Not too long ago, the Toronto Zoo Board of Management voted to end the Toronto Zoo’s elephant program, at least temporarily because they left the door open to revisit elephants in the future. While the decision to end the program and relocate the Zoo’s three surviving African elephants was the right one, it was tainted by the refusal of the Board to even investigate alternative options, such as sanctuaries.
While claiming to have the best interests of the elephants in mind, the Board decided to send the elephants to another zoo accredited by the US-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). They dismissed suggestions that the elephants should be sent to one of the two US sanctuaries that house elephants and even voted against investigating that option.
It seems absurd, if the interests of the elephants really are a priority, to dismiss without review or investigation what might be the best and most humane option for the Zoo’s elephants, but that’s exactly what happened.
One Board member said the sanctuaries weren’t accredited by the AZA, so they were not accountable, and there were inferences about lower standards of care. The reality of course is quite different. The low standard is the zoo standard.
Both sanctuaries provide spacious natural accommodation ranging in size from 80 acres to hundreds of acres. The AZA minimum space standard for one adult elephant is 167 m² (1800 ft²). That’s the equivalent of 9 standard size parking lot spaces.
When the zoo standards are compared to actual conditions at the sanctuaries, it’s clear that the sanctuaries exceed the zoo standards in almost every conceivable way.
It’s hard to understand why people cling so desperately to the old ways of doing things, why they ignore history and science and why they ignore the best interests of the animals, but they do.
The Toronto Zoo Board of Management made the right decision to relocate the elephants, but they made the wrong decision to ignore the sanctuary option.
Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Canada
Showing posts with label Calgary Zoo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calgary Zoo. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, June 18, 2010
Report Blasts Calgary Zoo: Vindicates Zoocheck
Yesterday the Calgary Zoo held a media conference to release the findings of a joint review of their facility conducted by members of the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the US-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The review was initiated by embattled Calgary Zoo CEO Clement Lanthier who promised the process would be transparent and the results made public.
Lanthier called the review after years of accidents, mishaps and blunders at the zoo, stretching back to the start of his predecessor’s tenure as CEO. While Lanthier and zoo management repeatedly said the voluminous number of incidents were all unfortunate, usually unpreventable, accidents that were in no way connected to each other, Zoocheck consistently said otherwise. After more than 25 years of zoo campaigns, we knew there were systemic problems at the zoo and that an independent review was required.
For nearly five years Zoocheck has been campaigning to draw attention to the zoo and to change the Calgary Zoo’s focus from an entertainment business model to one that is focused on the animals themselves. We believe the zoo lost its way, but that under the direction of former CEO Peter Karsten the zoo was moving in the right direction, doing at least some of things the things that zoos should do. For example, Karsten was moving away from some of the more problematic animals, such as polar bears, and focusing efforts instead on animals that could be more easily accommodated in Calgary. He was also pushing involvement in legitimate conservation initiatives.
But everything changed when Karsten retired and money-man Alex Graham replaced him. It seemed clear when Graham pushed the $30 million Destination Africa project, an abominable complex of artificial exhibits in which four gorillas died in just one year, that the zoo had changed. Instead of intelligently pushing forward with a facility that placed animals as its highest priority, it became focused on money and attractions. It became a business, the animals started to die and the zoo’s reputation eroded year after year.
When current CEO Clement Lathier took over, after a hasty departure by Graham, it was business as usual. The problems got worse. Eventually, there were so many that at least a few of the more astute Calgarians started to ask what was going on in their zoo.
The whole process was facilitated by a city council that blindly accepted whatever the zoo said and defended them against their critics (i.e., Zoocheck). There was a culture of arrogance and denial and the problems at the zoo got worse. After each mishap, the zoo said they knew what they doing and that everything was fine. Well, things weren’t fine and the scathing review report by the Calgary Zoo’s own peers show that things are even worse than anyone thought.
The report mentions an unusually high death rate (higher than comparable facilities), poor collection planning, inadequate staff training, poor communcation, as well as inadequate animal care procedures, security and infrastructure maintenance. It also says the zoo was focused on acquiring attraction animals that it didn’t have the expertise to care for and that enhancing the visitor experience was often accomplished to the detriment of the animals.
The zoo sat on the review report for quite some time, presumably so they could come up with an action plan for change that, my guess is, they hoped would mitigate some of the damage they knew would be caused when the report finally came out.
During that time, career staff member Cathy Gavalier resigned her post, something the zoo is now latching on to as a sign of change.
At their media conference yesterday, the zoo attempted to re-frame at least a few of the items in the review report, dispute or downplay several of the statistics and suggest that some of the problems are associated with staff structure and City of Calgary staff that have been assigned to the zoo. I guess if I were in their shoes, I’d do the same.
While Zoocheck believes the terms of reference for the report were too narrow, we’re nevertheless pleased with its content. It vindicates everything Zoocheck has been saying for years. We believe that if the zoo follows through with every point in their action plan, then at least some aspects of the zoo will improve, but we don’t think it’s enough.
Ultimately, as the senior staff person at the Calgary Zoo the responsibility for its culture, practices, missteps and mistakes fall at the feet of the CEO. For that reason, we believe Clement Lanthier should resign his post.
Further, with so many serious systemic problems uncovered, the Canadian and American zoo associations should suspend Calgary Zoo’s accreditation until every one of them is addressed.
Finally, the Calgary Zoo should abandon its costly, nonsensical plan to acquire Giant Pandas, another manifestation of their focus on attractions and box-office animals. If they’re serious about the future, they will.
So, are things now changed at the Calgary Zoo? Are they a renewed institution looking forward or are they just saying what they have to say to get through this latest debacle? I guess time will tell.
Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Canada
Lanthier called the review after years of accidents, mishaps and blunders at the zoo, stretching back to the start of his predecessor’s tenure as CEO. While Lanthier and zoo management repeatedly said the voluminous number of incidents were all unfortunate, usually unpreventable, accidents that were in no way connected to each other, Zoocheck consistently said otherwise. After more than 25 years of zoo campaigns, we knew there were systemic problems at the zoo and that an independent review was required.
For nearly five years Zoocheck has been campaigning to draw attention to the zoo and to change the Calgary Zoo’s focus from an entertainment business model to one that is focused on the animals themselves. We believe the zoo lost its way, but that under the direction of former CEO Peter Karsten the zoo was moving in the right direction, doing at least some of things the things that zoos should do. For example, Karsten was moving away from some of the more problematic animals, such as polar bears, and focusing efforts instead on animals that could be more easily accommodated in Calgary. He was also pushing involvement in legitimate conservation initiatives.
But everything changed when Karsten retired and money-man Alex Graham replaced him. It seemed clear when Graham pushed the $30 million Destination Africa project, an abominable complex of artificial exhibits in which four gorillas died in just one year, that the zoo had changed. Instead of intelligently pushing forward with a facility that placed animals as its highest priority, it became focused on money and attractions. It became a business, the animals started to die and the zoo’s reputation eroded year after year.
When current CEO Clement Lathier took over, after a hasty departure by Graham, it was business as usual. The problems got worse. Eventually, there were so many that at least a few of the more astute Calgarians started to ask what was going on in their zoo.
The whole process was facilitated by a city council that blindly accepted whatever the zoo said and defended them against their critics (i.e., Zoocheck). There was a culture of arrogance and denial and the problems at the zoo got worse. After each mishap, the zoo said they knew what they doing and that everything was fine. Well, things weren’t fine and the scathing review report by the Calgary Zoo’s own peers show that things are even worse than anyone thought.
The report mentions an unusually high death rate (higher than comparable facilities), poor collection planning, inadequate staff training, poor communcation, as well as inadequate animal care procedures, security and infrastructure maintenance. It also says the zoo was focused on acquiring attraction animals that it didn’t have the expertise to care for and that enhancing the visitor experience was often accomplished to the detriment of the animals.
The zoo sat on the review report for quite some time, presumably so they could come up with an action plan for change that, my guess is, they hoped would mitigate some of the damage they knew would be caused when the report finally came out.
During that time, career staff member Cathy Gavalier resigned her post, something the zoo is now latching on to as a sign of change.
At their media conference yesterday, the zoo attempted to re-frame at least a few of the items in the review report, dispute or downplay several of the statistics and suggest that some of the problems are associated with staff structure and City of Calgary staff that have been assigned to the zoo. I guess if I were in their shoes, I’d do the same.
While Zoocheck believes the terms of reference for the report were too narrow, we’re nevertheless pleased with its content. It vindicates everything Zoocheck has been saying for years. We believe that if the zoo follows through with every point in their action plan, then at least some aspects of the zoo will improve, but we don’t think it’s enough.
Ultimately, as the senior staff person at the Calgary Zoo the responsibility for its culture, practices, missteps and mistakes fall at the feet of the CEO. For that reason, we believe Clement Lanthier should resign his post.
Further, with so many serious systemic problems uncovered, the Canadian and American zoo associations should suspend Calgary Zoo’s accreditation until every one of them is addressed.
Finally, the Calgary Zoo should abandon its costly, nonsensical plan to acquire Giant Pandas, another manifestation of their focus on attractions and box-office animals. If they’re serious about the future, they will.
So, are things now changed at the Calgary Zoo? Are they a renewed institution looking forward or are they just saying what they have to say to get through this latest debacle? I guess time will tell.
Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Canada
Thursday, May 27, 2010
An Elephant's Limbo: Edmonton's Lucy
On May 4th, a motion brought forward by the City of Edmonton to dismiss our court action on behalf of Lucy the elephant was heard. Edmonton’s lawyer argued, amongst other things, that Zoocheck and PETA don’t have the legal authority to bring forward an action to help Lucy. That’s the usual first response by corporations challenging legal actions initiated by animal or environmental organizations, especially when they want to avoid discussing the merits of the case (i.e., Lucy’s suffering). If the motion is defeated, then the case continues. If not, then we’ll be pursuing another course of action. The judge’s decision should be forthcoming in the very near future. In the meantime, it’s worth looking back at a few of the realities of Lucy’s past and current life at the Valley Zoo.
Lucy is just entering the early stages of middle age, so she could potentially live for a very long time. The oldest documented Asian elephant was Lin Wang who died at the age of 86 years. There are currently a small number of elephants in India that are believed to be their mid-90s. African elephants have shorter lifespans, but they still live a long time, with wild individuals living well into their 60s. In Kenya's Amboseli National Park, there are even females who have had calves in their late 50s. If Lucy is moved to more elephant-friendly conditions elsewhere, it’s possible she could have many potential years ahead of her. If she stays at the zoo, she’ll probably experience the same fate as the majority of other elephants in zoos – death in her late 30s or early 40s.
While the Valley Zoo states that Lucy is happy and healthy, there is nothing to support that contention. In fact, a number of the world's leading elephant experts., who have either observed Lucy directly and/or examined her management and medical records, all agree that she is grossly overweight, suffering from a range of chronic medical conditions, lacks the social environment she needs, is suffering and stands a good chance of dying prematurely. These are people who have spent their lives observing and working with elephants.
In looking at the keeping of elephants in captivity, it is critically important to consider normal elephant biology, behaviour, natural lifestyle, and best husbandry practices in other facilities around the world that keep elephants. Having done that it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which it would be acceptable for Lucy to stay at the Valley Zoo. While there are a multitude of challenges faced by any facility wanting to keep a tropical animal in a cold weather environment, there are three major obstacles the Valley Zoo would have to overcome in order to maintain Lucy in a way that satisfies her needs. As far as I can tell, these challenges are insurmountable.
The first is the climate. As an Asian elephant born in the wild in Sri Lanka, Lucy is not physically structured to cope with Edmonton's winter weather and that almost certainly aggravates some of her ongoing health issues (i.e., chronic arthritis) and psychological issues (i.e., stereotyping - rocking, swaying - because she spends exteneded periods inside during colder weather). While the zoo argues that Lucy is acclimated to her environment, there is no evidence to suggest that that is actually true.
A look at extinct cold weather elephant species (as well as other cold weather terristrial species, both past and present) show animals that are hair covered with thick subcutaneous fat layers, as well as a range of other adaptations that favour comfort and survivability in cold environments. In fact, there was a recent discovery of special blood components in mammoths that helped keep them warm. Lucy doesn't have any of those adaptations. Of course, that's to be expected since she was born in the wild in a tropical country.
Lucy can tolerate a certain amount of cold and can spend a limited amount of time outside during periods of cold weather. While this is probably better than permanent confinement indoors, it is certainly not ideal, especially when one considers the fact that elephants are typically active 18-20 hours per day, much of that time moving over very large areas. Except for providing a small heated indoor space, there is little the Valley Zoo can do to mitigate the effects of climate.
The second major challenge is that the Vally Zoo elephant paddock is too small (1/2 acre or less), in addition to being sparsely equipped and having substrate that is predominantly hard and unvegetated. While the Valley Zoo has the room to construct a decent sized elephant paddock, with required pasture areas, if they were to annex a number of the existing ungulate paddocks and amalgamate them into a single elephant compound, they do not have the finances (or, it seems, the desire) to do so. Reformatting the physical footprint of the zoo would require substantial funds and a major rethinking of the zoo plan. Having said that, if they did construct a large, properly equipped elephant paddock, they would still be faced with the problem of climate.
The third challenge is providing a proper social environment. The minimum recommended group size for captive elephants according to the Elephant Taxon Advisory Group (an organization comprised entirely of zoo elephant managers and keepers) is three elephants. The Coalition for Captive Elephant Wellbeing recommends a minimum of 5 Asian elephants be kept together. Every zoo association recommends that female elephants never be kept alone and that it is preferable to keep them in groups. The reason for these recommendations is that all female elephants live in stable family groups, usually consisting of 5 - 10 or more individuals, their entire lives in the wild. Elephant lives are built around these stable family groups, so it's imperative that elephants be kept in appropriate groups in captivity. The Valley Zoo has already said they do not have the space for additional elephants and that they will not be acquiring any additional elephants in the future.
The Valley Zoo acknowledges that female elephants are social, but they also say that Lucy's keepers are her family and that because that is all she has known (except for a brief period as an infant), she is better left where she is. If you examine the natural lives of elephants, that doesn't make sense.
Elephant families stay together 24 hrs a day, while Lucy's keepers go home at the end of the work day, leaving Lucy alone in the barn (although they now claim to have extended their hours with her marginally). Elephant families don't disband at night and then reassemble the next morning. Traditional mahouts in southeast Asia live, work and sleep beside their elephants in an attempt to satisfy their social needs. A number of the elephant orphanages have keepers that sleep in the same quarters as the elephants they care for. That doesn't happen at the Valley Zoo.
Elephants are active 18-20 hours each day. Physical and social activity does not stop at the end of the work day but continues late into the night. Neither of these critical facets of elephant life are addressed in Lucy's case. In addition, if you consider the fact that elephants communicate with each other through audible sounds, infrasound (that humans can't hear), body postures, touching, chemical cues and seismic vibrations nearly all of their waking hours, it's easy to see how inadequate Lucy's situation is. Even if the keepers wanted to address Lucy's social needs, they wouldn’t be able to do so. The suggestion that human keepers can fill the gap left by the absence of contact with other elephants is wishful thinking. Since the criticism of the zoo has become more intense, they've made an effort to spend more time with Lucy and to walk her more, but it isn't enough to properly address Lucy's needs.
Lucy's living conditions and management are almost certainly major factors in her poor health. According to the zoo's own records, Lucy has suffered for many years from arthritis (starting at a very early age), foot infections, abscesses, undiagnosed respiratory problems and colic. She is also grossly overweight. The zoo has not been able to resolve most of these problems. These are all conditions that have led to the death of other captive elephants in their late 30s and early 40s. There is every reason to believe that Lucy will suffer the same fate if she is left where she is. It's clear that Lucy's conditions are chronic and that her physical environment is an ongoing major factor in her poor health. If she were moved to better accommodation with room to roam, things to do and other elephants to socialize with, her mental state would be enhanced and her health would improve through exercise and normal movement. Regarding the zoo's claim that moving Lucy would be dangerous, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that that is true. In fact, considering the history of captive elephants like Lucy, the biggest risk is keeping her where she is in a compromised state of health. The best reason for moving Lucy is her chronic poor health, it is not a reason for keeping her where she is.
Zoocheck has offered to pay for a team of world-renowned elephant veterinarians (each member subject to the Valley Zoo's approval) to come to Edmonton to properly examine Lucy and her health. The Valley Zoo has refused, even though it wouldn't cost them a cent. I know if I had an elephant in chronic poor health with a long-term, undiagnosed condition, I'd jump at the offer.
The Valley Zoo staff and City of Edmonton have been close-minded and have refused to discuss viable options for Lucy right from the start. And their refusal to allow independent third party assessment of Lucy's health should be a red flag to anyone concerned about Lucy's health and welfare. Unfortunately, the zoo's close-mindedness has led to the current legal action.
I’m baffled as to why the Valley Zoo and the City of Edmonton are fighting so hard to retain one lone, sickly elephant in their small, moribund zoo. It takes nothing more than a review of a child’s book about elephants to see how inappropriate Lucy’s life and living conditions are. Perhaps they’ve defended themselves for so long, they feel they’d look stupid if they backed down and did the right thing. Perhaps it’s a misguided sense of civic pride. No matter what the reason, it’s Lucy that’s paying the price.
Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Canada
Lucy is just entering the early stages of middle age, so she could potentially live for a very long time. The oldest documented Asian elephant was Lin Wang who died at the age of 86 years. There are currently a small number of elephants in India that are believed to be their mid-90s. African elephants have shorter lifespans, but they still live a long time, with wild individuals living well into their 60s. In Kenya's Amboseli National Park, there are even females who have had calves in their late 50s. If Lucy is moved to more elephant-friendly conditions elsewhere, it’s possible she could have many potential years ahead of her. If she stays at the zoo, she’ll probably experience the same fate as the majority of other elephants in zoos – death in her late 30s or early 40s.
While the Valley Zoo states that Lucy is happy and healthy, there is nothing to support that contention. In fact, a number of the world's leading elephant experts., who have either observed Lucy directly and/or examined her management and medical records, all agree that she is grossly overweight, suffering from a range of chronic medical conditions, lacks the social environment she needs, is suffering and stands a good chance of dying prematurely. These are people who have spent their lives observing and working with elephants.
In looking at the keeping of elephants in captivity, it is critically important to consider normal elephant biology, behaviour, natural lifestyle, and best husbandry practices in other facilities around the world that keep elephants. Having done that it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which it would be acceptable for Lucy to stay at the Valley Zoo. While there are a multitude of challenges faced by any facility wanting to keep a tropical animal in a cold weather environment, there are three major obstacles the Valley Zoo would have to overcome in order to maintain Lucy in a way that satisfies her needs. As far as I can tell, these challenges are insurmountable.
The first is the climate. As an Asian elephant born in the wild in Sri Lanka, Lucy is not physically structured to cope with Edmonton's winter weather and that almost certainly aggravates some of her ongoing health issues (i.e., chronic arthritis) and psychological issues (i.e., stereotyping - rocking, swaying - because she spends exteneded periods inside during colder weather). While the zoo argues that Lucy is acclimated to her environment, there is no evidence to suggest that that is actually true.
A look at extinct cold weather elephant species (as well as other cold weather terristrial species, both past and present) show animals that are hair covered with thick subcutaneous fat layers, as well as a range of other adaptations that favour comfort and survivability in cold environments. In fact, there was a recent discovery of special blood components in mammoths that helped keep them warm. Lucy doesn't have any of those adaptations. Of course, that's to be expected since she was born in the wild in a tropical country.
Lucy can tolerate a certain amount of cold and can spend a limited amount of time outside during periods of cold weather. While this is probably better than permanent confinement indoors, it is certainly not ideal, especially when one considers the fact that elephants are typically active 18-20 hours per day, much of that time moving over very large areas. Except for providing a small heated indoor space, there is little the Valley Zoo can do to mitigate the effects of climate.
The second major challenge is that the Vally Zoo elephant paddock is too small (1/2 acre or less), in addition to being sparsely equipped and having substrate that is predominantly hard and unvegetated. While the Valley Zoo has the room to construct a decent sized elephant paddock, with required pasture areas, if they were to annex a number of the existing ungulate paddocks and amalgamate them into a single elephant compound, they do not have the finances (or, it seems, the desire) to do so. Reformatting the physical footprint of the zoo would require substantial funds and a major rethinking of the zoo plan. Having said that, if they did construct a large, properly equipped elephant paddock, they would still be faced with the problem of climate.
The third challenge is providing a proper social environment. The minimum recommended group size for captive elephants according to the Elephant Taxon Advisory Group (an organization comprised entirely of zoo elephant managers and keepers) is three elephants. The Coalition for Captive Elephant Wellbeing recommends a minimum of 5 Asian elephants be kept together. Every zoo association recommends that female elephants never be kept alone and that it is preferable to keep them in groups. The reason for these recommendations is that all female elephants live in stable family groups, usually consisting of 5 - 10 or more individuals, their entire lives in the wild. Elephant lives are built around these stable family groups, so it's imperative that elephants be kept in appropriate groups in captivity. The Valley Zoo has already said they do not have the space for additional elephants and that they will not be acquiring any additional elephants in the future.
The Valley Zoo acknowledges that female elephants are social, but they also say that Lucy's keepers are her family and that because that is all she has known (except for a brief period as an infant), she is better left where she is. If you examine the natural lives of elephants, that doesn't make sense.
Elephant families stay together 24 hrs a day, while Lucy's keepers go home at the end of the work day, leaving Lucy alone in the barn (although they now claim to have extended their hours with her marginally). Elephant families don't disband at night and then reassemble the next morning. Traditional mahouts in southeast Asia live, work and sleep beside their elephants in an attempt to satisfy their social needs. A number of the elephant orphanages have keepers that sleep in the same quarters as the elephants they care for. That doesn't happen at the Valley Zoo.
Elephants are active 18-20 hours each day. Physical and social activity does not stop at the end of the work day but continues late into the night. Neither of these critical facets of elephant life are addressed in Lucy's case. In addition, if you consider the fact that elephants communicate with each other through audible sounds, infrasound (that humans can't hear), body postures, touching, chemical cues and seismic vibrations nearly all of their waking hours, it's easy to see how inadequate Lucy's situation is. Even if the keepers wanted to address Lucy's social needs, they wouldn’t be able to do so. The suggestion that human keepers can fill the gap left by the absence of contact with other elephants is wishful thinking. Since the criticism of the zoo has become more intense, they've made an effort to spend more time with Lucy and to walk her more, but it isn't enough to properly address Lucy's needs.
Lucy's living conditions and management are almost certainly major factors in her poor health. According to the zoo's own records, Lucy has suffered for many years from arthritis (starting at a very early age), foot infections, abscesses, undiagnosed respiratory problems and colic. She is also grossly overweight. The zoo has not been able to resolve most of these problems. These are all conditions that have led to the death of other captive elephants in their late 30s and early 40s. There is every reason to believe that Lucy will suffer the same fate if she is left where she is. It's clear that Lucy's conditions are chronic and that her physical environment is an ongoing major factor in her poor health. If she were moved to better accommodation with room to roam, things to do and other elephants to socialize with, her mental state would be enhanced and her health would improve through exercise and normal movement. Regarding the zoo's claim that moving Lucy would be dangerous, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that that is true. In fact, considering the history of captive elephants like Lucy, the biggest risk is keeping her where she is in a compromised state of health. The best reason for moving Lucy is her chronic poor health, it is not a reason for keeping her where she is.
Zoocheck has offered to pay for a team of world-renowned elephant veterinarians (each member subject to the Valley Zoo's approval) to come to Edmonton to properly examine Lucy and her health. The Valley Zoo has refused, even though it wouldn't cost them a cent. I know if I had an elephant in chronic poor health with a long-term, undiagnosed condition, I'd jump at the offer.
The Valley Zoo staff and City of Edmonton have been close-minded and have refused to discuss viable options for Lucy right from the start. And their refusal to allow independent third party assessment of Lucy's health should be a red flag to anyone concerned about Lucy's health and welfare. Unfortunately, the zoo's close-mindedness has led to the current legal action.
I’m baffled as to why the Valley Zoo and the City of Edmonton are fighting so hard to retain one lone, sickly elephant in their small, moribund zoo. It takes nothing more than a review of a child’s book about elephants to see how inappropriate Lucy’s life and living conditions are. Perhaps they’ve defended themselves for so long, they feel they’d look stupid if they backed down and did the right thing. Perhaps it’s a misguided sense of civic pride. No matter what the reason, it’s Lucy that’s paying the price.
Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Canada
Monday, March 1, 2010
Death and Life in Orca World: The Show Must Go On
Sea World has resumed their orca shows after the recent death of trainer Dawn Brancheau. The trainers aren’t allowed to enter the water with the animals and they work under a new set of rules, but I expect it’s just a matter of time before things return to normal.
After all, orca shows are the foundation on which the Sea World empire is built and it will take a lot more than a trainer’s death to stop them. There’s a lot of money at stake.
Ms. Brancheau’s death by whale is unfortunate, but it wasn’t unexpected. The whale in question, Tilikum, is linked to two previous deaths. Even without that history, the fact remains that orcas are one of the world’s largest predators, so one could logically assume that being around them poses a risk.
If you factor in the reality that captive whales like Tilikum are compressed into spaces millions of times smaller than they would experience in the wild, that their natural movements and behaviours are almost entirely eliminated, that they are forced to live in the most unnatural of social environments and that they are frustrated, bored and out of shape, one could reasonably assume all of that might exacerbate the risk.
No one really knows if Tilikum was angry, demented after living so long in those kinds of conditions or just innocently looking for a diversion from the monotony of his daily life. What we do know however, is that Tilikum is a 12,000 lb predator living a very unnatural life.
I expect Ms. Brancheau got into the whale training business because she loves whales, especially the particular whales she worked with. But I find it hard to believe the relationship was reciprocated in any way. I just can’t get past the feeling that if a relationship does exist, it’s not one between friends, but between keeper and captive.
If you look at the biology, behaviour and lifestyles of orcas, it seems obvious why they are among the worst candidates for captivity. There’s almost nothing about their natural lives and habitats that can be replicated, even in the world’s best captive conditions. Life for a captive whale doesn’t seem like much of a life at all. It seems more like a long, slow prison sentence where the only escape is death.
I’d like to think that Ms. Brancheau’s death will result in a period of reflection and a reassessment of whale keeping by the bigwigs at Sea World and other aquariums. But I know that’s wishful thinking, because marine parks and aquariums are businesses that are there to generate a profit. And when money is involved, the show must go on.
Rob Laidlaw
After all, orca shows are the foundation on which the Sea World empire is built and it will take a lot more than a trainer’s death to stop them. There’s a lot of money at stake.
Ms. Brancheau’s death by whale is unfortunate, but it wasn’t unexpected. The whale in question, Tilikum, is linked to two previous deaths. Even without that history, the fact remains that orcas are one of the world’s largest predators, so one could logically assume that being around them poses a risk.
If you factor in the reality that captive whales like Tilikum are compressed into spaces millions of times smaller than they would experience in the wild, that their natural movements and behaviours are almost entirely eliminated, that they are forced to live in the most unnatural of social environments and that they are frustrated, bored and out of shape, one could reasonably assume all of that might exacerbate the risk.
No one really knows if Tilikum was angry, demented after living so long in those kinds of conditions or just innocently looking for a diversion from the monotony of his daily life. What we do know however, is that Tilikum is a 12,000 lb predator living a very unnatural life.
I expect Ms. Brancheau got into the whale training business because she loves whales, especially the particular whales she worked with. But I find it hard to believe the relationship was reciprocated in any way. I just can’t get past the feeling that if a relationship does exist, it’s not one between friends, but between keeper and captive.
If you look at the biology, behaviour and lifestyles of orcas, it seems obvious why they are among the worst candidates for captivity. There’s almost nothing about their natural lives and habitats that can be replicated, even in the world’s best captive conditions. Life for a captive whale doesn’t seem like much of a life at all. It seems more like a long, slow prison sentence where the only escape is death.
I’d like to think that Ms. Brancheau’s death will result in a period of reflection and a reassessment of whale keeping by the bigwigs at Sea World and other aquariums. But I know that’s wishful thinking, because marine parks and aquariums are businesses that are there to generate a profit. And when money is involved, the show must go on.
Rob Laidlaw
Thursday, December 17, 2009
How Indpendent will Calgary's Independent Review Actually Be?
After a wake of high profile animal deaths and incidents stretching back several years, the Calgary Zoo has finally announced an independent external review of their facility. While this is something Zoocheck and other animal welfare groups have called for, one has to wonder how independent the independent review will be.
In a videotaped statement on the zoo’s website CEO Clement Lanthier said he would be contacting both the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) and the US-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) this week to ask them to put together a team of expert reviewers to examine the Calgary Zoo’s practices and procedures. On the surface, this may sound like a reasonable course of action. After all, the two organizations are the accrediting bodies for their member institutions in both countries.
Here’s the problem. The Calgary Zoo is already accredited by both organizations. That the means the zoo has already met or exceeded their accreditation standards which they say are among the toughest anywhere. If they’re already accredited by both organizations and the animal deaths and incidents continue, why go back to those same organizations for another review. Wouldn’t it make more sense to look elsewhere for new expertise?
My faith in the pending independent external review is also undermined by the comments of CAZA national director Bill Peters. In a December 12th Globe and Mail article Mr. Peters said, take out break here….“Yes, there has been a series of unfortunate incidents and they've been looked at and reports have been done in the various occurrences, but is there a pattern? No, I don't think there's a pattern there.”
Given the number of animal deaths and incidents, I find it remarkable that anyone would think there wasn’t a pattern. It seems to me that because they all occurred at the same facility within a fairly compressed timeframe that alone establishes a pattern.
In my view, the deaths of four gorillas in rapid succession is a pattern. Or the presumably preventable deaths of stingrays because of improper oxygen levels, a markhor hanging itself on a rope and the capybara crushed to death in a hydraulic door. If they don’t represent a pattern, I don’t know what does.
Details of the independent expert review are pending. The people involved and the terms of reference are not known. At this point there is one thing I do know. To maintain even a smidgen of credibility the review team must draw extensively from other disciplines, including the animal welfare field. It can’t just be zoo managers reviewing zoo managers.
A few years ago, the National Zoo in Washington D.C. was subject to a review after a string of animal deaths and other missteps were reported in the media. That review involved multiple agencies and individuals, including experts from outside the zoo world.
Will the review be a serious examination or just a public relations exercise? I guess time will tell.
Rob Laidlaw
Executive Director
Zoocheck Canada
In a videotaped statement on the zoo’s website CEO Clement Lanthier said he would be contacting both the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) and the US-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) this week to ask them to put together a team of expert reviewers to examine the Calgary Zoo’s practices and procedures. On the surface, this may sound like a reasonable course of action. After all, the two organizations are the accrediting bodies for their member institutions in both countries.
Here’s the problem. The Calgary Zoo is already accredited by both organizations. That the means the zoo has already met or exceeded their accreditation standards which they say are among the toughest anywhere. If they’re already accredited by both organizations and the animal deaths and incidents continue, why go back to those same organizations for another review. Wouldn’t it make more sense to look elsewhere for new expertise?
My faith in the pending independent external review is also undermined by the comments of CAZA national director Bill Peters. In a December 12th Globe and Mail article Mr. Peters said, take out break here….“Yes, there has been a series of unfortunate incidents and they've been looked at and reports have been done in the various occurrences, but is there a pattern? No, I don't think there's a pattern there.”
Given the number of animal deaths and incidents, I find it remarkable that anyone would think there wasn’t a pattern. It seems to me that because they all occurred at the same facility within a fairly compressed timeframe that alone establishes a pattern.
In my view, the deaths of four gorillas in rapid succession is a pattern. Or the presumably preventable deaths of stingrays because of improper oxygen levels, a markhor hanging itself on a rope and the capybara crushed to death in a hydraulic door. If they don’t represent a pattern, I don’t know what does.
Details of the independent expert review are pending. The people involved and the terms of reference are not known. At this point there is one thing I do know. To maintain even a smidgen of credibility the review team must draw extensively from other disciplines, including the animal welfare field. It can’t just be zoo managers reviewing zoo managers.
A few years ago, the National Zoo in Washington D.C. was subject to a review after a string of animal deaths and other missteps were reported in the media. That review involved multiple agencies and individuals, including experts from outside the zoo world.
Will the review be a serious examination or just a public relations exercise? I guess time will tell.
Rob Laidlaw
Executive Director
Zoocheck Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
