Various establishments exist in which animals are held for a variety of reasons. Historically, the management and inspection of animals in commerce and in private keeping have involved a considerable degree of arbitrary evaluation based on the personal experience of the vendor, keeper, advisor, or inspector. Accordingly, relevant protocols and standards are subject to considerable variation. Relatedly, diversity of traded and privately kept species generates significant challenges for those responsible for facility management and inspection alike. Animal welfare and public health and safety are constant and major concerns that require objective methodologies to monitor and control. This report focuses on establishments concerned with the boarding, breeding, storage, vending or handover of animals intended for human “companions” or “pets”, and aims to provide universal objective information for essential husbandry, inspection protocols and an allied inspection assessment tool for scoring establishments.

Snakes are sentient animals and should be subject to the accepted general welfare principles of other species. However, they are also the only vertebrates commonly housed in conditions that prevent them from adopting rectilinear behavior (ability to fully stretch out). To assess the evidence bases for historical and current guidance on snake spatial considerations, we conducted a literature search and review regarding recommendations consistent with or specifying ≥1 × and <1 × snake length enclosure size. We identified 65 publications referring to snake enclosure sizes, which were separated into three categories: peer-reviewed literature (article or chapter appearing in a peer-reviewed journal or book, n = 31), grey literature (government or other report or scientific letter, n = 18), and opaque literature (non-scientifically indexed reports, care sheets, articles, husbandry books, website or other information for which originating source is not based on scientific evidence or where scientific evidence was not provided, n = 16). We found that recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes shorter than the snakes were based entirely on decades-old ‘rule of thumb’ practices that were unsupported by scientific evidence. In contrast, recommendations suggesting enclosure sizes that allowed snakes to fully stretch utilized scientific evidence and considerations of animal welfare. Providing snakes with enclosures that enable them to fully stretch does not suggest that so doing allows adequate space for all necessary normal and important considerations. However, such enclosures are vital to allow for a limited number of essential welfare-associated behaviors, of which rectilinear posturing is one, making them absolute minimum facilities even for short-term housing.

Mobile zoos are events in which non-domesticated (exotic) and domesticated species are transported to venues such as schools, hospitals, parties, and community centres, for the purposes of education, entertainment, or social and therapeutic assistance. We conducted literature searches and surveyed related government agencies regarding existing provisions within laws and policies, number of mobile zoos, and formal guidance issued concerning operation of such events in 74 countries or regions. We also examined governmental and non-governmental guidance standards for mobile zoos, as well as websites for mobile zoo operations, assessed promotional or educational materials for scientific accuracy, and recorded the diversity of species in use. We used the EMODE (Easy, Moderate, Difficult, or Extreme) algorithm, to evaluate identified species associated with mobile zoos for their suitability for keeping. We recorded 14 areas of concern regarding animal biology and public health and safety, and 8 areas of false and misleading content in promotional or educational materials. We identified at least 341 species used for mobile zoos. Mobile zoos are largely unregulated, unmonitored, and uncontrolled, and appear to be increasing. Issues regarding poor animal welfare, public health and safety, and education raise several serious concerns. Using the precautionary principle when empirical evidence was not available, we advise that exotic species should not be used for mobile zoos and similar itinerant events.

Background: Elephants are exploited for public entertainment tourism throughout Asia and Africa. Areas of concern include public health and safety and animal welfare. Materials and Methods: We examined over 500 scientific publications with respect to our primary objectives, as well as non-peer-reviewed materials relating to other relevant subject matters (e.g., tourism promotional websites and YouTube films) for background purposes, although these additional materials were not included in this review. Results: We identified at least 12 confirmed or potential zoonotic and other transmissible infections relevant to the elephant tourism sector, and at least 13 areas of animal welfare concern. Conclusion: Infection and injury risks between humans and captive elephants cannot be safely controlled where close contact experiences are involved, arguably creating an unredeemable and indefensible public health and safety situation. Elephant welfare within some sectors of the close contact interactive tourism industry continues to involve significant mistreatment and abuse. To alleviate key One Health concerns outlined in this study, we recommend several types of regulation, monitoring, and control regarding interactions at the human-captive elephant interface. These include legal bans on the promotion and performance of close contact experiences, combined with strong enforcement protocols; new policies toward discouraging elephant tourism; 24/7 surveillance of captive elephants; and the adoption of independent scientific positive list systems for tourism promoters or providers regarding public observation of free-ranging elephants within national parks and protected areas. Keywords: animal welfare, elephant tourism, One Health, public health, safety, zoonoses.