In of Zoo) Regulations 2012 does not

In
comparison to United Kingdom, the
Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (ZLA) requires zoos to implement measures to prevent the
escape of animals and put in place measures to be taken in the event of any
escape or unauthorised release while in Wildlife
Conservation (Operation of Zoo) Regulations 2012 only focused on specifications
of the enclosure such as the category of species it will house and its size and
height. Next, Malaysia does not specify the guideline for zoo for inspection
of zoos unlike ZLA, thus the enforcement of inspection of zoos in Malaysia is
ineffective since there is no guideline to carry out the inspection. Moreover, Wildlife
Conservation (Operation of Zoo) Regulations 2012 does not take account for the measures to prevent the
intrusion of pests and vermin into the zoo. Next, enclosures are accommodations
for the animals and they must be appropriate to their habitual natures and
behavior.  Compared to ZLA, although in  Malaysia some of the enclosures were rather
small for the animals, most were of proper sizes according to the normal
standards as laid down in  2012 Regulations.. However, the
enclosures lacked the characteristics of the natural surroundings or habitats of the animals in the wild. Lastly, standards
set out in ZLA are based on the so called five principal of animals are and
management, which are themselves derived from the five freedoms1.
So far, the principles underlying the Five Freedoms have yet to be incorporated
into Malaysian law even though are the benchmark for assessing the welfare of
animals in the Zoo.

Another
commonwealth country that provides good legislations for animal welfare is
Canada. According to Canadian Constitution Act, animals are considered as
property2
of Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) which accredited the
members of institution to become a zoo. In order to be accredited as a zoo,
they must meet the association’s standards for animal management, facility
cleanliness, veterinary care, financial stability, education and several other
areas3.
Due to strict evaluation, only 5 Ontario zoos have been accredited so far. On
the other hand, Malaysia has specific provision in obtaining licenses or
permits to operate a zoo as accordance to Article 10 of Wildlife Conservation
Act 20104.
However, the evaluation is not as strict as the CAZA. Next, CAZA implemented a
policy based on code of professional ethics found in community values.  As set by the code, CAZA members are
responsible not only for the welfare of the animals in their care, but also for
educating the public about the natural world and the role we should play in
conserving them5.
Violation of the code will result in disciplinary action to be taken.  Disciplinary actions taken are from a letter
of reprimand to suspension of membership or termination of membership
completely. Malaysia does not have this policy implemented in their
regulations; therefore there are many cases of abuse of animals in the zoos.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

As
in Australia, laws enacted regarding the welfare of animals are quite thorough.
This is because every state has its own legislation on zoo laws6
and it eases the distribution of administration of the zoo management. Zoo
legislation in Australia is one of the most effective laws in the world7.
Even though every state has different laws for zoo and animals welfare, the
guidelines are provided at the federal level in enacting such laws. The
individual states are guided by the Code of Practice which is a product of
Australian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria (ARAZPA).
However, in Malaysia, the laws enacted are only at federal level. As so far,
the applicable legislation is Wildlife
Conservation (Operation of Zoo) Regulations 2012. Since there is only
a single law, the application is not very effective as in Australia. Different
states might be facing different problems in handling the welfare of animals in
zoo and this issue is not well-addressed by the legislator. Moreover, the Act
is not really protective towards animals that are held captivated as most zoos
are still breaking the laws stated in the provision such as put the animals in
small cages, failure to employ full-time veterinarian and failure to provide
nutritious food.

 

1 Note 62.

2 Note 27.

3 Note 29.

4 Wildlife
Conservation Act 2010, s10.

5 Note 61.

6 Sally Walker,
‘Australia Zoo and Related Legislation’ (2010). accessed
26 November 2017.

7 Ibid.In
comparison to United Kingdom, the
Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (ZLA) requires zoos to implement measures to prevent the
escape of animals and put in place measures to be taken in the event of any
escape or unauthorised release while in Wildlife
Conservation (Operation of Zoo) Regulations 2012 only focused on specifications
of the enclosure such as the category of species it will house and its size and
height. Next, Malaysia does not specify the guideline for zoo for inspection
of zoos unlike ZLA, thus the enforcement of inspection of zoos in Malaysia is
ineffective since there is no guideline to carry out the inspection. Moreover, Wildlife
Conservation (Operation of Zoo) Regulations 2012 does not take account for the measures to prevent the
intrusion of pests and vermin into the zoo. Next, enclosures are accommodations
for the animals and they must be appropriate to their habitual natures and
behavior.  Compared to ZLA, although in  Malaysia some of the enclosures were rather
small for the animals, most were of proper sizes according to the normal
standards as laid down in  2012 Regulations.. However, the
enclosures lacked the characteristics of the natural surroundings or habitats of the animals in the wild. Lastly, standards
set out in ZLA are based on the so called five principal of animals are and
management, which are themselves derived from the five freedoms1.
So far, the principles underlying the Five Freedoms have yet to be incorporated
into Malaysian law even though are the benchmark for assessing the welfare of
animals in the Zoo.

Another
commonwealth country that provides good legislations for animal welfare is
Canada. According to Canadian Constitution Act, animals are considered as
property2
of Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) which accredited the
members of institution to become a zoo. In order to be accredited as a zoo,
they must meet the association’s standards for animal management, facility
cleanliness, veterinary care, financial stability, education and several other
areas3.
Due to strict evaluation, only 5 Ontario zoos have been accredited so far. On
the other hand, Malaysia has specific provision in obtaining licenses or
permits to operate a zoo as accordance to Article 10 of Wildlife Conservation
Act 20104.
However, the evaluation is not as strict as the CAZA. Next, CAZA implemented a
policy based on code of professional ethics found in community values.  As set by the code, CAZA members are
responsible not only for the welfare of the animals in their care, but also for
educating the public about the natural world and the role we should play in
conserving them5.
Violation of the code will result in disciplinary action to be taken.  Disciplinary actions taken are from a letter
of reprimand to suspension of membership or termination of membership
completely. Malaysia does not have this policy implemented in their
regulations; therefore there are many cases of abuse of animals in the zoos.

As
in Australia, laws enacted regarding the welfare of animals are quite thorough.
This is because every state has its own legislation on zoo laws6
and it eases the distribution of administration of the zoo management. Zoo
legislation in Australia is one of the most effective laws in the world7.
Even though every state has different laws for zoo and animals welfare, the
guidelines are provided at the federal level in enacting such laws. The
individual states are guided by the Code of Practice which is a product of
Australian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria (ARAZPA).
However, in Malaysia, the laws enacted are only at federal level. As so far,
the applicable legislation is Wildlife
Conservation (Operation of Zoo) Regulations 2012. Since there is only
a single law, the application is not very effective as in Australia. Different
states might be facing different problems in handling the welfare of animals in
zoo and this issue is not well-addressed by the legislator. Moreover, the Act
is not really protective towards animals that are held captivated as most zoos
are still breaking the laws stated in the provision such as put the animals in
small cages, failure to employ full-time veterinarian and failure to provide
nutritious food.