npz report of visit feb 2011 comp

8/2/2019 NPZ Report of Visit Feb 2011 Comp

1/13

1

BirdsFirst

Inspection of public access areas of the National Parrot Zoo and Sanctuary

Near Boston, Lincs. On 20th

February 2011

Some of the grey parrots at the NPZ & Sanctuary, Feb. 2011. Most are unwanted former pet birds.

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 reports 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 thehusbandry 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


2/13

2

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 aviaryThis 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


3/13

3

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 beprotected 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 isone 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


4/13

4

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 surgeons 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 vets comments are

meaningless here. The report comments on multiple mortalities but again it says nothing about what

causedthe 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 licenseconditions 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.


5/13

5

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 isnot 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 hadnotcoped 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 totake 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 vets 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 reports 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 vets 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


6/13

6

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 atemperate 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 withsuitable

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 suchbirds were previously a lone pet bird in someones living room. The management may seem to want to

impress by thenumbers 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 zoos 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 Acts FiveFreedoms:


7/13

7

(1) A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all thecircumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extentrequired by good practice.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animals 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 lowercritical 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 authorityare 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


8/13

8

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 reports 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 recommendationsremain 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 perbird. 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.


9/13

9

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 suchnumbers 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.


10/13

10

Photos taken on 20th

February 2011.

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 toeat from faeces contaminated substrate.

4. Perches encrusted with faeces.

5. Macaw aviary. Insufficient perches for the

number of birds held here.


11/13

11

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.


12/13

12

This report may be distributed freely to anyone with an interest in bird welfare.

G Glendell

Hon director, BirdsFirst. March 2011.

[email protected] Phone: 0844 86 8456.

Address:P O Box 1160

Axbridge BS26 2WD.

Sources and references.

1. Animal Welfare Act 2006. HMSO.

2. Husbandry Guidelines for Cacatua spp. Pub. EEP/ Dublin Zoo.

3. The Parrot Zoo: (Livestock list; PDF document) 2010.

5. Met Office (Waddington; East Anglia):http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ee/print.htmlWebsite viewed on 3

rdMarch 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
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ee/print.htmlhttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ee/print.htmlhttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ee/print.htmlhttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ee/print.htmlmailto:[email protected]


13/13

13

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, inthe 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 5oC.

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 theAssociation 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. dont have the body mass to withstand temperatures near

freezing for too long.

J. Barkowski, Curator, Birds, Sedgwick County Zoo, Kansas 9th March 2011.

npz report of visit feb 2011 comp

Documents