Category: Attitudes to animals

Information about our attitudes to animals and their rights

“Saving Britain’s Worst Zoo.”

BBC documentary “Saving Britain’s Worst Zoo” highlights what is so wrong with our attitude to zoos.

There shouldn’t be a ‘worst’ zoo in the UK in the first place.

BBC Wales and iPlayer are showing a documentary series “Saving Britains Worst Zoo” which depicts how a family buy a zoo called ‘Animalarium’ in Wales even though they admit “We didn’t have any idea of what we were doing.” There shouldn’t be a worst zoo in the first place if licensing authorities and inspectors were doing their job properly. So where were they and how can it be possible to allow such people to buy a zoo with dangerous animals? Do we really take public and animal safety so lightly.

“a place in the deepest depths of no-onesville very much like a zoo where species of a non-human form are kept and caged…and often escape”

ANIMALARIUM – Urban Dictionary definition.

In 2016 a zoo called Animalarium in the town of Borth, Wales came up for sale and was bought by a couple who by their own admission didn’t have any experience and within two years animals had escaped and died and they ran up a £350,000 debt. But sadly it appears few people see any problem or query how this could happen in our country of animal lovers with all our animal protection laws.

This is particularly so with the BBC, who appear to be encouraging such actions by not just showing one program but a whole series to advertise the zoo. The owners were interviewed on the BBC Breakfast show on the 23 July 2019 with smiles and commendation for their honesty as though they were some kind of heroes.

Borth Zoo or to use its hip name of Animalarium was sold by its owners of 15 years in 2016. In their media advertising of the sale they described who they were willing to sell to in this way:

“I would expect them to have at least some interest or experience and to research what running a zoo actually entails. The practical problems are a cross between running a boarding school and a prison. Anyone interested in the sale needs to have some experience of keeping exotic animals, but not necessarily from a zoo background as the staff are all experienced. Running a zoo is hard work but very rewarding.”

“We didn’t have any idea of what we were doing”

The family who bought the zoo were an “animal-mad couple” with three children who always wanted to live in Wales and were quoted as saying “we wanted a small petting farm to do animal and people therapy. We had 40 animals before we moved. We used to breed tortoises and had chickens, rabbits, chinchillas, everything. We didn’t have much of an idea what we were doing but everything I don’t know I research.” It would appear they also bought it as it had a nice two bedroom bungalow with sea views and of course they were animal lovers and had owned pets so had all the experience they needed to take on a zoo.

Should such animals be in the hands of people who do not what they are doing.

Their initial inept attempts at operating a zoo led to escapes and deaths of animals. In October 2017, a lynx escaped for 12 days before being shot in case it harmed “children.” A week later a staff member managed to strangle another lynx with a catch-pole (a rope noose on a pole) which was described as an accident but was probably due to lack of training in using such an implement. In the case of the escaped Lynx it was two days before they noticed it missing because the enclosure was apparently too overgrown to spot it. It seemed not to occur to them to search the enclosure in case it was sick, injured or dead.

At this point the local authority intervened and closed the zoo to the public for five months while they made over 26 improvements allegedly running up a debt of £350,000. Initially their licence to keep dangerous animals such as the lions and leopard was withdrawn but later reinstated. The zoo was obviously rundown when they bought it which doesn’t say much for the local authority licensing officers who should have been checking it. Inexplicably, the ban on keeping dangerous “category one” animals was then lifted by Ceredigion council as long as a qualified keeper was present. But why wasn’t there a qualified keeper in the first place?

The park’s owners claim that they act like a rescue centre for exotic animals and take in unwanted pets and animals from other zoos to provide them with a safe place to live for the rest of their lives. But how safe are their long term prospects.

One could pardon them on account of their naivety and put it all down as a steep learning curve, but at what cost. At least two lives of beautiful lynxes were lost while they learned on the job. Do we really take such lives so lightly. Should we be allowing the sale of zoos and similar animal attractions to anyone who feels they want to own one despite their experience and qualification. I blame the local authorities and lack of regulation for the deaths of the two lynxes.

Related articles

Goldfish eating, social media and Neknominate

The recent prosecution by the RSPCA of Josh Coles for eating a goldfish that he had just won at a fairground in Stafford caused a stir on social media and revulsion in many people, but there are those that see it as just a bit of harmless fun. Josh Coles pleaded guilty and received a 12 month community service order, £385 costs and was strangely banned from keeping fish for 5 years.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue, I’m an animal lover”.

To its credit, the RSPCA stepped in early on when the craze became popular and has prosecuted many cases over the years but has perversely been accused of heavy handedness and expending money on pointless and worthless prosecutions as they are only fish.

Many people would suggest that as we pay little attention to fish slowly gasping for breath and asphyxiating on the quayside or on fish market slabs and that we find it entertaining to watch celebrities eat live small animals on reality shows why should we be so uptight about a goldfish.

What obviously shocked people the most was the fact that he ate a live goldfish, filmed it and displayed it on YouTube for no other reason than to gain fame and notoriety. It could also be that we identify goldfish and their ilk as pets not food, so we get upset when some inept unthinking person eats one at a funfair, in a Macdonalds restaurant or in the local pub.

Although these acts are mostly done under the influence of alcohol and for a dare there are many which are intentional and planned. Back in 2012, Louis Cole gained fame for regularly eating unusual live animals such as tarantulas and scorpions on his YouTube channel until he came unstuck after he ate a simple goldfish, as he didn’t realise that fish, by having a spine, are covered under anti-cruelty laws and he found himself under investigation by the RSPCA.

Eating live small animals is a common practice and a sure way of getting hits on social media which is awash with such videos. The sad part is that so many young adults appear to find it acceptable behaviour and amusing despite its lack of originality.

It was probably a surprise to many people that it is still lawful to continue this archaic tradition of giving goldfish as prizes in the first place, but it was yet another omission from the Animal Welfare Act back in 2006. Of course the frequency of these incidents could have been reduced if it had been banned as the fish would not have been so easily available.

Social media & Neknominate is mainly to blame.

The online drinking game of neknominate has fuelled the trend over the last few years. In 2014 a 22-year old named Gavin Hope prepared a cocktail then swallowed a pet goldfish and washed it down with a pint as a neknominate dare and was heavily penalised with a £330 fine and £3430 costs. Some take it too far and in the same year Sheldon Jeans swallowed a live frog and lizard and was prosecuted receiving £1,200 in costs.

Although such behaviour is nothing new, social media encourages far more of it in this modern era. There is a pattern to it though, as it mainly involves drunken young males who once they find themselves in court declare they didn’t mean any harm and believe it is funny.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue and I’m an animal lover”

In another incident a Robert Atkinson aged 20 was filmed by his friend Lewis Summers, who ironically worked in a solicitors office, swallowing a live goldfish in their local MacDonald’s having first put it in a pint of beer. Atkinson pleaded guilty and Summers guilty to aiding and abetting and they were both ordered to serve 40 hours of unpaid work and pay a £723 fine each, alongside a victim surcharge of £60. It was a premeditated action and yet he viewed himself as an “animal lover”.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue with it being a small animal. I’m an animal lover myself and I didn’t know I was committing an offence. I have thousands of followers on social media, and I posted the video because I knew it would go viral. Some people thought it was funny but there were a few who thought it was cruel.

Robert Atkinson in his defence.

Judges and Magistrates appear to take the issue seriously.

What is interesting is that magistrates and judges appear to agree that it is a serious act and have made this quite clear. At the trial of Gavin Hope presiding magistrate, David Randall, called it “a stupid thoughtless incident” and at the trial of Atkinson and Summers the judge, to his credit, summed it up in this way and I cannot put it any better:

The real question is how far down the evolutionary scale should we go in pursuing prosecutions of people who commit such acts of cruelty before it is viewed as nonsensical and heavy handed. Theoretically any lack of respect of a living creature must surely be tackled as who knows where it might lead if left unpunished.