Background and Aim: Wildlife markets are centers of trade involving live animals and their derivatives from wild-caught and captive-bred non-domesticated animals, including for the culinary, fashion, traditional medicine, curio, and pet sectors. These markets occur in Southeast Asia, India, North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. This study aims to address a diversity of related issues that have a one-health bearing while focusing on wildlife markets in relation to the pet trade. Across relevant regions and countries, all major animal classes are traded at wildlife-pet markets. Wildlife markets, in general, are considered distinct from so-called "wet markets" at which domesticated animals, fish, and other "seafood" are offered only for consumption. Several aspects of wildlife markets have attracted scientific and popular scrutiny, including animal welfare concerns, species conservation threats, legality, ecological alteration, introduction of invasive alien species, presence of undescribed species, and public and agricultural animal health issues. Materials and Methods: Onsite inspections were conducted for markets in the United States, Spain, Germany, The Netherlands, and the UK, as well as observational research of visual imagery of market conditions, and we compared these conditions with evidence-based standards for animal welfare and public health management. Results: Wildlife markets globally shared common similar structures and practices including the presence of sick, injured, or stressed animals; mixing of animals of uncertain origin and health state; and no specific or any hygiene protocols, with issues of animal welfare, public health and safety, agricultural animal health, and other one-health concerns being inherently involved. Conclusion: We conclude that wildlife markets are incompatible with responsible standards and practices, and we recommend that such events are banned globally to ameliorate inherent major problems.

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.

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.

The terms short-term, temporary, and transitional are related but can have different contexts and meanings for animal husbandry. The definitions and use of these terms can be pivotal to animal housing and welfare. We conducted three separate literature searches using Google Scholar for relevant reports regarding short-term, temporary, or transitional animal husbandry, and analysed key publications that stipulate relevant periods of accommodation. English Government guidance regarding acceptable short-term, temporary, or transitional accommodation for animals varies widely from <1 day to 3 months; whereas independent scientific criteria and guidance use typical periods of hours to several days. Stipulations regarding acceptable short-term, temporary, or transitional accommodation, notably among English Government guidance, which we focused on in this study, were highly inconsistent and lacked scientific rationale. The definitions and use of terms for both formal and other guidance should be limited to precautionary time frames within one circadian cycle, i.e., periods of <24 h. At ≥24 h, all animals at all facilities should be accommodated in conditions that are consistent with long-term housing, husbandry, and best practices.

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.

The Five Freedoms, Five Domains, Five Welfare Needs, and other similar models or principles, are key aspirational or outcome-led frameworks aimed at safeguarding animals under human custodianship, and are widely used in legislation, guidance documents, and protocols. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of these animal welfare models as intended protections. Our study considered three informational tiers of relevance for guidance: Tier 1, key welfare models and principles governing legislation; Tier 2, formal secondary guidance; and Tier 3, welfare outcomes. We conducted a literature review of key welfare models, as well as reports of persistent animal welfare problems associated with exotic pets, and collated available examples of relevant legislation and their implementation. Of the 91 studied regions that adopted animal welfare models, the following were directly or closely aligned with: Five Freedoms n = 64, Five Welfare Needs n = 26, Five Domains n = 1. We identified the following numbers of welfare concerns for animals kept in trade and private home situations: invertebrates n = 21, fishes n = 27, amphibians n = 26, reptiles n = 43, birds n = 22, mammals n = 43. Despite the frequent adoption of one or other model or principle, animal welfare concerns and problems were regularly identified in relation to both commercial and home environments across all animal classes. We recommend that animal welfare is assigned priority over traditional pet selling or keeping practices through the adoption of modernised animal welfare models, underpinned by evolving scientific knowledge and precautionary principles, that aim to promote animal-centric preferred life quality.