoo was not allowed to have them on public view and others had formed ‘pair bonds’ and, although their paperwork may have been in order, the zoo did not wish to separate them. Moluccan cockatoos are a CITES ‘A’ Appendix species.
3. General conditions
Some new concrete paths were being laid in public access areas. However, many other areas showed very poor levels of both maintenance and hygiene (for parrots and visitors). The general impression is one of an unkempt, shabby collection of birds living in poor, over-crowded conditions. This is probably due to keeping costs (including staff costs) to a minimum and staff failing or refusing to acknowledge the birds’ range of needs. Many of the birds may be in need of veterinary care. Use of water trays on the ground poses a serious health risk to birds, particularly where aviaries are occupied by other species including mammals and where wild birds and wild mammals can also enter and leave at will. We were told the birds were fed seed during the morning and “some fruit” was given in the afternoon. The main food is seeds, comprising a sunflower seed and peanut based mixture (photo 7). This food is about 50% fat and would be seriously deficient in essential minerals and vitamins; this can cause chronic health problems. The fruit we saw was of both a poor quality and of insufficient quantity for the number of birds in some of the aviaries.
3.1 Summary points.
· There appeared to be little or no provision to prevent birds from freezing to death.
· Many aviaries were overcrowded.
· Biosecurity issues; due to use of large (4” by 1” mesh, photo 8) several species of wild animals are able to enter some of the aviaries at will. In addition to rats, mesh of this size allows sparrows, stoats and weasels to enter.
· Poor hygiene; infrequent removal of soiled materials and waste.
· Inadequate amount of perches given the numbers of birds in most aviaries.
· Little or no environmental enrichment for most of the birds.
· Very poor quality food and little variety.
· ‘Roosting’ boxes appeared to have no access for cleaning.
· Little public information and educational material.
· Inadequate numbers of staff for the amount of birds held.
· No supervision of walk-through aviary.
4. Comments on veterinary surgeon’s report of ‘special visit’ 17th February 2011 (Appendix 1).
We find this inspection to be cursory and dismissive. We asked for a copy of the report from ELDC. We were sent a pdf equivalent of a single side of text on an A4 sheet of paper. It states that the inspection comprised a ‘discussion’ but does not say with whom this discussion was, nor give any details of its contents or conclusions. We have assumed it was a discussion with the proprietor, Steven Nichols. The ‘discussion’ included an item called ‘paperwork’ which included the issue of the causes mortalities. The report reveals nothing about these causes, nor the details of any remedial action (if any) recommended to reduce mortalities. We suggest that ‘mortalities’ (of 10% per year) is not to be trivialised as a matter of ‘paperwork’ as though it were mere bureaucracy. This issue is quite literally a matter of life and death for hundreds of birds.
The mortalities appear to be ‘accepted’ due to the ‘background’ history of the birds. However, there is no evidence for any of the inspectors showing that they know anything about the ages or condition of the birds. This could only be determined by examination of rings, microchips, records, and of course physical examination of the birds. This was not carried out during the ‘special inspection’. Mention is made that post mortems were carried out “in a reasonable number of deaths” but there is no mention of how many were done, nor the results of any of these post mortems, so the vet’s comments are meaningless here. The report comments on “multiple mortalities” but again it says nothing about what caused the deaths. It claims that “appropriate actions” have been taken with regard to these deaths, but fails to state what that action was. Despite this, the report then says that: “In my opinion the license conditions have been complied with.” If a zoo can have an annual mortality of 10% of its birds and be said to be in compliance with its zoo licence conditions, one has to wonder at what point, with regard to mortalities, such ‘compliance’ would ever fail.
The report states:
“…heaters have been added to keep housing above freezing and despite the cold conditions the birds were behaving [sic] and appeared normal. The stock also appeared in very good health.”
There is no mention of where these heaters have been added and how many, of the 1300 birds held at the premises actually had access to them. Nor were any details given about how they operate; if they are thermostatically controlled or require manual operation, and at what temperature they are switched on. The report uses the phrase ‘appeared’ many times and this qualification is noted. Again without examining a reasonable sample of the birds it is not possible to state with any confidence that they were in normal good health. It is common knowledge that birds are adapted to hiding any signs of illness as an adaptation to survival. A good bird vet would be well aware of this fact and would not make mere assumptions about their health without examining a random sample of them.
The report states that the birds seen had “coped with the cold weather so far with the facilities and nutrition provided.” It is blatantly obvious that at least 10% of the birds had not ‘coped’ with such ‘facilities’ but no details of why this is the case are stated.
The report continues with:
“A few birds were partially bald from self mutilation (these birds arrived at the National Parrot Zoo in this condition) and yet I was assured that good observation by staff meant that birds would be brought indoors should they require it.”
The report acknowledges that partially featherless birds are being left outdoors even it would appear, in winter in sub-zero temperatures. There is no mention at what temperature the birds would be brought indoors; nor whereabouts indoors they would be put nor if there is sufficient indoor accommodation to take around 1300 birds. It is not explained why, as tropical species they do not have access to indoor weather-proof housing during the entire winter period in the first place. Most of the birds ‘donated’* to the sanctuary are ex-pet birds. In addition to being tropical species, these birds have lived indoors for most of their lives as companion animals; they should not be subjected to living in sub-zero conditions.
With these points I mind, we find the vet’s report to be totally inadequate. The report makes unsubstantiated claims of normal ‘healthy’ birds based on what ‘appears’ to be the case; but these claims lack any evidence for their assumptions. This approach risks further compromises regarding the welfare of the birds and fails to address some basic and common welfare problems. Since the report makes no clear, formal recommendations for any significant improvement in the birds’ accommodation, it gives de facto consent for the unnecessary suffering to continue; indeed, it risks a further deterioration in the standards of care in the coming years. We would not be surprised to see higher levels of annual mortality as ‘acceptable’ following this report’s contents. We understand the vet who carried out this and previous inspections inspections has a particular knowledge and interest in ‘fish and lower vertebrates’ and is a “veterinary advisor to the EAZA Amphibian and Reptile TAG and the UK Herp TAG.” (International Zoo Vet Group website). We note she has no post graduate qualifications in avian medicine. We suggest this vet’s areas of expertise are not relevant to the care of parrots. It would be more appropriate for a vet inspecting an zoo whose exhibits comprise about 90% birds should hold a post graduate qualifications in avian medicine.
5. Conclusions
5.1 General failings
From the conditions observed in February 2011, and taking into consideration the conditions we found in 2009 and the high rates of mortality, we are of the view that this ‘sanctuary’ /zoo causes a significant amount of unnecessary suffering to many animals. We are of the view that the zoo does not comply with either the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 or the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). We note that the zoo is not affiliated to any recognised zoo organisation such as the British and Irish Association of Zoos or the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. Zoos do have to reach certain minimum standards to be affiliated to such bodies.
The general approach to the standard of care for the birds shows a culture of minimal provision with regards to quality of food, standards of cleanliness and hygiene, housing and environmental stimulation. Much of the birds’ accommodation is filthy due to an inadequate cleaning regime. Much of it is also unkempt and some areas are dilapidated. Due to this inadequate accommodation, the birds are subjected to long nights in sub-zero temperatures. Night-time winter temperatures in East Lincs. can fall to below minus 5 degrees C regularly and can fall much lower than this on occasions due to wind-chill effects (Met Office, ref 5). Many aviaries have inadequate provision even to protect all the birds they house from the wind, rain and snow. The abilities of tropical species to acclimatise to a temperate climate where temperatures may fall to below freezing are limited. These species should not be housed in sub-zero conditions (ref. 2 Dublin Zoo, and Appendix 2). For comparison with suitable accommodation, see aviaries at Raystede Centre for Animal Welfare, Ringmer, East Sussex, BN8 5EJ, where birds have access to sheltered and heated quarters.
The premises do not employ any staff with any training or qualifications in animal welfare. It remains essentially a collection of exotic animals run by those with little appreciation of the birds’ true needs. There does not seem to be an ethos of actually caring for the birds. Where a new bird arrives as a donated bird, it is often merely placed in the aviary to get on with life regardless of the fact that such birds were previously a lone pet bird in someone’s living room. The management may seem to want to impress by the numbers of birds being exhibited, rather than the quality of care that each bird receives.
We note that, despite being unable to care adequately for the 1300 parrots the zoo currently holds, more animals including primates and meerkats have been acquired; presumably to attract more visitors. We would have thought it prudent to establish proper care for the birds currently held, before ELDC permitted the zoo’s licence conditions to include further exhibitions of exotic mammals.
It is not known how many ‘donations’, which range from one-off payments of £25 to £250, to £5 or more per month, per bird are still being accrued by the sanctuary via birds who have died. Since rings are often removed from donated birds, it is not even possible for the sanctuary itself to ascertain this. Once a bird is ‘donated’ and placed in an aviary with hundreds of conspecifics, individual identity is not possible, unless the bird has been micro-chipped.
5.2 Specific failings.
We are aware that the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 only provides for minimal welfare standards. Indeed we understand that no zoo has ever had its licence withdrawn under this Act, for failing on animal welfare grounds. However, the more recent Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) requires animals in the control of people be cared for to prevent unnecessary suffering. This is codified in the Act’s “Five Freedoms”:
“(1) A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal’s needs shall be taken to include—
(a) its need for a suitable environment,
(b) its need for a suitable diet,
(c) its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d) any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e) its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. “
With the above legislation in mind, and being familiar with the requirements of parrots and having inspected these premises we are of the view that the birds are subjected to “unnecessary suffering” in the following areas.
A “suitable environment”.
The birds are not afforded the protection they require from the elements; specifically, they are subjected to sub-zero temperatures for prolonged periods on many long winter nights. Duration can be about 15 hours per night in December to January. Tropical birds are not adapted to either sub-zero temperatures or periods of darkness longer than 12 hours. During winter nights, the birds are at risk of being unable to metabolise any food they may have consumed, since their body temperature may fall below their ‘lower critical temperature’. At this point the birds will shiver, and without heat, may then die from hypothermia. This aspect of the birds’ management is the most serious and is a likely main cause of mortalities. Poor hygiene in many of the aviaries adds to the birds’ adverse living conditions. The birds should not be housed in conditions where wild mammals (particularly predatory species) and birds have access to their aviaries.
A “suitable diet”.
The birds are fed a nutrient poor diet which is high in fat and low in plant proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. This aspect is also a serious issue, and will contribute to chronic, if not acute medical problems for the birds.
Ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns.
These needs are only partially met. The birds can socialise with conspecifics, but for most birds environmental enrichment is either very poor or absent.
Protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease
Due to the lack of suitable housing the birds suffer from exposure to cold and some may freeze to death during winter nights.
We are of the view that ELDC as the licensing authority are aware of the animal welfare problems at this zoo and note comments by Mr Harrison of ELDC in his email to David Woodbury on 4th February 2011:
“Mr Harrison agreed that these [mortality] figures were ‘worrying’ but also stated: "We have been in touch with the proprietor to discuss this matter and not surprisingly serious and prolonged inclement weather last year was a major factor" ”.
Where a person in charge of animals fails to protect them from extended periods of exposure to ‘prolonged inclement weather” then he is culpable. Where a licensing authority fails to take the appropriate action to prevent such circumstances from arising in a zoo licensed by themselves, then the authority is negligent. Even following the veterinary ‘inspection’ no corrective measures have been explained as having been put in place to prevent further suffering of this nature.
This situation has been the case since our first inspection in 2009. Our report’s findings (of March 2009) were supported at the time by the RSPCA, who also carried out a similar inspection and came to near identical conclusions (personal communication, RSPCA 2009). We have to conclude that both the ELDC and the Zoo are culpable for conditions at these premises. Since the staff at the zoo appear to show little concern for the animals’ needs, we fear that the 10% mortality will be deemed ‘acceptable’ to both ELDC and of course the zoo staff itself. We fear conditions are not likely to change and mortality is likely to remain at its present, utterly unacceptable, level. Mortality (and morbidity) of captive animals should be independent of normal and highly predictable winter weather conditions.
6 Recommendations
Since most of the animal welfare issues mentioned in our previous report have neither been acknowledged, nor addressed by either ELDC or the management of the zoo, our recommendations remain much the same in this report as stated in our report of 2009. They are as follows.
6.1. Where veterinary inspections are carried out of this (or any other zoo) whose main exhibits are birds, the inspecting veterinary surgeon should hold a post graduate qualification in avian medicine.
6.2
The density of birds within the aviaries should be reduced. This can be achieved by provision of new aviaries and/or refusal to accept any more birds until numbers have declined. There should be established policies of numbers of birds per aviary, based on provision of a minimum cubic space per bird. We recommend standards being devised by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS Standards of Excellence 2009; GFAS Sanctuary Standards (draft 2011)). New aviaries should have much greater provision of perches so as to avoid competition for good perching space. Perches should include many with a diameter which is sufficiently small to allow the birds to employ their natural foot-locking mechanism when at rest and asleep. Wide-diameter perches are not suitable for roosting or resting birds.
6.3. All Aviaries should be refitted with a concrete base and foul waste drainage facilities. They should also be constructed so as to exclude wild animals particularly rats, stoats and weasels and wild birds; so the mesh size should be no larger than 1inch square, with a minimum mesh gauge of 14 for smaller birds and up to gauge 10 for larger parrots. The floor substrate should comprise areas of gravel, sand, and some bark chippings, but this should be on top of a concrete base. This would allow the floor to be cleaned properly by replenishing substrate materials and hosing down with clean water and disinfectant at least once a week.
6.4. All birds should have access to weather-proof and chew-proof shelters where it can be guaranteed that they will not be subjected to temperatures below 5 degrees C (ref 2). This can be achieved by heated shelters and/or provision of infra-red heaters for ‘non-enclosed’ locations. See Appendix 2 for professional/veterinary support for this recommendation.
6.5. All birds should have access to drinking water in containers which should be situated to minimise contamination by faeces. These should be cleaned and disinfected at least once a day.
6.6. Bathing water should either be withdrawn (outdoor birds normally bathe during rain-showers) or be cleaned and disinfected twice daily. A system of sprayers should be installed in most aviaries to allow the birds to bathe in a simulated rain-shower, several times per week. This would remove any need for bathing water and its attendant risks to the birds’ health.
6.7 The gutter feeders should be removed and replaced with containers which can be cleaned and disinfected daily. There should be an adequate number of these so as to ensure all birds have free access to food and the more timid birds are not subjected to intimidation from aggressive ones.
6.8. The ‘sanctuary’ does not have a coherent, stated policy regarding the serious problem of ‘unwanted’ pet parrots. Yet this us the very reason for their existence. It is the over-production of parentally-deprived (hand-reared) parrots for the pet trade which results in so many parrots being relinquished by their owners once they acquire sexual maturity and the birds’ behavioural frustrations become severe. The sanctuary should have a clear, publicly stated policy that it does not support the breeding of most parrot-like birds to be kept as ‘pets’ while these birds are being relinquished in such numbers many years prior to their life expectancy.
6.9. Birds should be provided with much more opportunities and facilities for environmental stimulation; particularly foraging opportunities and supply of items which they can chew to destruction.
6.10. The type of food provided should be greatly improved. A dry, seed-based diet is poor in vitamins and minerals and can lead to chronic health problems for many birds. A diet based on soaked and sprouted seeds, pulses, and a greater range and quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables would make a significant improvement to the birds’ diet.
Purpose of this report.
This report has been produced with the aim of ensuring the birds at these premises receive the care they deserve and are no longer subjected to conditions which are inimical to their needs. We feel it is not satisfactory for the licensing authority to hide behind cursory veterinary ‘inspections’ while continuing to licence this zoo as an approved place for exhibiting animals. Ordinary members of the public, who may not be aware of the needs of exotic birds may assume that the conditions they find here are ‘acceptable’. They are not: they contravene hard-won animal welfare legislation; and result in unacceptably high levels of mortally and we suspect, morbidity. We are of the view that the licensing authority and the management of the premises are both responsible for the conditions in which these birds are housed. We suggest that they work together, without any delay, to ensure the birds are housed at least to the recommendations we have outlined, or to higher standards. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with members and officers of the ELDC to discuss this issue. We suggest the zoo seeks advice from other zoos (preferably those affiliated to BIAZA and /or EAZA) regarding the improvements needed in the care of the birds.
This report will be widely distributed to a range of animal welfare and publicly elected bodies, the UK tourism sector, DEFRA and the broadcast and press media and will be available on various websites.
*Donated birds require the donor to make a ‘donation’ of £25 to £250 per bird. The donor is also ‘asked’ to make a further monthly donation as a standing order of £5 for at least the first year.
Photos taken on 20th February 2011.
[ Not included here ]n
1. The dirty, almost dried up ‘fountain’ in the walk-through aviary.
2. Faeces on door handles to walk-through aviary.
3. Food source as seed scattered on the floor of the walk-through aviary, where birds have to eat from faeces contaminated substrate.
4. Perches encrusted with faeces.
5. Macaw aviary. Insufficient perches for the number of birds held here.
6. Floor of Amazons’ aviary showing blue-fronted Amazon rummaging about in mixture of faeces and substrate.
7. The seed mix fed to most of the birds. This comprises a cheap mixture of sunflower seeds, peanuts and flaked maize.
8. This cockatoo is self-plucked due to behavioural problems. The large mesh size allows wild birds and mammals to enter this flight.
9. Another self-plucked cockatoo.
10. A self-plucked mitred conure, left outdoors in winter weather.
This report may be distributed freely to anyone with an interest in bird welfare.
G Glendell
Hon director, BirdsFirst. March 2011.
Email http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ee/print.html
Website viewed on 3rd March 2011.
6. GFAS. Standards of Excellence 2009
7. GFAS Sanctuary Standards (un-pub. Draft 2011).
Appendix 1
VETERINARY VISIT REPORT
To Whom it may concern:-
Re : National Parrot Zoo Special inspection on 17th February 2011
A special inspection was carried out following complaints to the Local Authority about mortalities and their investigation and also the care of the birds in cold weather. The inspection was carried out with Mike Harrison and Rod McKenzie of the East Lindsey District Council.
The inspection comprised of :-
1) A discussion of changes that had occurred since the last license renewal inspection on 21/05/2009
2) A discussion and review of paperwork showing the causes of mortalities
3) A discussion and review of the actions taken as a result of the mortalities
4) An inspection of the zoo stock
5) An inspection of the changes to housing both completed and ongoing at the zoo
There had been 163 mortalities in 2010 which of course is a large number. However, when the numbers are compared with the overall number of birds on site and taking into account the ages and backgrounds of these birds and the causes of death in two mortality incidents, numbers appear to be acceptable. Post mortems were carried out in a reasonable number of deaths and cases of multiple mortalities were investigated thoroughly and appropriate actions taken. In my opinion the license conditions have been complied with.
A review of the paperwork and developments since the last inspection show a considerable improvement throughout the zoo. The maturing of the trees around the zoo provides more shelter, heaters have been added to keep housing above freezing and despite the cold conditions the birds were behaving and appeared normal. The stock also appeared in very good health. A few birds were partially bald from self mutilation (these birds arrived at the National Parrot Zoo in this condition) and yet these had coped with the cold weather so far with the facilities and nutrition provided. I was assured that good observation by staff meant that birds would be brought indoors should they require it.
In my opinion, The National Parrot Zoo is in compliance with its Zoo license and provides an important rescue service for psittacines. The developments ongoing at the zoo are impressive and the commitment of the staff to the care of the animals is excellent.
Miss S M Thornton BSc BVetMed MRCVS. [ International Zoo Veterinary Group ]
Appendix 2.
Recommendations from avian specialists.
From Neil Forbes:
In general terms all lowland species of psittacines, housed extensively in outside aviary situations, in the UK, should in my expert opinion, be provided during winter months with accommodation which they can choose to use if required during extreme weather conditions, which will provide ‘frost stat heating’, i.e. heating (by way of low wattage oil filled tube heaters, lamps or similar), which is automatically switched on when temperatures drop below 5 degrees C.
Neil A Forbes BVEtMed DipECZM(avian) FRCVS, RCVS and European Recognised Specialist Avian Medicine. 23rd March 2011.
From Mark Evans, MRCVS.
Gabalfa Veterinary Practice, Cardiff:
I am a general practitioner vet with a particular interest in avian and exotic work and a member of the Association of Avian Veterinarians. I would recommend that all tropical psittacine species should have a damp-proof, draught-proof shelter, preferably with heating available to maintain a minimum temperature above 5 degrees C at all times.
Mark Evans MRCV. 18th March 2011.
From Joe Barkowski:
To Whom it may concern:
I am currently the Chair of the Association of Zoos and Aquarium's Parrot Taxon Advisory Group. In addition I am the Curator of Birds at Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita Kansas. Our collection has around 800 birds -including approximately 100 parrots. In the fall (October) we move most of the parrots indoors for the season -putting them back out in April when the chance of freezing weather is over. We do leave keas and thick-billed parrots outside all year - with heated boxes they can access during bitterly cold weather. I would be hesitant to leave smaller
species out in the winter. As long as a sturdy shelter with heat is available they [the birds] can come and go as they wish. In our winter buildings the temperature is maintained at about 15 Degrees C. Many areas in the barns allow indoor/outdoor access. When the outdoor temp. rises above 10 degrees C we give birds access to the outdoors. Lories, conures, small macaws, etc. don’t have the body mass to withstand temperatures near freezing for too long.
J. Barkowski, Curator, Birds, Sedgwick County Zoo, Kansas 9th March 2011.
Logged
Greg Glendell
Companion parrot behaviourist
http://www.greg-parrots.co.uk
Please note that if anyone would like a copy of this report as a Word Doc., Greg Glendell can be contacted at the above email address.
