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 The facility is out of date, inadequate and does not provide many of the animals with an acceptable level of welfare.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.

Guzoo gets yet another chance!

As you probably already know by now, on April 1, 2011, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) issued a provisional 60 day permit to Guzoo Animal Farm in Three Hills, Alberta. The issuance of a conditional permit came after thousands of private citizens, including thousands of Alberta residents, saw pictures of the Guzoo facility posted on Facebook and flooded SRD and the Alberta SPCA with calls and emails just prior to the zoo’s annual permit renewal date.

A media release issued by SRD on April 1st says an “independent third party verification process for assessing zoo animal health to give all parties the confidence that health standards are being met" will be conducted. Of course, this should have been done years ago, but better late than never, although SRD's wording is a bit concerning (more about that later).

The release also quotes the Alberta SPCA Executive Director, "There are a number of different complex issues that need to be looked at carefully." I agree that any facility housing wild animals has complex issues, but there have been many issues identified at Guzoo, some that have seemingly persisted for years, that are not complex, such as providing nutritive food, clean water, species-appropriate shelters, heat, etc.

Since it first opened approximately two decades ago, Guzoo Animal Farm has generated controversy and a steady flow of complaints. In a 1993 Calgary Herald article, reporter Vicki Barnett describes animals “on the windswept prairie, locked in cages offering little shelter.” Former SPCA President Joy Ripley was quoted as saying, “the wellbeing of the animals is being seriously compromised by problems with lack of disease control, dirty conditions, inadequate caging and inappropriate winter shelters. There is also a real concern for public safety.”

Since that time, Zoocheck Canada, in association with local and national animal welfare groups, have sent a steady stream of experts (e.g., veterinarians, zoo professionals, wildlife rehabilitation specialists) to evaluate conditions at Guzoo and have pushed for the relevant agencies to take action.

For years, SRD responded by sending staff out to inspect Guzoo, but they always seemed incapable of identifying anything beyond the most superficial of problems. The Alberta SPCA has also been sending inspectors out to Guzoo for years and, at times, they’ve taken some action, but their efforts don't seemed to have produced substantive results.

So, eighteen years after that Calgary Herald article appeared, the complaints are still rolling in and they're pretty much the same. Inadequate caging, filthy conditions, frozen water bowls, lack of shelter, illness, injury, the list goes on.

The Alberta Government and the SPCA have not identified who exactly will be doing the new investigation or what they will be examining, but if history is any indication, one could be forgiven for thinking that critical husbandry and care considerations, like cage design, substrates, structural enhancements, furnishings, enrichment, privacy, species-appropriate shelters, bedding, the provision of appropriate environmental conditions (particularly heat, light, humidity, ventilation for birds and reptiles), diet, food presentation, food storage, the provision of potable water, social context, and the behavioural indicators of stress and suffering, to name just a few, may not receive the attention they deserve. I hope I’m wrong, but looking at the past, cynicism is warranted.

Perhaps the most astounding fact in this whole situation is that in 2006, Alberta brought in its own zoo regulations to govern the keeping of wild animals in captivity, the result of a multi-year effort by Zoocheck Canada to obtain regulations that would address zoo problems across Alberta, including at Guzoo. Ensuring compliance with the standards is the responsbility of SRD and the Alberta SPCA. The regulations require that permitees satisfy a broad array of conditions. From what we can tell, compliance is poor.

So, getting back to the SRD claim that the 60 day conditional permit was issued so that an “independent third party verification process” for animal health assessment can take place. In my view, their wording is cause for concern.

There is so much more to wild animal housing and care than “animal health,” however that is defined. Will the authorities look only for obvious illness and injury? Will they consider all of the other housing and husbandry factors that must be met to make life bearable for captive animals? Will this be a transparent, comprehensive review conducted by a team of experts who actually know a thing or two about evaluating wildlife in captivity conditions?

One question that surfaces again and again is why has this situation been allowed to fester for years and years? Why didn't anyone in the Alberta government simply say no? Why didn't they just say to Guzoo, come up to a professinal standard within a certain period of time or no permit? As someone who has looked at zoos around the world for more than two and a half decades and who is familiar with Guzoo, I'm suprised its been allowed to go on for so long.

It's sad that it's taken thousands of regular people clogging phone lines and email boxes to bring the Guzoo issue into the public spotlight again. I hope everyone who expressed outrage monitors this inspection process very closely and, if it results in nothing more than a slap on Guzoo’s wrist, that they continue to work vigorously to bring this very sad story to an end.

Rob Laidlaw
Zoocheck Canada

Win One, Lose One: When will they listen to us?

Six years ago, in court, Norman Buwalda emerged victorious against a challenge to his interests. Earlier this month, that victory caused Buwalda, age 66, his life.

Buwalda, who lived in the southwestern Ontario community of Southwold, was Chairperson of the Canadian Exotic Animal Owner’s Association (CEAO). He loved to keep exotic pets his neighbors recognized as being very dangerous.Such fears were amplified six years ago when a 10-year-old boy was seriously mauled by one of Buwalda’s Siberian tigers. The child survived, apparently minus his esophagus. According to reports at the time, the boy, now sixteen, will probably have to be tube-fed for the rest of his life. We’re not sure exactly what happened to the youngster because soon after the boy virtually vanished, presumably his mother having been paid off to avoid a lawsuit, but we just don’t know for sure. The boy apparently was attacked when the tiger, on a leash, was brought out of its cage for photographs to be taken.

There is nothing unprecedented in any of this. For example in 1994, in another small Ontario town, Wiarton, a 16-year-old boy was attacked by a tiger at a private animal display and died of his injuries. In 2003 another 16-year-old, a girl working at a small private zoo in Grey County, was injured by a lion attack. And three years later lions attacked visitors, twice, in another small zoo near another small Ontario town, Leamington.

So after Buwalda’s tiger attacked the 10-year-old, the township finally listened to Buwalda’s neighbors and enacted a bylaw (which is the Canadian term for what Americans call an “ordinance”) to prohibit privately keeping dangerous exotic animals. My friend and colleague, Julie Woodyer, advised the council on how to effectively word the bylaw, but her advice was ignored. The text was badly written, and sure enough, Buwalda successfully defeated it in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Buwalda is still listed as Chairperson of CEAO on its website where it ever so grandly describes itself as “... individuals with varied backgrounds in animal husbandry, agriculture, biology, research, tracking and rescue work, education and awareness programs, zoology, endangered animal breeding successes, conservation’s [sic], rehabilitation and release programs, who [sic] efforts, experience and information have combined to develop and implement minimum standards.” Minimum standards for what is not made clear, but presumably they refer to how exotic animals are kept.

After that the grammar becomes too tormented to quote, except to say that, ironically, CEAO’s second goal is: “To assist municipalities and keepers with the safe and humane housing of exotic animals a. by keeping animals safely, this in turn protects the public and the animal keepers.” There is no plan “b”. In fact these and other goals listed for CEAO seem never to have been met, although it’s hard to say since the only contact person listed is Buwalda, now both dead and, surely, discredited as an authority on keeping people safe from potentially dangerous exotic animals.

I am disappointed with the town council of Southwold, six years ago, for ignoring the sound advice it was presented. When are people going to understand that we in the animal protection business really do know what we’re talking about?

And my concerns now are for both Buwalda’s animals and for Buwalda’s neighbors.The latter still very understandably feel that they are at risk. With Buwalda gone no one seems to know who is taking care of the animals, or how competent they are at preventing the big cats — two lions, two tigers, and a puma — from getting loose. This is an upscale community of established professionals who deserve better than to have to suffer the fears they now have for their children, their pets, and themselves. No one is blaming the tiger for being a tiger and doing what tigers can be expected to do, but they quite understandably want to be safer.

Now the council will try again. Will it listen to us?

Certainly the government of Ontario never has. Every province except Manitoba, where it so far has not been an issue, and Ontario, which has approximately a third of the country’s population, has at least some level of legislation banning or controlling the keeping of dangerous exotic “pets.” There is no such legislation in the far north, but neither is it an issue in such regions. So more than the late Mr. Buwalda, or the Southwold town council of six years ago, I am most angry at the provincial government of Ontario for constantly ducking the issue. Outside of communities that have passed the kind of bylaw the Southwold council will again try to achieve, throughout Ontario you can buy, own, or sell tigers, lions, pumas, crocodiles, spitting cobras, boa constrictors, or any other kind of dangerous animal without having to demonstrate any ability to do so safely.

It’s time for Ontario to do the right thing, and we stand ready to assist.

Barry Kent MacKay
Senior Program Associate
Born Free USA
http://www.bornfreeusa.org/weblog.php?p=2284&more=1