Time to Rehome Springwater Park Animals

Along with Springwater Provincial Park’s status being changed to non-operational (meaning visitor services are no longer being offered), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) announced that the animals in the Park’s wildlife zoo would be dispersed to more appropriate accommodation elsewhere. That move is supported by major animal welfare and wildlife protection groups and will almost certainly be applauded by animal loving Ontarians everywhere.

While Springwater’s animal display may have been considered acceptable years ago, that is not the case today. The facility is out of date, inadequate and does not provide many of the animals with an acceptable level of welfare.

The closure of Springwater’s antiquated wildlife zoo fits in with evolving public concerns and sensibilities about animals. In recent years, a series of professional polls have shown that 82% of Ontario citizens support better regulation of wildlife in captivity facilities and improved standards of care. A review of some of the ongoing wildlife captivity controversies in the province is clear evidence that public attitudes are rapidly changing.

Some Springwater visitors seem to have developed a sentimental attachment to the animal display and overlook or fail to recognize its deficiencies. Many have erroneously referred to it as an animal sanctuary. Unfortunately, the display does not satisfy the basic criteria that define true sanctuaries, including restricted public access. Even though it is in a park, the wildlife compound is a zoo.

Advocates of a new Springwater governance model have referred to the wildlife zoo as an attraction and part of the future “revenue stream.” However, to upgrade the facility to an acceptable standard that fully satisfies the animals’ needs would require a substantial influx of funds and result in escalated, ongoing operational costs for whomever is in charge. It’s highly unlikely the zoo could ever generate more than token revenue for the Park and it’s doubtful the capital costs of bringing the facility up to standard could ever be recouped. The reality is that many zoos and zoo-type displays require annual subsidies to survive and ongoing government funding for capital/infrastructure improvements.

As well, the Springwater animals are all common species in Ontario and well represented in zoological facilities throughout the province, including some in the region. There is nothing unique about the Park’s zoo that would make it an attraction and draw people through the gate. In fact, considering current public sentiment, it may keep them away.

While we question the need to increase attendance beyond that required for the simple maintenance of visitor amenities, there are many ways to increase attendance if that is a goal. They include, but are not limited to, interpretive pavilions focused on local nature and history, a native wildlife butterfly garden, a bird feeder trail, a series of self-guided walks focusing on botany, ecology, local history and other subjects, organized insect safaris for kids, nature festivals and other special events, to name just a few ideas. The suggestion that the Park needs a bunch of caged animals to attract people ignores the fact that so much more could be offered.

As a wildlife protection organization, our interest has been and will continue to be the welfare of the Springwater animals. That’s why we are encouraging the MNR to move forward with the closure of the Park’s wildlife zoo and the dispersal of the animals to more appropriate accommodation elsewhere. It shouldn’t be a difficult process. We hope that others who are also concerned about wildlife will contact David Orazietti, Minister of Natural Resources, and urge him to move forward with relocation of the animals. The Minister's email is dorazietti.mpp@liberal.ola.org.

The closure of Springwater's wildlife zoo will be applauded by Ontarians across the province and by wildlife advocates everywhere. But the best reason for moving ahead is that it’s the right thing to do for the animals and the right time to do it.

Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Inc.

Lucy in the Cold with Arthritis, A Sad Elephant Saga Drags On

As I hope I’ve made clear in my previous blogs, Canadian zoos are no places for elephants, at least not from the elephants’ perspective. The animals don’t survive.

They come down with various serious medical problems relating to the fact that they just aren’t suited to the conditions available in zoos in cold climates. They develop a variety of illnesses that are not encountered in wild elephants, especially those derived from lack of exercise, cold and dampness, and lack of natural social interactions. Foot infections and crippling arthritis are major problems that cut their age nearly in half. Unlike the wild elephants, they breed poorly, a situation that creates a “need” to remove still more elephants from their home ranges to bolster captive populations at the cost of the elephants’ health and well-being.

Which brings us to Lucy, the lone Asian elephant still confined to a zoo in Edmonton, Alberta. Lucy has touched the hearts of many around the world, but not, alas, those in a position to help her. She’s sick, and although the veterinarian chosen by the zoo to look at her agrees with that, he reportedly claims she’s getting better. The zoo, municipally run, refuses to allow an independent assessment by elephant veterinarian experts.

Lucy should be moved to one of two elephant sanctuaries in the United States that can provide her with the ample space and elephant companionship she needs, under expert loving care, while also allowing her to live out whatever remains of her shortened life in a climate more closely resembling the one her species evolved to inhabit — one less harmful to her already compromised health.

The zoo has failed to meet a court deadline to diagnose and treat Lucy by March 1. There is a legal appeal due on March 29, concerning a previous court decision that outlined that the elephant’s fate lay first with need for an investigation by the local SPCA, which is also funded by the city.

Also, all zoo permits for Alberta’s zoos are due for review on April 1. Zoos are not, under existing legislation, supposed to be licensed to keep elephants unless they have three of them, in recognition of elephants’ social nature. Lucy is alone. Not that I expect the law to be upheld, or any consequences if it isn’t. My colleagues have asked the government not to renew the permit anyway, if only to illustrate the absurdity of it all. And we are planning a one-day symposium for elephants in captivity in April, in hopes of keeping people interested and concerned about the country’s ailing captive elephants, and further showing why Canadian zoos are bad for elephants’ health and survival.

Lucy is 35 years old, middle-aged for a wild elephant, but near the end of the lifespan one can expect for elephants in Canadian zoos. Surely she has served the city by being an attraction to the zoo, and now that she is in medical distress, the city can find the moral integrity to serve her, to allow her to know her last years in warmth, in open spaces, and in the company of elephant companions. The zoo will survive the absence of this unfortunate animal. Animal protectionists will pick up the tab of her rescue. Legendary TV personality Bob Barker, for example, has offered $100,000 to Edmonton just to allow experts to examine Lucy.

Other zoos have done the right thing by way of their elephants and placed them in sanctuaries. Edmonton has the moral obligation to do the same.

Barry Kent MacKay
Born Free USA
Zoocheck Canada

Lucy Ruling Didn't Address Welfare

Contrary to the claims of City of Edmonton officials and representatives, the August 20th ruling of Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke in the Zoocheck/PETA legal action against the City did not in any way vindicate the Valley Zoo’s treatment of Lucy.

In fact, Rooke was very clear that his ruling was not addressing Lucy’s housing, care and health. He said, “While this litigation before the Court makes allegations about the health and care of Lucy, this Decision does not address those allegations. Rather, it addresses the health of the legal system to properly consider such allegations.”

What’s particularly unfortunate in all this is that the overwhelming affidavit evidence from a cadre of world renowned elephant experts confirming Lucy’s poor living conditions and inappropriate social isolation was never heard.

The Valley Zoo didn’t have to defend their nonsensical claims about Lucy that fly in the face of accepted science, zoo industry knowledge and common sense.

They also didn’t have to explain the seemingly undiagnosable, "phantom" illness they claim relegates Lucy to a lifetime of loneliness in the north. They dodged a bullet, for now.

Meanwhile, just this week, yet another major North American zoo announced their decision to transfer their two elephants to another facility citing an inability to properly provide for their needs.

It’s unfortunate Lucy doesn’t have such enlightened people in charge.

The keeping of elephants in captivity has become increasingly controversial around the world. Zoos defend the practice but they do acknowledge that some of the relatively routine practices of the past need changed. One area of where there is universal agreement is the inappropriateness of keeping single female elephants. Almost every published zoo standard in the world says elephants must be kept in groups.

The Valley Zoo and City of Edmonton claim Lucy is fine all by herself and that she’s happy and healthy (although too sick to be moved, of course). On this issue, the keeping of a highly social female elephant in permanent social isolation, the Valley Zoo and City of Edmonton seem to stand alone.

The Valley Zoo has even claimed Lucy is a non-social elephant, although they’ve produced no evidence to suggest that their claim is true. During a recent trip to India, I asked a leading Asian elephant research scientist if he could conceive of a situation in which a female elephant might be non-social. He laughed and said, “There’s no such thing as a non-social female elephant. That animal doesn’t exist.”

Why the Valley Zoo and the City of Edmonton are so out of step with the times and fight so vigorously to keep Lucy is baffling. It’s like they’re living in a time warp and haven’t realized things have changed. The whole world is moving forward, but apparently not in Edmonton.

Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Canada

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