Issuu on Google+

caged lives AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY ACTIVISM FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS


caged lives

Animal Equality / Igualdad Animal All rights reserved. Photos by Jonรกs Amadeo Lucas and Claire Louise for Animal Equality.

2


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Animal Equality is opposed to subjecting animals to captivity and is against forcing animals to perform, even where these events are deemed to be ‘educational’ or in the interests of ‘conservation’ as this infringes on the rights of the individual animals involved. Captivity in itself teaches and reinforces the outdated and morally reprehensible belief that non-human animals exist on this planet for the benefit of humans.

3


caged lives

4


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Investigator profile

1.

Methodology

11

Executive summary

15

Exploitative animal shows, interactive sessions and animal rides

21

1.1

Investigation findings

25

1.2

Animals exploited for film and as photography props. Case Study: Seville Zoo

29

1.3

Mistreatment during training and off-exhibit

41

1.4

Marine mammals

37

1.4.1 Cetaceans shows

47

1.4.2 Pinniped shows

63

Elephant shows

71

1.5.1 Training and dominance

77

1.5

2.

3.

9

Abnormal and stereotypic behaviour

81

2.1

Stereotypic behaviour

85

2.2

Self-harming behaviour

89

2.3

Investigation findings

89

2.4

Case Study: Madrid Zoo Reptile House

99

Physical health and well-being

105

3.1

Investigation findings

107

3.2

Feather-loss as a result of feather damaging behaviour

115

3.3

Hair-loss

121

3.4

Contact injuries from conspecifics, cage barriers or furniture

127

3.5

Foot and hoof abnormalities

139

3.6

Nutritional problems

145

5


caged lives

4.

5.

6.

3.7

Parasite infestations

149

3.8

Mutilations. Case Study: Wing clipping

153

Human behaviour

155

4.1

Investigation findings

157

4.2

Direct contact between visitors and animals

169

Public education

181

5.1

Investigation findings

185

5.1.1 Signage: Condition

185

5.1.2 Signage: Quality

187

5.2

Educational programmes

191

5.3

Zoo farm

193

Animals exhibits

197

6.1

Primate exhibits

197

6.2

Large mammal exhibits

251

6.3

Small mammal exhibits

297

6.4

Cat exhibits

341

References

6

377


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

7


caged lives

8


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Investigator Profile Claire Louise* is a zoologist with a master’s degree in Applied Animal Behaviour from Edinburgh University, UK. She was awarded the Douglas Houghton Memorial Award —a prestigious fellowship set up to enable individuals to further animal protection— which enabled her to continue her postgraduate studies.

Her master's thesis centred on the behaviour of sloth bears rescued from the streets of India where they had been exploited as “dancing bears”.

She has studied a wide range of disciplines including animal evolution, behavioural ecology, animal nutrition and metabolism, veterinary medicine, cognition and consciousness and her research projects have included the mutilations of farmed animals and captivity-related stress and abnormalities.

Since her studies, she has carried out investigations into zoos and circuses in India, Thailand and Spain.

Claire is a campaigner and undercover investigator who is working with Animal Equality to raise awareness on the plight of animals in the zoo, circus and other industries where animals are exploited for human entertainment.

* This is not her full name.

9


caged lives

10


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Methodology Eight zoos across the east, south and west of Spain were visited by Animal Equality as part of a nine-month investigation to obtain a snapshot of the lives of animals held captive in Spanish zoos.

The zoos visited had been identified by Animal Equality supporters as being of concern and included municipallyowned and privately-owned facilities.

The zoos visited were as follows: • Barcelona Zoo • Bioparc • Castellar Zoo • Cordoba Zoo • Madrid Zoo • Rio Safari Park • Seville Zoo • Zoobotanico Jerez

Barcelona Zoo, Bioparc, Madrid Zoo, and Zoobotanico Jerez are members of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). Madrid Zoo, which is operated by a private corporation, is a member of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), as is Barcelona Zoo, which is operated by the municipality.

11


caged lives A total of 226 terrestrial wild animal exhibits were surveyed, housing 271 individuals from 155 species.

During the investigation, Animal Equality also visited a reptile house and a zoo farm. Investigators recorded animal shows, interactive sessions and animal rides where possible. Interviews were conducted with zoo staff, and full transcripts are available upon request.

Photographic and film evidence was collected to show the zoos in their entirety, and additional information was obtained from the industry’s websites, as well as the zoos’ own literature and websites. Investigators visited the zoos as members of the public who walked around the entire zoo to obtain an overall impression but only recorded in detail up to 30 randomly-selected wild terrestrial animal exhibits at each facility.

Space, substrate, features, furnishings, privacy and signage were analysed at the exhibits.

Animal Equality investigators filmed where possible areas where performing animals were housed.

An undercover investigator was also placed in Seville Zoo during May 2011 to obtain more detailed information and collect further film evidence.

12


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

13


caged lives

14


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Life inside the zoos At each of the zoos visited, animals were living in wholly oppressive environments. Animal Equality found individuals housed in exhibits that were extremely small and, in some cases, severely restricting. Some animals were housed in old-style cages and pits, and few were provided with sufficient shelter to mitigate temperature extremes, or privacy areas. A lack of privacy is often a major source of stress for animals confined in zoos. Animals were housed in exhibits containing concrete or gunite-type material substrates, which is well-known to result in damage to joints and ligaments of feet and legs. The zoos have made little effort to attempt to imitate the animals’ natural home. For example semi-aquatic mammals, which would naturally spend a great amount of their time in water, were provided with small, stagnant pools in which they were barely able to submerge in, let alone swim. Rainforest animals were seldom even provided with live vegetation. Animal Equality observed exhibits with an excessive accumulation of debris (including feed and faeces), particularly at Castellar Zoo, which can be harmful to animals if ingested. An exhibit at Madrid Zoo was so poorly drained it was waterlogged. The vast majority of exhibits were essentially featureless and barren. These exhibits did not have species-specific furniture and the animals living in them were sensory-deprived and understimulated. Animal Equality observed social animals living in solitary confinement. Animals who were housed in groups were often living in extreme close confinement with others, resulting in aggressive encounters and consequential injuries.

15


caged lives Animals as ‘performers’ Out of the eight zoos visited by Animal Equality, six offered one or more type of exploitative show or close encounter experience with animals. These included ‘petting’ sessions with domestic animals, sea lion, parrot, dolphin and elephant performances, ‘free flights’, photography sessions with animals and the handling of a snake. Madrid Zoo currently displays dolphins who were caught in the wild. Animal Equality’s investigation reveals a disturbing pattern of animals being bred and sold by Madrid Zoo to other captive dolphin facilities, seemingly to replace individuals who have died. Animal Equality documented the deep abrasions on the rostrums of dolphins at Madrid Zoo, likely to be a consequence of trainers standing on the animals’ faces during training sessions and performances, or the animals hitting their faces against tank walls. All of the shows involved animals carrying out potentially damaging and stressful behaviours. The elephant (‘Babaty’) and sea lions at Rio Safari Park performed circus-style tricks such as ‘dancing’ and playing musical instruments. When the animals are out of public view, they are kept in appallingly cramped, barren, sensorydeprived environments. At Madrid Zoo and Seville Zoo, when not performing, birds were chained in direct sunlight to the ground, or confined in cages so small that they were unable to stretch their wings, let alone fly. At Barcelona Zoo, the dolphins swam around the edges of a 25 ft. tank that is fenced off from public view. Seville Zoo openly operates not only as a zoo, but also as a supply centre for companies wanting to use animals in advertising. At the zoo, tiger and lion cubs are confined in small cages, some of whom were still with their mothers. The cubs are hand-reared so they are habituated to humans and spend the majority of the rest of their lives confined. The use of animals for human entertainment not only means a life of deprivation for the animals, but often also being subjected to barbaric training practices, reliant on physical domination and fear. At Seville Zoo visitors are encouraged into the adult tiger and lion exhibit to have their photograph taken whilst sitting on the animals.

16


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Psychologically disturbed animals Over half the animals carrying out abnormal and stereotypic behaviours were housed at two of the zoos, Barcelona Zoo and Seville Zoo. 26% of individuals observed carrying out these behaviours were living at each of these zoos. ‘Locomotory’ stereotypes (i.e. repetitive routes of locomotion), accounted for the largest proportion (55%) observed. Pacing, a locomotor stereotypy whereby an animal moves repeatedly back and forth in a straight line, was the most common category of behaviour observed (44% of the total). Pacing was most commonly observed at Seville Zoo. It was also commonly observed at Castellar Zoo, Barcelona Zoo and Cordoba Zoo by big cats, also bears, a rhesus macaque and a cape racoon. Begging was the second most common category of behaviour observed (13% of the total). This behaviour was performed mainly by bears at Madrid Zoo. Animal Equality also observed animals over-grooming, circling, swaying, performing ‘loop the loop’, pacing in a ‘figure of eight’ pattern, horn rubbing, and lunging an object against a glass barrier. Reptiles at Madrid Zoo were found to be attempting to escape their environment and performing a stereotype called ‘Interaction with Transparent Boundaries’ (ITB).

The questionable ‘educational’ message Zoos portray themselves as facilities where visitors can learn about the natural attributes of animals. To determine the zoos commitment to public education, Animal Equality measured the quantity and quality of signage and recorded whether the facilities offered guided tours or educational talks. It was revealed that whilst information signs were displayed at the vast majority of exhibits, this varied amongst the zoos. Rio Safari Park for example displayed information signs for only 77% of animal species held in the exhibits, whilst Carmona Zoo displayed information signs for 97% of species. The physical condition of signs also varied amongst the zoos. The signage at Carmona Zoo and Seville Zoo was extremely weathered, dilapidated, sometimes illegible, and containing irrelevant information.

17


caged lives Poor health and well-being The most commonly observed indicator of poor health or well-being was hair or feather loss, which was likely to be the result of self-mutilation or over-grooming by cage mates, and this amounted to 43% of the total. The second most commonly observed indicators were ‘contact injuries’ (e.g. fractures, breaks or wounds likely to be the result of contact with other animals, cage barriers or furniture), and these amounted to 25% of the total. The zoo with the highest (28%) proportion of exhibits housing animals with indicators of poor health was Madrid Zoo. 19% of the exhibits housing animals with indicators of poor health were at Rio Safari Park. At this facility, parrots were commonly observed with feather loss. 17% of the exhibits were at Castellar Zoo, where primates were suffering hair loss. Investigators observed animals with weight and teeth abnormalities, foot problems and ecto-parasites. Some of the abnormalities were severe. Investigators observed raptors with fractured or broken wings, a bear who was clearly distressed from a tick infestation around the eye area, parasitic-diseased primates, deer and barbary sheep with severely overgrown hooves, and llamas with overgrown teeth. At Madrid Zoo, Zoobotanico Jerez and Rio Safari Park, primates were suffering severe hair loss and bleeding, fresh wounds. Investigators observed aggressive encounters between baboons and tigers which had resulted in wounded animals. The two veterinary experts summarised their opinion on photographs of the parrots, bears and primates: “The photos strongly indicate chronic poor husbandry and that the animals’ well-being is not being addressed”. Also that, “images of other animals are strongly suggestive of the same”.

18


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

The behaviour of visitors Investigators recorded the number of exhibits where members of the public were observed throwing or poking objects at animals, smoking, vocalising loudly and inappropriately, throwing litter, banging on glass barriers, feeding, touching and harassing the animals. Visitors were observed carrying out at least one of these behaviours at 17% of the exhibits visited during the investigation. In total, 25% of these exhibits were at Castellar Zoo. At this zoo, visitors were actively encouraged to feed the animals (in fact, food was provided in plastic bags at the entrance to the zoo), and freely enter into exhibits to touch, feed and take photographs of the animals. Animal feeding was the most frequently observed category of behaviour observed, and amounted to 26% of the total. Visitors were observed feeding the animals mainly at the camel, bear, macaque and baboon exhibits at Madrid Zoo. The response of the baboons and bears was to beg for more food. Banging on glass barriers was the second most frequently observed category of behaviour, and this amounted to 23% of the total. Visitors were observed banging on the glass of the big cat and primate exhibits at Cordoba Zoo. The zoo had not installed stand-off barriers, which demonstrates a lack of consideration for the animals who are housed there. Primates in particular become stressed when visitor density is high, investigators observed gorillas at Bioparc and Barcelona Zoo charging the glass barriers of their exhibits. Investigators also observed primate exhibits which had broken glass barriers. Animal Equality observed that visitors could have direct contact with animals at six of the zoos. Four of these zoos actively encouraged visitors to have direct contact with the animals and, where this was not the case, visitors and animals could have contact as a result of inadequate, or complete absence of, stand-off barriers. This was a widespread problem amongst the zoos, particularly at Bioparc. Direct contact with visitors can be very stressful for animals, and cause the spread of zoonotic diseases. Animal Equality recorded the types of animals that visitors could have direct contact with and referred to the UK’s ‘Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SMZP)’ ‘Hazardous Animal Categorisation’. Alarmingly, Animal Equality found that 67% of animals who were observed to be in direct contact with visitors were categorised as ‘Greater Risk’, and the remainder as ‘Less Risk’. No animals observed to be in direct contact with visitors were categorised as ‘Least Risk’.

19


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1. Exploitative animal shows, interactive sessions and animal rides

Long ago zoos around the world recognised that, in order to survive, they would need to adjust to the fact that public view entertainment as an inadequate primary reason for holding wild animals captive. However, today they continue to function predominantly as centers of entertainment, and public demand is high for animal encounters within zoos. These encounters include ‘petting’ domestic animals, shows and ‘training’ sessions with pinnipeds (sea lions and seals), psittacines (parrots) and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises), ‘animals in action’ demonstrations (for example, raptor falconary and ‘free flights’, etc.), shark encounters, photography sessions with animals, and reptile handling.

Some zoos encourage visitors to feed animals or become ‘animal keepers’ for the day. In these situations, animals are not only forced to be on display, but also to perform and interact with visitors.

21


caged lives Zoos claim that these encounters are ‘educational’, though it has long been debated as to what this educational message actually is (e.g. Beardsworth and Bryman, 2001). In fact, during the investigation, Animal Equality found that the commitment of the zoos to any meaningful public education was invariably poor.

Captivity in itself restrains the natural movements of animals. For example, they lose or have a reduced opportunity to forage, feed, hide and escape. It also restricts appropriate, or forces inappropriate, social interactions (Price, 1999).

Animals endure additional suffering when forced to perform in exploitative shows, which involve a diverse repertoire of demeaning tricks, unnatural behaviours and stunts. These shows usually have a comical element, and are accompanied by loud music (which has been demonstrated to constitute a source of stress to captive animals). During the shows, behavioural and physiological parameters indicate that the human audiences generally have stressful effects on captive wild animals.

When animals are off-exhibit, and away from public scrutiny, the animals are at the mercy of trainers and keepers. Many are subjected to harsh training methods and forced movement. They are held in close confinement and suffer as a consequence, husbandry-related stress. The captive environment can have adverse effects on animal health – ranging from teeth abnormalities to disease.

22


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Some zoo trainers and keepers use shackles and chains to keep animals under close control. Some remove the animals’ teeth and claws to reduce the risk of human injury.

Many individual animals, or their family members, will have been caught in the wild, and passed between different institutions. Zoos exchange animals, rather than breeding them in-house; this is especially common with animals who are difficult to breed in captivity, such as African and Asian elephants (Kurt and Mar, 1996; Taylor and Poole, 1998; Brown et al., 2004). The breeding and exchange of animals in zoos rips families apart and can have long-term consequences for all individuals involved.

23


caged lives Dolphin show Barcelona zoo

Madrid zoo

Sea lion show

Seal show

Elephant show

Castellar zoo

Photo prop

Reptile handling

• •

• •

• •

Cordoba zoo

Bioparc

Jerez zoo

Table 1: Shows and encounters offered to visitors at the zoos visited by Animal Equality

24

Animal ride or petting

Seville zoo Rio Safari Park

Bird show


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1.1 Investigation findings Out of the eight zoos visited by Animal Equality, six offered one or more type of exploitative show or close encounter with animals (Table 1). These encounters were often not advertised as part of the formal ‘education programme’, if one existed at all, and there was often no pretence that their purpose was anything other than entertainment.

The shows did not focus on the natural behaviour of the animals, and they demeaned and trivialised the animals forced to participate. The zoos ignore the requirements outlined in the industry’s own ‘Code of Ethics’, produced by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA)1, an umbrella organisation for the zoo and aquarium community. The Code details circumstances whereby the industry considers it acceptable to exhibit animals, including in shows.

Barcelona Zoo and Madrid Zoo are members of WAZA, and each member is obliged to comply with the Code. However both zoos display animals in demeaning shows that trivialise the animals forced to perform in them.

1. http://www.waza.org/en/site/zoos-aquariums [Accessed 30 July 2011]

25


caged lives Animal Equality observed reptiles, raptors, psittacines, and marine mammals, such as pinnipeds and cetaceans, performing in shows. All of the shows compromised the well-being of the animals.

In Madrid Zoo, dolphins had deep abrasions on their rostrums — which was likely to be the result of their contact with tank walls, or from training sessions and performances where trainers were pushed through the water and high up into the air whilst stood on the animals’ faces.

The pinnipeds at Rio Safari Park were exploited not only for shows, but also for ‘swim-with’ sessions and an ‘Assisted Therapy’ project. There is a solitary female elephant housed at the zoo who is forced to perform tricks guised as ‘natural behaviour’ as part of the zoo’s meaningless ‘education programme’. Seville Zoo offers visitors an extremely dangerous encounter with an adult tiger.

Domesticated animals are also used by the zoos for visitor rides. Donkey rides, for example, are offered at Rio Safari Park, Barcelona Zoo and Cordoba Zoo. Rio Safari Park, Barcelona Zoo and Madrid Zoo contain farms where domestic animals can be ‘petted’ and fed; and the signage at these farms informs visitors that these animals provide many uses for humans.

26


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 1: Castellar Zoo. Young visitors are encouraged to handle a large (> 3 m) snake at the zoo entrance. During the investigation, the supervisor offered no guidance as to how to do this without causing injury or stress to the animal. Snakes are also well-known carriers of zoonotic diseases such as Escherichia coli (E.coli) and Salmonella, which can be passed on even through indirect contact.

27


caged lives

28


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1.2 Animals exploited for film and as photography props At Castellar Zoo, Madrid Zoo, Rio Safari Park and Seville Zoo, visitors are encouraged to have their photograph taken with animals. At Castellar Zoo, visitors are led into primate cages with one of the keepers for no extra fee. At the other zoos visited by Animal Equality, animals are used as photograph props for a fee, and the animals are forced into position for the visitors.

Case Study: Seville Zoo Perhaps one of the most disturbing findings of the Animal Equality investigation was one of the close encounters offered at Seville Zoo – a privately-owned and poorlymanaged, run-down zoo in the South-west of Spain which holds animals captive in small squalid exhibits and profits not only from the 15 Euros entrance fee, but also by providing the entertainment industry with wild animals for TV commercials, radio and advertising.

Seville Zoo houses the African lion, ‘Zampo’, boasted by the facility to be a ‘professional film and advertising star’2 who has allegedly been used for Groupama Insurance and Generali Insurance campaigns.2 According to the zoo’s website, animals were used also during 2007 and 2008 for the promotional videos of the two beer brands, Kaliber and Heineken.2

2. Film Animals at the Zoo of Seville: http://www.zoodesevilla.es/cine.php [Accessed 30 July 2011]

29


caged lives

Figure 2-3: Tiger cubs at the entrance of, and inside, Seville Zoo.

In order to make these animals ‘safe’ for handling, it is necessary to hand-rear them. Investigators observed at least two exhibits holding groups of white tiger and lion cubs, though there were also many rows of single-housed lion cubs. At the zoo entrance, a young tiger cub was also on display for visitors to touch and take photographs of (Fig. 2-3).

30


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 4-5: Tiger and lion cubs at Seville Zoo are hand-reared to make them suitable for use as entertainers.

31


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Directly inside the entrance, investigators found more tiger cubs and a single lion cub sharing a cage, as well as a small monkey in a separate 3.75 x 3.75 ft. cage (Fig. 6).

The tiger and lion cubs would have been separated from their mothers at a very young age. This would undoubtedly have been extremely stressful for both mother and cub. In the wild, cubs are weaned at around six months of age and stay with their mothers until they are fully independent (at around two years old).

In zoos, mother animals and their offspring are often separated abruptly and permanently when the offspring are at a young age. Early weaning provides nutritional challenges for the young who are faced with the sudden need to adapt from a milk diet and maternal care to a solid diet, a new housing and social environment, and the loss of maternal contact (Newberry and Swanson, 2007). But there are other long-term impacts of breaking mammalian mother–young bonds. The mother, who will likely have experienced anxiety and confinement, may also feel frustration at the inability to search beyond the boundaries of her exhibit (Newberry and Swanson, 2007). Opposite page

The backgrounds of the animals housed at Seville Zoo are

Figure 6: Adjacent to the tiger and lion cages, investigators observed this small monkey’s cage.

currently unknown by Animal Equality, however investigators were told by a keeper during the investigation that many originated from the circus, including at least one of the lions.

33


caged lives Internet research by Animal Equality reveals that the chimpanzee, ‘Gina’ – who is currently caged and living in solitary confinement at Seville Zoo – has been used as a photography prop,3 and the zoo’s own website confirms that she is often forced to perform to a camera.2

Aside from the stresses caused by the continual exploitation of individuals as photography props (which involves close contact with many unfamiliar humans), there are serious human safety concerns. Humans can contract

Figure 7: Gina living in confinement at Seville Zoo.

serious diseases from the handling of wild animals, and there is a high risk of injury.

Wild animals do not naturally perform tricks and can be unpredictable, as has been demonstrated by the frequent chimpanzee attacks within the United States, where these animals are commonly exploited as ‘pets’. One of the most recent and serious attacks took place in 2009, when a woman in Connecticut was mauled by her ‘pet’ chimpanzee, who was also used for television commercials.

There has also been an indepth study on captive tiger attacks in the United States. A study in 2003 revealed a high incidence of attacks on people, amounting to 1.75 fatal and 9 non-fatal attacks per year (Nyhus et al., 2003).

3. One of the travel blogs written by a visitor of Seville Zoo who was able to get up close with ‘Gina’ the chimpanzee in 2008: http://www.travelblog.org/Europe/Spain/Andalusia/Seville/blog-302768.html [Accessed 30 July 2011]

34


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

The vast majority of these occurred in circuses and theme parks, and an equal number of visitors and handlers were injured. However, twice as many keepers were killed in private facilities, which included private owners, animal rental companies and circuses. The most common features of attacks were humans being in close proximity to the animal, animal handling and humans being photographed alongside the animal (Nyhus et al., 2003).

Figure 8-9: Young cubs housed in small barren cages adjacent to the adult tiger and lion exhibit at Seville Zoo.

The tiger attacks highlight that even ‘trained’ tigers held in captivity for generations retain the same attack/kill instinct as their wild counterparts (Nyhus et al., 2003; Chapenoire et al., 2001).

Despite the demonstrable risks, Seville Zoo alarmingly offers visitors the opportunity to have their photograph taken with an adult tiger. Investigators also observed several cubs inside the zoo, housed in cages adjacent to the adult tiger and lion exhibit where this dangerous and exploitative event occurs (Fig. 8-9).

35


caged lives

Figure 10-13: The sequence of events at Seville Zoo prior to visitors being led into the tiger and lion exhibit to have their photograph taken with an adult tiger.

36


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

37


caged lives

Figure 14: Lion in an adjacent cage.

“On 25th February 2011 at 17:45, pre-paid visitors at Seville Zoo were led into the tiger and lion exhibit to sit on, and have their photograph taken with, an adult tiger. Prior to this event, we documented a disturbing incident where the trainer, Juan Luis Malpartida, entered the exhibit and attempted to forcibly move the tiger into position by pushing and hitting the animal in the face. The lion then turned on the trainer and bit him (Fig. 10-13). Not hard enough to cause serious damage, but hard enough to draw blood, which Juan Luis Malpartida then washed off with water from a water barrel (pictured). Juan Luis Malpatida pushed and kicked the lion into an adjacent cage (Fig. 14). This all took place in full view of the queuing public, who were then beckoned into the exhibit. The visitors proceeded to sit on the tiger; two-by-two, whilst their photograph was taken. Juan Luis Malpatida held the tiger firmly in position with a chain tightly around the animal’s neck (Fig. 16).” — Animal Equality investigator

38


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 15-16: Visitors have their photograph taken at Seville Zoo.

39


caged lives

40


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1.3 Mistreatment during training and when animals are off-exhibit Wild animals retain their natural instincts, regardless of their place of birth. They remain unpredictable in temperament and, as a consequence, trainers often rely heavily on physical domination to inflict fear and safeguard compliance. Animals may have their canine teeth and claws removed, or be drugged so that the public and trainers can handle them ‘safely’.

Declawing is a painful surgical procedure where not just the nail but a portion of bone is removed; in some cases tendons are also severed. The removal of canine teeth is also a common procedure that can cause chronic health problems. Whilst it is not known whether Seville Zoo declaws or removes the canine teeth of big cats, these are procedures commonly carried out at captive wild animal facilities.

In between encounters, animals are housed in sub-optimal environments that cause distress and boredom. The frustration of attempting to cope with cramped conditions often results in the animal developing abnormal and stereotypic behaviours (see Section 2). During the investigation, Animal Equality documented animals used Opposite page Figure 17-18: Raptors are chained in direct sunlight adjacent to the performance area at Madrid Zoo.

in shows and encounters who were chained and being held in appallingly cramped cages and tanks when out of public view.

41


caged lives

Opposite page Figure 19-20: Large birds such as storks and eagles are caged in between performances behind the Central Lake at Madrid Zoo. Some of the birds could not stretch their wings, and none could fly.

42


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

43


caged lives At Madrid Zoo, birds are chained to the ground in direct sunlight, and others are housed in cramped, barren cages behind the Central Lake, where shows are held. The animals are held in cages barely large enough for them to spread their wings, let alone fly (Fig. 17-21).

At Barcelona Zoo, dolphins are held in a small, concrete tank behind the main pool when they are not training or performing. These animals were observed by investigators to be swimming continuously around the edges of the tank. There was little else they could do.

At Seville Zoo, investigators were unable to visit the raptor show. They observed however eleven raptors chained on posts at the zoo entrance. All of whom were in direct sunlight. At least five of these birds were attempting to escape by lurching upwards but they then fell crashing to the ground. There were water bowls within reach of the animals, but no protection from the elements.

At the zoo entrance there was also a corvid held

Opposite page

in a small (7.5 x 3.7 ft.) barren cage. Zoo staff

Figure 21: Raptor chained at Madrid Zoo

confirmed that this animal was used for TV.

44


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

45


caged lives

46


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1.4 Marine mammals In the wild, marine mammals such as sea lions and dolphins travel large distances on a daily basis in search of food. In captivity, natural feeding and foraging patterns are lost. Stress-related conditions such as ulcers are common. Stereotypic behaviours and abnormal aggression also develop in these animals, who are essentially predators being denied the opportunity to hunt (Rose et al., 2009).

1.4.1 Cetacean shows Around the world, wild cetaceans are exploited, traded, and forced to perform demeaning circus-style tricks which are not, as is often claimed by the entertainment industry, extensions of natural behaviour. Cetaceans are far-ranging, fast-moving, deep-diving predators, who often swim over 80-160 Km a day. They are always alert and moving (Rose et al. 2009) and can dive to depths of more than 1,640 ft. No zoo or aquarium can ever provide for their complex behavioural needs.

Dolphins exhibit sophisticated characteristics previously attributed only to humans and possibly non-human primates —they are self-aware and capable of abstract thinking (Rose et al., 2009).

47


caged lives

There are a total of thirty-four dolphinaria in the European Union, displaying a reported 286 cetaceans of six different species (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 2011).4 Fourteen Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) have dolphinaria (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 2011). As at March 2011, there were eleven dolphinaria in Spain, and ninety-seven captive cetaceans (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 2011). Dolphins in Spanish dolphinaria include individuals reportedly captured from Cuba, the USA and Mexico. The methods of capture and transport inflict such trauma that many individuals die of shock in the process.

4. This information was extracted from the report ‘Zoo Inquiry. Dolphinaria: A review of the keeping of whales and dolphins in captivity in the European Union and EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos’ (written by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society for the European coalition ENDCAP in association with the Born Free Foundation), and collated during March 2011 using dolphinarium websites and a captive dolphin database: http://www.ceta-base.com/phinventory

48


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Each of the dolphinaria within the European Union display cetaceans to the paying public in regular presentations or shows where the animals are forced to perform tricks and stunts. Loud music accompanies these events and the shows usually have a comical element.

Stress, behavioural abnormalities, illness and premature death are common in captive dolphins, and are caused by the artificial living conditions of a tank where the animals are forced to live in chemically-treated water, held in artificial social groups, and denied the opportunity to forage (instead the animals are fed a restricted diet, supplemented with pills). Dolphins become weak in these conditions and can die from infection.

Cetaceans, like those held at Madrid Zoo, are bred. This is often merely to provide replacement ‘stock’ for public display —an ongoing need given the high rate of mortality in captivity (Rose et al., 2009).

Wild dolphins orientate themselves by sound and in the Opposite page Figure 22: Bottlenose dolphin in captivity

wild they use sonar to navigate and hunt. Captivity denies dolphins this ability, and the suffering and frustration this must cause is unconceivable.

49


caged lives Two of the zoos visited by Animal Equality house captive dolphins, and both use the animals in exploitative shows. During these shows, investigators documented trainers standing on the dolphins’ rostrums, hanging onto and being pulled through the water by dorsal and pectoral fins, using a whistle, and feeding the dolphins with dead fish.

Captive dolphins depend entirely on the trainers to be fed, and this is one of the ways that trainers can control the animals.

The dolphins were observed pushing trainers high out of the water, ‘dancing’, and leaping over nets stretched across the tanks. The dolphins were also called out of the water many times to lie on the edge of the tanks – a highly unnatural and damaging behaviour for these animals.

Opposite page Figure 23: The small training and performance tank at Barcelona Zoo. A far cry from the animals’ natural home. Figure 24: Dolphins at Barcelona Zoo are forced to live in this tiny tank behind the training and performance pool.

50


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

51


caged lives Barcelona Zoo At Barcelona Zoo there are up to five Bottlenose dolphin shows a day. Investigators observed three dolphins performing. Internet research reveals that two of these animals were born in captivity, and one (‘Anak’) was caught from the wild.5 ‘Anak’ was caught in Cuba in 1989, and arrived at Barcelona Zoo in 1990. She has since given birth to several calves who have either remained at the zoo, were sent to Lisbon Zoo, or have died.

Causes of death for captive-born calves include a lack of maternal skill, a lack of proper foetal development, and abnormal aggression from other animals within these artificial social environments and confined spaces (Rose et al., 2009).

A wild-caught dolphin (‘Nika’) recently died at Barcelona Zoo. She was captured in 1970 and allegedly died of natural causes. Following her death, the zoo Director, announced that the zoo would be bringing in another dolphin to replace ‘Nika’ (ABC website). During 2009, another wild-caught dolphin died at the zoo. Prior to this, during 2005 and 2006, two more dolphins had died.

5. Information on the history of captive dolphins at the zoos and marine parks was extracted from captive dolphin databases e.g. ‘Ceta-Base’ [online] http://www.ceta-base.com/phinventory/phins_bcn.html and the zoos own websites [Accessed 31 July 2011]

52


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

The dolphin show at Barcelona Zoo has a duration of approximately twenty minutes. During this time, dolphins were called to lie outside of the water and onto the edge of the tank, for a total of approximately six minutes.

Towards the end of the show, younger members of the audience were encouraged to repeatedly throw a large plastic ball into the tank. This ball hit the animals’ faces, on the tops of their heads around the melon and blowhole, and on the side of their bodies. This event was uncontrolled, incredibly demeaning to the dolphins, and accompanied by loud music and audience clapping.

The show commentary, which had a duration of approximately ten minutes, included some explanation of dolphin anatomy, however scarce information was provided about dolphins’ natural behavioural repertoire, or the threats to dolphins, which is not surprising considering they include their capture for the captive dolphin industry.

When not performing, the dolphins are held in a 62.5 ft. length tank adjacent to the performance tank (Fig. 24), which is surrounded by fencing and vegetation, and therefore out of public view.

53


caged lives

Figure 25: Dolphins lying outside of the water during the show at Madrid Zoo.

54


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 26: Trainers at Madrid Zoo stand on dolphins’ rostrums and are pushed through the water and into the air.

55


caged lives

Figure 27: Investigators observed damaged rostrums which are likely to be a direct consequence of trainers standing on the dolphins’ faces, or their contact with tank walls. During the show, investigators also observed an angry female trainer holding one of the dolphins head down outside of the water with her foot.

56


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Madrid Zoo At Madrid Zoo there are up to three Bottlenose dolphin shows a day. Investigators observed seven dolphins performing. The zoo allegedly holds a total of nine dolphins, five of whom were captured from the wild (including four from Cuba). During 2008, the zoo acquired a female dolphin from the marine park ‘Mundomar’. Madrid Zoo was the fourth park she had been translocated to since her capture in Florida during 1980.

At Madrid Zoo there is an outside performance tank, and two indoor tanks (for training and quarantine) - Figure 28.

During the show, trainers were lifted high out of the water four times by the dolphins.

Dolphins were called to lie outside of the water and onto the edge of the tank towards the end of the show (Fig. 25). Loud, erratic pop music was playing throughout.

57


caged lives

Figure 28: One of the dolphin tanks at Madrid Zoo.

58


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

59


caged lives the trade in dolphin calves BETWEEN madrid zoo AND marine parks5 Animal Equality reveals that Madrid Zoo is regularly breeding and selling dolphin calves to marine parks, mainly ‘Selwo Marina’. This breeding of dolphins appears to provide the park with replacement ‘stock’ for public display. The separation of these animals from their families would be extremely stressful for both mother and calf. ‘Selwo Marina’ has been obtaining dolphins also from ‘Mundomar’.

• Triton, an adult male dolphin at Madrid Zoo has sired at least nine calves.

• One of the wild-caught dolphins at the zoo, Guarina, has regularly given birth (2002, 2005 and 2009). Madrid Zoo sent two of her earlier offspring (‘Steve’ and ‘Naia’) to ‘Selwo Marina’ when they were around three years old. ‘Steve’ died at the marine park during 2009.

• ‘Mancha’ has given birth to four offspring. At least three of these calves (‘Bruce’, ‘Zeus’ and ‘Rumbo’) were sent to ‘Selwo Marina’. Rumbo was sent during February 2011. ‘Bruce’ died at the marine park.

• In 2009, there were at least three births at Madrid Zoo (‘Rumbo’, ‘Noa’ and ‘Romeo’). ‘Romeo’ was sent to ‘Selwo Marina’ during February 2011. Another of her calves, ‘Rocky’, was sent to ‘Oceanographic’.

60


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

61


caged lives

62


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1.4.2 Pinniped shows Wild pinnipeds (i.e. sea lions, seals and walruses), like cetaceans, spend much of their time swimming. However, unlike dolphins, they share their time between water and land or ice – hauling out of the water to mate, rest, give birth and moult. They are well adapted to their ocean environment, can escape predators, and have advanced senses to live in their underwater habitat. In addition, they have a complex social structure and modes of communication.

Unfortunately, these intelligent animals are exploited by zoos, safari parks, marine parks and aquariums, where they are taught to behave like clowns in degrading shows. Their intelligence means they are able to learn quickly and so, to their disadvantage, can be easily trained. Zoos rarely mask sea lion shows as being ‘educational’, probably because the tricks the animals are made to perform in them are so far-removed from their natural behaviour, it would be futile to do so.

Animal Equality visited pinniped shows at Barcelona Zoo and Madrid Zoo. Neither show delivered any meaningful conservation message. The shows did not focus on natural behaviour, and they demeaned and trivialised the animals forced to perform in them. These animals do not perform because they enjoy pleasing visitors, they perform because they are hungry. A keeper at Barcelona Zoo stated on camera that the animals are starved in between shows.

63


caged lives Barcelona Zoo There are two tanks housing pinnipeds (Fig. 29-30) and the zoo offers visitors up to three shows a day. Investigators observed seven animals being held in a 45 x 65 ft. tank (Fig. 29) that is located in an area adjacent to a busy café which has speakers and music blaring loudly. This may be a constant source of stress for the animals. Visitors are able to view the animals from all sides of the pool, over rock boulders and through a glass barrier.

There is no opportunity for the animals to retreat from public view in between shows. The water appears to be Opposite page

chemically treated. Treatment and chlorinated water has a history of causing complications such as painful eye and skin ailments in pinnipeds. The area holding three seal lions is called the ‘Aquarama’ (Fig. 30), and it is a circular tank with seating to accommodate 300 people. 6 The circumference of the water area is 312.5 ft.

During the show at the ‘Aquarama’, three animals performed a number of tricks such as standing on their rear flippers on the central walkway. During the show the animals were continually fed dead fish by the trainer. There was accompanying loud music and commentary. The show had a duration of approximately twenty minutes.

Figure 29: One of the pinniped pools at Barcelona Zoo. The water appears to be chemically treated, which has been demonstrated to cause a number of health problems for these animals. Figure 30: The ‘Aquarama’ at Barcelona Zoo previously held captive dolphins. It re-opened mid-2011 to house the sea lions. There is an adjacent pool and visitors can observe the animals at two levels.

6. Information extracted from the Barcelona Zoo website: http://www.zoobarcelona.cat/ca/coneix-el-zoo/espais-del-zoo/destacats/aquarama/ [Accessed 1 August 2011]

64


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

65


caged lives Madrid Zoo There are up to four California sea lion shows a day. Animal Equality observed two sea lions performing in the shows, though the investigators were informed by a keeper that there are six sea lions housed at the zoo who are rotated between shows. When not performing, the animals are housed in small tanks behind the performance pool.

During the show, sea lions were called to lie and roll on the concrete edge of the pool, jump into the air for a hanging ball, clap, ‘pose’ for visitors on wooden barrels (Fig. 31) and perform other circus-style tricks. The show was accompanied by loud music. Towards the end of the show, visitors were offered the opportunity to have their photograph taken with the animals.

Investigators observed trainers hitting the noses of the sea lions during the show. Fish were fed to the animals continually (Fig. 32).

Opposite page Figure 31-32: The pinniped pool at Madrid Zoo. Hunger drives these animals to perform.

66


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

67


caged lives Rio Safari Park There are two sea lion shows a day at Rio Safari Park. Animal Equality investigators observed eleven sea lions at the zoo. During the show, which had a duration of approximately ten minutes, the animals blew trumpets, jumped from a meter-high platform and through a hoop, hit a large plastic ball that hung over the pool, ‘danced’, scraped their bodies against the concrete floor, did comical impressions of sharks and performed other demeaning and trivialising tricks.

There was no mention of the conservation status or biology of sea lions during the show, in fact, the commentator continually mocked the animals (Fig. 33). Following the show, visitors were offered an opportunity to have their photograph taken with one of the animals (Fig. 35-36).

Opposite page Figure 33: The trainer and commentary continually mocked the sea lions at Rio Safari Park.

Figure 35-36: Visitors were encouraged to have their photos taken with the sea lions at Rio Safari Park.

68


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

69


caged lives

70


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1.5 Elephant shows According to the 1999 European Endangered Species Programme (EEP), Asian elephant and 2001 African elephant studbooks, the majority of elephants in European zoos have been captured from the wild. Many of the African elephants supplied to zoos between 1970s and 1980s were the result of widespread killing in south Africa. These wild animals would not have undergone any degree of genetic or developmental domestication (Clubb and Mason, 2003), and so remain very much wild.

As at 2002, Spain had the third largest collection of African elephants in Europe (Clubb and Mason, 2002). The Captive Elephant Database reveals that, within the six zoos holding elephants visited during the investigation, all seventeen animals observed were wild-caught, except for one female Asian elephant who arrived at Madrid Zoo from Hannover Zoo in 2001.7 Further information on elephants in zoos can be obtained from the EEP elephant studbooks and the International Species Information System.

In captivity, elephants are held in unnatural social groups of unrelated individuals. They are weaned early and lifelong bonds that have built up are broken as they are separated and transferred between zoos.

7. http://www.elephant.se/elephant_database.php?open=Elephant%20database [Accessed 1 August 2011]

71


caged lives

72


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

In many zoos around the world, these highly intelligent animals are trained to perform tricks for the amusement of the public.

Asian elephants have a long history of being intensively trained for circus-style shows. Yet, despite living in captivity in Asia for around four thousand years and being subject to extensive training during this time, these animals are not domesticated (Sukumar, 2006).

Rio Safari Park During the Animal Equality investigation, one zoo, Rio Safari Park used an elephant to perform circus-style tricks. There were two shows a day, and following the show the animal was used as a photography prop for visitors.

The elephant at Rio Safari Park is a 41 year old female called ‘Babaty’ who, according to the Captive Elephant Database, was captured from the wild and arrived to the zoo in 1972.7 According to this database, the zoo has housed a total of six elephants, all of whom were wild-caught. The other five elephants were relocated to a zoo in Poland and two zoos in Spain (Estepona Selwo Safari Park and Cabarceno Zoo Obregon). Two of these animals have since died, and the status of the other three Previous & opposite page

animals is unknown to Animal Equality.

Figure 37-38: ‘Babaty’, the elephant at Rio Safari Park who has lived at the zoo since 1972 and performs circus-style tricks.

73


caged lives During the show, which had a duration of approximately 10 minutes, ‘Babaty’ picked up and carried large logs, showed her body parts to the crowds, wobbled her head, and ‘danced’ with the keeper to loud music. The commentary included some information about elephant biology and behaviour, and the emphasis was on the ‘uses’ of elephants for humans.

Throughout the show, the trainer carried an ankus (i.e. bull hook) attached to his clothing (Fig. 38). Following the show, ‘Babaty’ was led by the trainer to an area where visitors could have their photograph taken with her whilst sitting on her back (Fig. 39).

During the photography session, investigators observed the trainer digging the ankus into the skin behind the animals’ ear so that the trainer could position her head for the camera.

Animal Equality covertly interviewed the trainer who stated that ‘Babaty’ was ‘better off alone than with other elephants’, and ‘never exhibits stereotypic behaviour’. Investigators later observed her swaying repeatedly from side-to-side. The trainer also stated that he would like to use ‘Babaty’ as a ‘foster mother’ and for ‘assisted therapy’.

74


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

75


caged lives

76


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

1.5.1 Training and dominance Amongst zoo animals, negative reinforcement and physical punishment are uniquely used for training elephants (Kurt, 1995; 2006). Elephants are taught commands for every day procedures such as standing still during veterinary checks, lifting feet for pedicures and laying down for washing. They are also used to teach elephants to perform circusstyle tricks, like those observed at Rio Safari Park.

Elephants suffer arthritis and hernias as a result of excessive body weight, inadequate flooring, stress, lack of exercise and being forced to perform these tricks.

There are two main training approaches currently used by zoos, the ‘free contact’ (i.e. hands on) method, and the ‘protected contact’ method.

‘Free contact’ is the most commonly used method in European zoos, and is used by all circuses. It involves the elephant having unrestricted contact with their keepers.

‘Free contact’ relies on punishment, negative reinforcement Opposite page Figure 40: The chain at Rio Safari Park indicates that the zoo uses the widely criticised ‘free contact’ method of training.

and is based on dominance. Directing the positioning and movement of the elephant is achieved primarily through the use of the ankus. The method requires 100% compliance by the elephant.

77


caged lives Physical punishment, restraint and deprivation often form large parts of zoo and circus elephant’s daily lives. Common is the deprivation of food and water, the instrumental use of electricity, and objects to hit, poke and prod the elephant, particularly in circuses and zoos where animals, like ‘Babaty’ are used in training and shows.

The Captive Elephant Database states that Rio Safari Park uses a ‘hands-on’ (i.e. ‘free contact’) approach to train elephants.7 The interview with the trainer at the zoo, the presence of an ankus, and the chain found on the floor of the inside den (chaining is a practice limited to ‘free contact’ situations), all indicate this to be the case.

78


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

79


caged lives

80


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

2. Abnormal and stereotypic behaviour

Animals do not belong in cages; their lives are naturally complex and impossible to reproduce in captivity. The temporal and the spatial distribution of food resources for example are typically diverse.

Animals are equipped with foraging skills, sometimes involving vigorous searching behaviours and food acquisition which can require a large proportion of an animal’s daily time budget (Oftedal et al., 1996).

Baboons for example spend 65% to 70% of their time walking and feeding in the wild, whereas in captivity these activities occupy only 10% to 20% of the day. Wild herbivores also spend most of their time foraging, and carnivores considerable energy locating prey and hunting.

81


caged lives Zoos are also unable to meet the social needs of animals. Group-living animals are often held in unnatural groupings or in solitary confinement and solitary animals are sometimes forced to live in groups.

Animals often lead dull and purposeless lives in zoos. Stress is a recognised problem (Smith, 2004), and is often attributed to confinement.

When animals are housed in barren, sterile environments, they become aggressive, withdrawn, or perform abnormal behaviours

Some abnormal behaviours that have been termed ‘undesirable’ by the zoo community (Meyer-Holzapfel, 1968) include: • Abnormal escape reactions • Refusal of food • Abnormal aggressiveness • Self-mutilation • Abnormal sexual behaviour • Perversion of appetite • Apathy • Prolonged infantile behaviour and regression

82


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Unhappy animals may rest for prolonged periods, especially when there is little else for them to do. They may over-eat or over-groom, starve themselves or become aggressive towards conspecifics. They may self-mutilate or beg for food.

Behaviours that are most concerning however are ritualistic and indicate a mentally disturbed state. These include repeated rocking, head-bobbing, masturbation, bar-biting, self-harm, eating and throwing faeces, swaying and pacing.

83


caged lives

84


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

2.1 Stereotypic behaviour Mental illness is common ‘amongst zoo animals, who often perform behaviours that are compulsive and functionless. These compulsive behaviours are termed ‘stereotypies’ and are characterised as repetitive, unvarying and apparently functionless behaviour patterns (Mason, 1991a). They usually fall into two types – locomotor stereotypies (i.e. repetitive routes of locomotion), and stationary stereotypies. Neither are performed by free-living animals.

Stereotypic behaviours stem from a lack of control over life, inactivity, boredom, stress and frustration. They occur when an animal cannot cope with or remove himself/herself from a stressful situation such as restricted movement, a lack of concealment, unfamiliar food, abnormal social situations or overcrowding As the environmental complexity reduces, animals display a corresponding decrease in behavioural variability and an increase of self-directed behaviours. Gradually the animal closes off from the environment, instead of interacting with it, in an effort to cope with the stressors (Mason, 1991).

Stereotypic behaviours have been compared to obsessive compulsive disorders (OCDs) in humans.

85


caged lives It has been suggested also that stereotypic movements may develop as unsuccessful escape attempts. There is evidence to indicate that they can be food-motivated, and will peak prior to feed times (Mason and Vickery, 2004).

There is also a link between maternal deprivation and stereotypic behaviours (e.g. Latham and Mason, 2008). Animals held in zoos are often separated from their families at a young age. They may be transferred to different exhibits or sent off to participate in breeding programmes elsewhere.

Whilst stereotypic behaviours have most frequently been observed in predators, they are carried out by many different types of animals. Species differ greatly in how readily they develop abnormal and stereotypic behaviour, and the behaviours vary also amongst individuals.

Cockatoos are extremely prone to self-plucking (Mason, 2010). Stressed carnivores such as large cats and bears, who would travel hundreds of miles in the wild to hunt, perform locomotor stereotypies (e.g. pacing) in zoos, sometimes until their pads and paws are raw.

Home range has been implicated to correlate with the performance of stereotypies (Clubb and Vickery, 2006).

86


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Giraffes and other ungulates perform oral stereotypies, such as licking (which may be related to deficiencies in captive feeds, Bergeron et al., 2006). Gorillas regurgitate (i.e. they bring up food voluntarily) and then reinjest food.

Stereotypies are a clear indication that there is something seriously wrong and are commonly observed in many zoo animals. Even if the environment is subsequently altered following their onset, the behaviours can be so deeply manifested, they remain (Mason, 1991).

In summary, stereotypies are considered to be indicators of poor well-being for three main reasons: • They are linked with aversive environmental conditions. • They often develop from attempts to perform specific behaviours. • They are often linked with physiological signs of stress (e.g. von Borell and Hurnick, 1991; Wielebnowski et al., 2002).

87


caged lives

88


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

2.2 Self-harming behaviour Self-harming behaviour is carried out by humans suffering from a range of psychological problems. In animals, the same behaviours occur, and these range from mild self-harm (e.g. over-grooming), to severe biting.

Whilst infectious and non-infectious causes of skin irritation should be ruled out as a cause of self-harm (over-grooming for example), it is typically more prevalent when the environmental conditions are poor and, through an assessment of an animal’s situation, it can be assumed that the cause of these behaviours is likely to be psychological.

2.3 Investigation findings Abnormal and stereotypic behaviours were observed at seven of the eight zoos visited by Animal Equality. The nine variations of these behaviours were as follows: • Over-grooming • Pacing • Circling • Swaying • Loop the loop Opposite page

• Horn rubbing Figure 43: A Mandrill over-grooming at Zoobotanico Jerez. Primates are particularly susceptible to self-mutilation.

• Begging • Figure of eight • Object manipulation

89


caged lives Some of these behaviours could, by definition, also be categorised as normal, however where investigators observed the behaviour being carried out repetitively and with no apparent function, it was assumed to be abnormal or stereotypic. Investigators recorded the species carrying out abnormal and stereotypic behaviours, and the number of individuals within exhibits performing them.

Over half of the animals observed to be carrying out abnormal or stereotypic behaviours were housed at Barcelona Zoo and Seville Zoo. These facilities each housed 26% of the total. No animals carrying out abnormal or stereotypic behaviour were observed at Bioparc.

The most common type of abnormal or stereotypic behaviours observed during the investigation were ‘locomotory’ stereotypes (pacing, figure of eight and circling), which accounted for the largest proportion (55%) of the total observed. Pacing (i.e. the animal moves repeatedly back and forth in a straight line) was the most frequently observed categorised behaviour observed, and accounted for (44%) of the total. Pacing was mostly performed at Seville Zoo. It was also commonly observed at Castellar Zoo, Cordoba Zoo and Barcelona Zoo.

Carnivores are particularly prone to developing stereotypies and this behaviour was indeed carried out predominantly by big cats, but also a European brown bear at Barcelona Zoo (Fig. 45), a Cape racoon and Rhesus macaque at Seville Zoo, and a Malayan sunbear at Madrid Zoo.

90

Opposite page Figure 41: Malayan sunbear begging for food from visitors at Madrid Zoo.


caged lives Begging was the second most commonly observed abnormal or stereotypic behaviour and accounted for 13% of the total. This behaviour this was carried out mainly by bears (Fig. 41; Fig. 46) at Madrid Zoo but also by an elephant (Fig. 44). In another survey of 58 zoos, Keulen-Kromhout van (1978) found that high levels of stereotypy and begging were performed by Polar bears, Brown bears and Himalayan black bears. The study demonstrated that Brown bears begged more than they performed stereotypies.

Loop the loop accounted for 10% of the total, and was carried out solely by psittacines. Figure of eight was performed by wolves and a hyena at Seville Zoo and accounted for 8% of the total. Swaying, which accounted for 8% of the total, was performed solely by elephants. Over-grooming, which also accounted for 8%, was carried out only by primates (Fig. 43). Object manipulation was carried out by only one animal, at Seville Zoo.

A Tufted capuchin was observed picking up a stone and lunging it repeatedly against a glass barrier (Fig. 47-51). Horn-rubbing was performed by only one (solitary) animal, a White rhinoceros at Barcelona Zoo.

Aside from directly observing bouts of abnormal and stereotypic behaviour, investigators recorded indications (e.g. injuries, hair-loss) that an animal had been carrying out these behaviours in the past. These animals were not included in the dataset as investigators could not be absolutely certain whether the abnormal or stereotypic behaviour had occurred.

92

Opposite page Figure 42: Proportion of abnormal and stereotypic behaviours iden-tified in the zoos visited by Animal Equality. Figure 44: An elephant begging for food from visitors at Zoobotanico Jerez.


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

93


caged lives BEARS IN ZOOS Bears fare very poorly in zoos and are renowned for displaying a diversity of abnormal, and, in particular, stereotypic behaviours (e.g. Carlstead and Seidensticker, 1991). Polar bears for example are naturally solitary, avoid human contact, and do not seek out the company of other bears. Polar bears suffer physical and mental anguish in captivity. A typical Polar bear exhibit is about one-millionth the size of the animal’s minimum home range.

Researchers in Germany concluded at the end of a two-year study that most Polar bears in captivity have psychological problems (AFP), and that the late ‘Knut’ of Berlin Zoo, who in 2001 had a convulsion and collapsed and died in front of hundreds of visitors, was no exception. ‘Knut’ suffered panic attacks and spent his days performing captivity-induced stress behaviours.

Pacing amongst zoos bears can be so intense that it wears a path into the ground. This behaviour is performed by animals that are not simply bored, but in a state of severe frustration and dispair

Opposite page Figure 45: Pacing behaviour identified at Barcelona Zoo. This animal was pacing in a continual path and twisting his/her head at boundaries whilst turning around. Figure 46: A European brown bear at Madrid Zoo begging in front of a visitor who was throwing food into the exhibit.

94


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 45: Pacing behaviour identified at Barcelona Zoo. This animal was pacing in a continual path and twisting his/her head at boundaries whilst turning around.

Figure 46: A begging European brown bear at Madrid Zoo in front of a visitor who was throwing food into the exhibit.

95


caged lives

Figure 47-50: A neurotic Tufted capuchin at Seville Zoo who was performing a behaviour not identified anywhere else during the Animal Equality investigation. The animal was observed picking up a stone and continually lunging it towards the glass barrier. A depressing sight.

96


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

97


caged lives

98


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

2.4. Case Study: Madrid Zoo Reptile House Mammals are not the only group of animals to suffer from abnormal and stereotypic behaviours, but also reptiles and fish. At Madrid Zoo, investigators observed reptiles performing an abnormal behaviour called ‘Interaction with transparent boundaries’ or ‘ITB’. This is one of the most commonly observed maladaptive behaviours in captivity, and appears to largely related to exploratory escape activities (Warwick et al., 2001). The major clinical sign involves friction lesions on the rostrum, damaged claws and abrasions to (usually) forelimbs (Warwick et al., 2001).

It has been stated by Internationally-renowned reptile biologist, Clifford Warwick that:

‘In nature, the closest comparison to a reptile ‘cage’ might be when an animal falls into a deep crevice and cannot escape.’ (Warwick et al., 2001).

At Madrid Zoo, reptiles were commonly observed interacting with boundaries and apparently attempting to escape by pushing their bodies against, and climbing, glass barriers of small and barren tanks.

The majority of vivariums at the zoo were barren and no more than 6.25 ft. in length.

99


caged lives

Figure 51: A Gabon vipor pushes against the glass at Madrid Zoo.

A glass barrier between the vivariums and visitors prevented visitors banging on glass, however it also gave visitors a false impression of the space allocated to each of captive animals. Snakes were unable to stretch to their full body length in many vivariums, and Monitor lizards had water pools so small that they couldn’t fully submerge or stretch out in them. Several of the lizards had digits missing. Visitors were observed banging and tapping the glass, which appeared to aggravate the situation for the animals (Fig. 56).

100


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 52-53: Lizards were observed pushing at boundaries in the Reptile house.

Investigators observed the Gabon viper, a venomous viper species, hitting repeatedly on glass (Fig. 51). This species is found in the rainforests and savannas of Sub-Saharan Africa. It is not only the largest member of the genus Bitis, but also the world's heaviest viperid. The animal could barely stretch out in the tank provided by Madrid Zoo and the animal was not even fully-grown.

Monitor lizards were climbing the roofs of their tanks in apparent escape attempts.

101


caged lives

Figure 54-55: Iguana at Barcelona Zoo attempting to escape.

One small and barren tank contained an Argus monitor. Whilst the size of an Argus Monitor differs between the sexes, the female can reach an average total length of 3 ft.. Varanid lizards are extremely intelligent, and some species have been demonstrated to be able to count (King, and Green, 1999). This is a wholly inappropriate environment for these animals.

102


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 56: Visitors tapping the glass barrier at Madrid Zoo Reptile House.

A Spiny lizard was observed carrying out ITB, also an Emerald tree monitor, iguana, a Monocled cobra, a Rattlesnake, and a California kingsnake.

103


caged lives

104


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3. Physical health and well-being The physical restrictions of captivity can have adverse effects on animal health. In zoos, a large number of animals are underweight, overweight, are fed synthetic food, and have deformed feet caused by standing on hard substrates. There is considerable overlap between health and well-being. Signs of disease and poor health in captive animals are therefore often used as an indicator of animal well-being.

Maintaining good health in zoo animals requires as a minimum, routine monitoring by knowledgeable staff. Lacking in zoos is often adequate preventative medicine such as basic health checks, quarantine procedures, vaccination, foot, beak and dental care.

105


caged lives

106


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3.1 Investigation findings Possible indicators of an underlying health problem include, for example, changes in behaviour (Dawkins, 2003), body condition, gait or weight. Investigators were unable to use behavioural indicators due to the limited time available at each exhibit, and so the overall appearance of animals was observed. Health problems in wild animals are not always obvious, particularly amongst prey animals, who strategically hide ailments to avoid predation. Investigators also did not have access the zoos veterinary records. It is therefore reasonable to assume that not all indicators of poor health were observed. At each of the eight zoos visited by Animal Equality, there were indicators of poor animal health, which raises the question of the availability of husbandry expertise, health care and veterinary attention. It is important to remember also that Spanish zoos are bound by the EC Zoos Directive8 which requires them to have ‘a developed programme of preventative and curative veterinary care and nutrition’. Individual animals with abnormalities within exhibits were sometimes difficult to view, or too numerous to count, so Animal Equality recorded instead the number of exhibits housing these animals, rather than the number of individuals in each exhibit.

8. EC Directive 1999/22/EC relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos.

107


caged lives Indicators of poor health were categorised as follows: • Hair or feather loss (likely to be the result of self-feather damaging behaviour (FDB), over grooming and/or self-mutilation). • Contact injuries (e.g. fractures, breaks or wounds likely to be the result of contact with conspecifics, cage barriers or furniture). • Weight or teeth abnormalities (likely to be the result of nutritional problems). • Foot problems (likely to be the result of unsuitable substrates or inadequate foot care). • Ecto-parasites (parasitic arachnids such as mites and ticks).

The zoo with the most frequent (28%) number of exhibits housing animals with poor health indicators was Madrid Zoo. 19% were also located at Rio Safari Park, 17% at Castellar Zoo, and 14% at Zoobotanico Jerez.

Frustration and boredom are common amongst zoo animals and this often leads to self-mutilation. Hair and feather loss was the most common category. Investigators observed animals pulling not only their own hair and feathers out, but also as the hair and feathers of conspecifics.

108


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 57: Hair and feather loss were the most frequent indicators of poor health observed and ‘contact fractures’ the second most frequently observed.

Judging by the open wounds and abrasions from excess licking, it was clear that, in some cases, the behaviour had been manifesting for quite some time, and with intense frequency. Hair-loss was observed in all except one of the zoos visited by Animal Equality. It was most commonly observed in primates, and feather-loss in psittacines. Research shows that FDB is a common behavioural abnormality found in psittacines (particularly grey parrots, cockatoos and eclectus parrots).

109


caged lives At Madrid Zoo, Zoobotanico Jerez and Rio Safari Park, primates were observed with severe hair-loss and bleeding, fresh wounds.

The second most common category was ‘contact injuries’. Investigators recorded injuries as ‘contact injuries’ where there was a clear indication that an injury was the consequence of contact between the animal and either a conspecific, or the cage barrier or furniture.

For example, in the overcrowded and barren Olive baboon exhibit, investigators observed aggressive encounters between the animals, some of whom had existing wounds (Fig. 70-71). Investigators also witnessed an aggressive encounter between two tigers at Zoobotanico Jerez which resulted in one of the animals being injured (Fig. 77-79).

Aggressive behaviours can be a direct response to the prevailing day-to-day conditions - for example a lack of environmental control, low environmental complexity, space restriction and close proximity to conspecifics.

Some animals also had sustained injuries that were likely to have been the result of contact with cage barriers or furniture. For example, a Turkey vulture living at Barcelona zoo and a Griffin vulture at Cordoba Zoo (Fig. 71-72) both had fractured or broken wings.

110


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

111


caged lives A veterinary opinion was sought on the photographs taken by Animal Equality during the investigation. It is important to note that the veterinarians could not determine with 100% accuracy the health status of the animals.

Some abnormalities could have been the result of more than one problem (such as the wounds observed on the Indian rhinoceroses at Madrid zoo – Fig. 72), and could therefore have been included in more than one category. Investigators and veterinarians made the best possible judgements using the information available.

“The images of the psittacines, bears and primates at the zoos visited during the investigation strongly indicate chronic poor husbandry and that the animals' well-being is not being addressed, whilst the others are strongly suggestive of the same.� Conclusion of the two specialist wildlife veterinarians who studied the photographs sent to them by Animal Equality.

112


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

113


caged lives

114


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3.2 Feather-loss as a result of feather damaging behaviour (FDB) In captivity, parrots are prone to developing a number of behavioural problems, such as biting, screaming, feather picking, self-mutilation, human-directed sexual behaviour, display of phobias or stereotypic behaviour (Davis, 1991; Meehan et al., 2004; Lightfoot and Nacewicz, 2006).

These problem behaviours may be resulting from inadequate environmental stimuli, early weaning and/or social isolation. Feather-loss can be a result of FDB, which should be considered as abnormal (van Zeeland et al., 2009). It is not observed in free-ranging birds. This kind of behaviour is not observed in free-ranging birds. It is a captivity problem.

Grooming is a behaviour that serves both physical and Opposite page Figure 58: “Feather loss in parrots can be a result of psychological stress and conflict. This may be a problem of space; lack of stimulation; inappropriate or absence of a mate; lack of objects such as branches to destroy; inappropriate day length (longer periods of day light away from the equator may increase activity and stimulation with no outlet).” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

social purposes. In the presence of stressors, displacement grooming can develop, which can result in excessive grooming when chronic stress is experienced. Parrots with FDB either chew, bite and/or pluck their feathers, resulting in damage to feathers and/or skin (Rosskopf and Woerpel, 1996). The disorder has characteristics similar to trichotillomania —an impulse control disorder in humans (van Zeeland et al., 2009).

115


caged lives

116


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FDB is usually self-inflicted, but, when housed in groups, it can sometimes be directed to conspecifics. In these instances, the primary target area appears to be the head and face (e.g. Lightfoot and Nacewicz, 2006). Adrenocorticotropic hormone, opiate, dopaminergic and serotoninergic systems have been shown to influence the onset, development and maintenance of this behaviour (van Zeeland et al., 2009).

Parrots are highly social animals, and free-flying individuals live in stable flocks (Nicol and Pope, 1993; May, 1996; Seibert, 2006a). As a result, they do not cope well with solitary confinement. Opposite page Figure 59: “Feather-loss can be the result of ectoparasites, nutritional deficiency viral infection and physical – musculoskeletal or visceral (organ) pain, or damage especially liver disease. Psittacine Beak and Feather Syndrome (PBFD), caused by a Circovirus, is also a possibility and a vaccine is now available for this condition. Obviously effective veterinary investigation, diagnosis and treatment, together with appropriate environmental management should resolve this. Therefore the presence of this chronic disease is evidence of lack of care and that well-being is compromised at the zoos concerned.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

Animal Equality observed many birds living in solitary confinement in the zoos visited.

117


caged lives

Figure 60-61: An ostrich at Cordoba Zoo. Feather pecking has been observed in farmed ostriches whereby a bird will aggressively peck feathers from the back and tail area of penmates (Samson, 1996). It is often brought about by stress, overcrowding and boredom (Stewart, 1994). “This is probably over plucking by other birds – this usually indicates poor environment.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

118


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

119


caged lives

120


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3.3 Hair-loss Self-harming behaviours observed in humans suffering from physiological disturbances have been observed in other animals such as primates, cats and rodents, ranging from over grooming to severe bite wounds (Spruijt et al., 1992). Chronic stress stemming from an inadequate environment can result in excessive grooming.

Over grooming can also be due to infectious and non-infectious causes of skin irritation, aswell as being behavioural.

Opposite page Figure 62: A Mandrill at Zoobotanico Jerez. This animal was observed tugging at his fur and the hairloss on his forelimbs suggests that he had been doing this for intensely for some time. “Hair plucking is a relatively common compulsive behaviour triggered by environmental stress (overcrowding; inappropriate grouping; inability to escape from cage mates and/or public; under / overstimulation) or illness / pain. Suspect this is subdominant male over self-grooming as response to fear stress of attack by dominant male.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

121


caged lives

Figure 63-64: Primates at Castellar Zoo. “This injury could be overgrooming by itself, its cage-mate,

or the result of fighting, or physical injury from the cage.” Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

122


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

123


caged lives

124


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 65-66: “Over-grooming can result from inappropriate relationships (overcrowding, inappropriate grouping of sexes/ages); an inappropriate environment causing conflict and stress, inability to get away from the public and/or cage mates.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS

125


caged lives

126


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3.4 Contact injuries from conspecifics, cage barriers or furniture Commonly encountered medical problems for animals in zoos include traumatic injuries such as bite or gore wounds, lacerations and fractures. There is very little peer-reviewed literature on injuries however sustained as a result of poor cage design. Injuries also commonly occur as a result of contact with conspecifics. Because of the restrictive and often cramped environments zoo animals are forced to live in, animals often cannot avoid exposure to the aggression of a conspecific, and their ability to retreat is compromised.

Aggression is a normal part of the behavioural repertoire of social species, however in captivity aggressive interactions can result in injury. There are different degrees of intensity ranging from non-contact aggression between individuals, such as threat displays, to contact aggression (Hosey, 2005). Even a high level of non-injurious aggression has the potential to affect an animal psychologically, due to fear which is increased when an animal cannot flee. Opposite page Figure 67: Griffin vulture at Zoobotanico Jerez. “The wing looks like it has been broken and then healed in this position. Probably due to attempted flight and contact with cage steel mesh.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

127


caged lives

Figure 68: A Turkey vulture observed on exhibit at Barcelona Zoo. The wing bones in raptors are delicate and can easily be damaged. “This is a serious gross injury requiring emergency treatment. No injured animal should be on exhibit. The raw end of the wing looks untreated.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

128


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 69: Cordoba Zoo. “This unilateral eye problem is probably acquired from an injury.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

129


caged lives

Figure 62-63: Hair-loss observed at Rio Safari Park.

130


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

Figure 70-71: Olive baboons are cramped in a barren exhibit at Madrid Zoo. “This looks like a laceration from a claw. The possibility of fly strike (maggots) in this is high as well as causing pain and deep infection. This looks like a frank injury from fighting or some injury from cage furniture etc. and very poor skin –both signs that good husbandry and the animals' wellbeing is compromised.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

animalEQUALITY

In the wild, baboons live in a complex, multi-level society. The Olive baboon has a multimale-multifemale social system and whilst there is much aggression between males because of competition for females, the animals can usually escape from each other. However, in Madrid Zoo, judging by the severity and frequency of injuries, it is likely that the barren, overcrowded living conditions have resulted in high stress levels which have manifested into abnormally anxious and aggressive behaviour. Investigators observed aggressive displays such as the bearing of teeth, which can intimidate other members of the baboon group.

131


caged lives

Figure 72: “These lesions have probably been treated with antibiotic spray and could be a result of over scratching. Fighting is a possibility.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

132


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 73: A Long-tailed macaque at Zoobotanico Jerez. “This looks like an injury either from fighting or from cage injury.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

133


caged lives

Figure 74-75: “The scarring looks to indicate an old fracture that has not been treated or an injury from being caught in wire fence.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

Opposite page Figure 76: “Odd shaped scar, could have been a skin flap… I would have guessed injury from the enclosure fitting rather than fighting.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

134


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

135


caged lives

136


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 77-79: “These injuries are gross and should be treated. Obviously if there is fighting there is inappropriate grouping – the tigers would normally be solitary unless coming together to mate. This injury could affect the elbow joint and lead to joint injury/arthritis/sepsis.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

137


caged lives

138


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

3.5

animalEQUALITY

Foot and hoof abnormalities

In the wild, animals would live on soft ground, but in zoos they are forced to live on unnatural, abrasive substrates such as concrete or gunite, and this can result in stereotypic behaviors (Hediger, 1969), sore footpads, leg injuries (Law et al., 1997), and overgrown hooves and nails.

Foot care should therefore be an important part of preventative medicine, particularly for ungulates as their hooves grow continuously. In even-toed ungulates, hoof overgrowth can lead to unevenness in weight-bearing on the two claws of each hoof which can give rise to lameness.

139


caged lives

Figure 80-81: “There is no excuse for overgrown (slipper) hooves. A lack of trimming and/or laminitis are the likely causes. Laminitis, which is a painful foot condition, causes the animal to rock back on its “heels” and therefore the claw is free to grow without being worn down.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

140


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 82-83: Spanish deer at Madrid Zoo. “Slipper hoof – poor foot care, inappropriate substrates, inappropriate nutrition, possible laminitis.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

141


caged lives

142


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

the elephant’s foot Elephants notably suffer from foot problems within zoos. The development of lameness is more common in zoo than wild elephants (Schmidt, 1986) and foot disease remains the number one source of pain, suffering and death for zoo elephants. Wild elephants can walk ten or more miles a day.

A lack of space in zoos for movement, lack of exercise and long hours standing on hard surfaces, and contamination resulting from standing in their own feces and urine are major contributors to foot problems. These problems can result in serious disability or death. Csuti et al., (2001) have suggested that foot problems are seen in 50% of elephants at some stage in their life

A study on elephants in UK zoos in 2008 revealed that less than 20% of individuals were totally free of foot problems (Harris, et al. 2008).

Opposite page Figure 84: “Signs of lack of foot care and hard/unsuitable substrate.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc.

143


caged lives

144


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3.6 Nutritional problems Nutrition can have a large effect on the basic health of animals housed in zoos, as well as on physical and mental development. Individual nutritional requirements include proteins and a good balance of vitamins and minerals. Animals have specific physical features to help them find and eat food. Species also vary in their digestive systems. Most animals are selective and choosy about what they eat.

Nutrient deficiencies are widespread amongst zoo animals and a lack of adequate nutrition has contributed to suffering and many deaths. For example, elephants lacking physical exercise in zoos can become obese, which in turn leads to defects of the joints and ligaments of feet and legs (Kurt and Hartl, 1995). Teeth problems occur as a consequence of incorrect feeding practices in captive elephants (Kurt and Hartl, 1995) and wild ungulates Opposite page Figure 85: Llama with overgrown teeth at Castellar Zoo. The pictures show that the central, middle and corner front teeth are overgrown and in need of trimming. “Poor diet can cause this degree of overgrowth i.e. no grazing/ browsing (clipping living plants wears down incisors). If the animals are just fed hay and nuts, which need no cutting the incisors can get overgrown.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

(Boyd, 1986).

One of the most common problems a zoo veterinarian sees is that an animal that isn’t eating because of sickness or stress.

145


caged lives

Figure 86-87: “Hard to tell extent of how lean this animal is although this one does look thin and the muscles in the hindlegs look poorly developed/wasted.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

146


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 88: Obesity is considered a major problem in zoos. “Obesity can lead to disease and worsens the pain of painful conditions. It may be a result of endocrine imbalance, over feeding, not enough activity provided, depression and inactivity.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

147


caged lives

148


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3.7 Parasite infestations Zoo animals are vulnerable to a wide variety of parasites. Young and stressed animals are the most likely to be adversely affected by parasites.

Ectoparasites include ticks, fleas, leeches, and lice—which live on the body surface of the host animal and do not themselves commonly cause disease. Endoparasites can be either intercellular or intracellular.

Both captive and free-ranging feral animals in zoos are infested with ectoparasites such as ticks, fleas, lice, and biting flies. The control of parasites is an important part of preventative medicine.

Opposite page Figure 89-90: European brown bear at Madrid Zoo. “Tick treatment is straightforward and consists of using pour-on preparations although it is just as important to use environment spraying to remove ticks from enclosure. This is evidence of very poor standards and zoo management.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

149


caged lives

150


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 93: Zebra at Madrid Zoo. This injury is “possibly from excessive scratching and rubbing if ectoparastite and fly control is poor. The tail head injury may be a bit wound but more likely tail head rubbing from fly irritation; pin worm and/or sweet itch.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

Opposite page Figure 91 (above): Himalayan bear at Madrid Zoo. “This could be hypothyroid, or other hormonal imbalance, or nutritional deficiency but most likely mange.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS. Figure 92 (below): Young Olive baboon at Madrid Zoo. “Poor skin or leishmaniasis is a possibility.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

151


caged lives

152


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

3.8 Mutilations Case Study: Possible Wing Mutilation at Castellar Zoo

Zoos often carry out physical modifications to birds’ wings to restrain flight, especially water fowl in open-air exhibits. A Sarus crane in Castellar zoo is housed in an unroofed exhibit and Animal Equality suspects that the zoo has inhibited flight through physical alteration of the animal’s wing (Fig. 94). Additionally, the animal lives alone, though in the wild the species would form long-lasting pair-bonds with other birds. In India, the species is believed to mate for life and pines the loss of a mate to the point of starving to death.

There are various methods that zoos use to render birds incapable of flight, but ‘pinioning’ and ‘patagiectomy’ are common. Pinioning involves the amputation of a digit at the wing tip, and patagiectomy renders the wing functionless by the removal of all or part of the propatagium ligament or the tendons of the carpal joint. This method is used in zoos because it gives visitors an impression of an intact wing.

Aside from the invasive methods used, preventing a bird from performing a natural behaviour such as flight is Opposite page

unacceptable.

Figure 94: A Sarus crane at Castellar Zoo. “As far as I can see they don’t stand on one leg. Disability or wing clipping would prevent flying away.” — Samantha Lindley, BVSc MRCVS and Simon Adams MsRCVS.

153


caged lives

154


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

4. Human behaviour It is estimated that, at the start of the 1990s, around 619 million visits to zoos were made annually worldwide, with 123 million in Europe alone (IUDZG/CBSG, 1993). It has been stated that zoo visitors want ‘entertaining, compelling and effectively staged events’ at zoos (Beardsworth and Bryman, 2001).

Visitors are undoubtedly a significant component of the zoo environment and therefore have a significant effect on the lives of animals housed there. Numerous studies have demonstrated that there is an association between visitor numbers and changes in the behaviour of animals.

Whilst animals react to people in different ways, depending on the species, prior experience of human interaction, and the behaviour of the person, the large groups of unfamiliar visitors that animals encounter on a daily basis in zoos do may not provide a positive experience for animals.

155


caged lives

In fact, animals in zoos can perceive visitors as an enemy, prey, of no consequence, or as a rival (Hediger, 1965). Many studies demonstrate that primates find the presence of large active groups of visitors to be an extremely stressful experience (e.g. Mitchell et al., 1991a) that results in the animals performing stress-responses, such as abnormal behaviours, stereotypies, increased aggression and heightened activity, as well as decreased levels of exploration and affiliative behaviours. Gorillas have shown increased aggression and abnormal behaviours during periods where visitor density is highest, for example during weekends in summer months (e.g. Wells, 2005).

156


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

4.1 Investigation findings During the investigation, Animal Equality observed crowds of visitors screaming, running, pelting animals with rocks, and taunting and poking them through the cages with sticks. Investigators also observed animals who were clearly distressed by the experience of having the visitors in such close proximity.

Out of the 226 exhibits visited, Animal Equality investigators observed behaviours categorised as:

INDIRECT CONTACT • Object use: throwing or poking objects at animals (including food). • Smoking at exhibit. • Vocalising loudly and inappropriately (e.g. abusive taunting). • Throwing litter. • Banging on glass barrier.

DIRECT CONTACT • Feeding animals by hand. Opposite page

• Touching animals.

Figure 95: A young visitor throws a rock at Castellar Zoo.

157


caged lives

158


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

At 39 exhibits (17% of the total number of exhibits visited), Animal Equality observed visitors performing at least one of the above behaviours. The frequency of the occurrence of these behaviours observed is obviously partly dependent on visitor density. It is predicted that at the weekends (especially during summer months), and at peak-times of the day, the occurrence of these behaviours would be more frequent.

At some exhibits, there were hoards of visitors throwing objects or banging on glass. Animal Equality therefore recorded the number of different behaviour types observed at the exhibits, rather than the number of individuals performing the behaviours. These findings reveal only a snapshot of the visitor behaviour during a day.

The behaviours were most commonly observed at Castellar Zoo, which may be partly due to the poor management of the zoo, and the disrespectful treatment of animals by the zoo staff themselves. At this zoo, visitors were actively encouraged to feed the animals (food was provided in plastic bags at the entrance), and also freely enter the Opposite page

exhibits to touch, feed and take photographs of the animals. Visitors were observed throwing objects at the

Figure 96 (above): Proportion of

animals (Fig. 95), feeding and touching them, throwing

behaviours performed by visitors

litter on already littered substrates, and banging with

at the eight zoos.

force on glass barriers.

Figure 97 (below): Visitors smoking and banging on the glass of the chimpanzee exhibit at Zoobotanico Jerez.

159


caged lives Animal feeding accounted for 26% of all these behaviours observed during the investigation. Animals were fed by visitors mainly at Madrid Zoo, where investigators observed, for example, visitors throwing food into the Olive baboon exhibit (Fig. 110-113), camel exhibit (Fig. 127) and bear exhibits. The response of the baboons and bears was to beg for more food within areas of the exhibits where visitor density was the highest.

Litter was also present on the exhibit floors, which indicated that the feeding of animals was a common occurrence. There have been many anecdotal reports of health problems in zoo animals when the littering of human foodstuffs have been ingested, either by accident or as a result of visitors feeding the animals.

Banging on glass barriers at exhibits was the second most commonly observed behaviour. Visitors were observed in high density banging on the glass barriers of the big cat exhibits and primate block at Cordoba Zoo (Fig. 104-106-107). Opposite page

Visitors were also frequently observed shouting obscenities at the animals. This occurred most frequently at Zoobotanico Jerez at the primate block.

Figure 96: A young visitor teases a Golden-backed squirrel monkey at Cordoba Zoo. Figure 97: Bioparc. Gorillas perform increased intra and inter-specific aggression (Wells, 2005) when zoo visitor density is high. The behavioural response by the Gorilla at Bioparc caused much laughter amongst visitors who attempted to mimic the animal.

160


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

161


caged lives

Figure 98-100: At Cordoba Zoo, there were glass barriers on the large cat exhibits. Visitors were observed banging and kicking the glass, whilst shouting at the animal.

162


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 101: Cordoba Zoo. Visitors were observed banging on the glass barrier of the primate block.

163


caged lives

Figure 102: Castellar Zoo: Zoo staff allowed a visitor to walk around the zoo with an unleashed dog. The dog is pictured here with a Eurasian lynx.

164


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 103: The primate block at Zoobotanico Jerez consisted of glass-fronted exhibits and no stand-off barrier. At each exhibit, visitors were observed tapping and banging on the glass. Studies show that primates held in zoos are adversely affected by the presence of visitors.

165


caged lives

Figure 104-107: The baboon island exhibit at Madrid Zoo with a substrate that was littered with debris (e.g. plastic, paper). Investigators observed animals chewing and manipulating items that visitors had thrown or dropped into the exhibit. Animal feeding was likely to be a common occurrence at this exhibit as the animals were begging in areas with high visitor density.

166


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

167


caged lives

168


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

4.2

animalEQUALITY

Direct contact and animals

between

visitors

Direct contact between animals and zoo visitors can not only be stressful and physically harmful for animals, it can also present a risk of injury and the transmission of zoonotic diseases. Animal Equality observed instances where visitors had direct contact with animals at six of the eight zoos visited. For example, the feeding of animals by hand, touching animals without supervision through or over a barrier, and touching animals under the supervision of a keeper within an exhibit or outside of it.

Four of these six zoos actively encouraged visitors to have direct contact with the animals and, where this was not the case, visitors and animals could have direct contact as a result of poor exhibit design, which included inadequate or absence of stand-off barriers.

Animal Equality evaluated the risk to visitors by assessing Opposite page Figure 108: Visitors in close proximity to the tigers at Castellar Zoo.

how many of these direct contact encounters involved so-called ‘hazardous’ animals, as categorise by the UK’s Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice.9

9. Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. Appendix 12 – Hazardous Animal Categorisation (2004)

169


caged lives It is revealed that all of the animals who were observed in Opposite page

direct contact with visitors at the zoos visited are categorised by SMZP either as ‘Greater Risk’10 or ‘Less Risk’.11 67% of instances of direct contact involved animals that the SMZP would categorise as being of ‘Greater Risk’ and the remainder of ‘Less Risk’ animals.

No animals involved in direct contact with visitors are categorised by the SMZP as being of ‘Least Risk’.

Figure 109: Unsupervised contact between a binturong and visitor at Seville Zoo. There was a stand-off barrier but this was wholly inadequate. Figure 110: Visitors feeding the elephant at Zoobotanico Jerez. The barriers were inadequate to prevent this contact.

Facility

Species

SMZP Categorisation

Supervision

Castellar Zoo

Capuchin

Greater risk

Yes

Seville Zoo

Tiger

Greater risk

Yes

Castellar Zoo

Boa Snake (> 3m)

Greater risk

Yes

Rio Safari Park

Elephant

Greater risk

Yes

Seville Zoo

Wolf

Greater risk

No

Madrid Zoo

Camel

Greater risk

No

Zoobotanico Jerez

Elephant

Greater risk

No

Rio Safari Park

Giraffe

Greater risk

No

Castellar Zoo

Lemur

Less risk

No

Seville Zoo

Binturong

Less risk

No

Castellar Zoo

Raccoon

Less risk

No

10. ‘Contact between the public and animals in Category ‘1’ is likely to cause serious injury or be a serious threat to life, on the basis of hazard and risk of injury, toxin or disease, irrespective of the age and vulnerability of the visitor’. 11. Contact between the public and animals in Category ‘2’ may result in injury or illness, on the basis of hazard and risk of injury, toxin or disease, but is not likely to be life threatening’

170


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

171


caged lives

172


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 111-113: The exhibits at Castellar Zoo were in a dilapidated state and allowed easy direct contact between animals and visitors. Animal Equality observed many animals being touched and fed by visitors.

173


caged lives

Figure 114: Visitors were encouraged into the Ring-tailed lemur exhibit at Castellar Zoo to touch and feed the animals. Food bags were provided to visitors at the zoo entrance. Empty plastic bags were littered all over the zoo.

174


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 115: Visitors were encouraged behind the stand-off barrier to touch and take photographs of the Capuchin monkeys at Castellar Zoo.

175


caged lives

Figure 116-118: At Seville Zoo there was an inadequate stand-off barrier separating wolves from visitors. Animal Equality observed visitors stroking the wolves who were pacing against the mesh barrier.

176


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

177


caged lives

Figure 119-120: Visitors were observed feeding crisps to a giraffe at Rio Safari Park.

178


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 121: Camel feeding at Madrid Zoo.

179


caged lives

180


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

5. Public education Zoos attempt to convince the public that they are justified in holding animals in captivity by providing an educational experience whilst performing a greater good for the species. They consider themselves literally to be the modern day Noah’s Ark.

In the 19th Century, private zoos represented imperialism and human domination over nature (Hochadel, 2005). They exhibited living trophies of imperial conquest (Marlno et al., 2009) and rulers kept large collections of animals as a sign of their power (Jamieson, 2006).

Opposite page Figure 122: The signage at Seville Zoo consisted of sheets of paper stapled onto wooden posts. Many were positioned in obscure locations, had either blown upside down or were lying on the ground.

The Zoological Society of London was the first zoo of the modern type, and it opened its doors to the public for the purpose of human recreation.

Heightened awareness of animal rights during the 1970s resulted in people challenging the concept of zoos and other captive animal facilities such as marine parks.

181


caged lives The facilities responded by re-branding themselves as agents for the preservation of species and public education. More recently, zoos have re-named themselves ‘Bioparcs’ and these facilities boast naturalistic, ecosystem and landscape immersion exhibits. And yet, the concept remains the same.

In the words of Rob Laidlaw, Founder and Executive Director of Zoocheck Canada12 “Zoos tried to repackage themselves as institutions devoted to wildlife conservation, public education and animal welfare. But most zoos fail to live up to their own propaganda, and vast numbers of zoo animals continue to endure lives of misery and deprivation.” (Laidlaw, 2000).

Whilst some modern zoos have replaced older cages with modern exhibits, the space provided to the animals remains limited. The strategic layout of zoos however leaves visitors with little idea of the reality of life inside the zoo. Clever architecture has meant that zoos literally trick visitors into believing that animals are afforded much more space and complexity than they actually are.

In terms of public education, the reality is that zoos and marine parks have not demonstrated how they enhance this. It has been stated that the zoo experience does not result in any noticeable change in knowledge or attitude (Balmford et al., 2008).

12

Zoocheck Canada website: http://www.zoocheck.com/

182


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

There is ample evidence to suggest that the apathetic public remains blissfully unaware of the plight of many species, either that or they simply don’t care and a 1999 study demonstrated that recreation was the main reason for visits to the zoo, rather than an educational experience (Turley, 1999). The study concluded that visitors wanted to ‘see and enjoy animals’, rather than understand them.

Of course entertainment and education can be linked, but studies on the proportion of time that visitors spend at exhibits indicate that visitors learn very little at the zoo.

Signage is often poor, offering little useful information and it has been stated that animals are viewed briefly and in rapid succession; people tend to concentrate on so called ‘babies and beggars’ (Ludwig 1981), in other words, the cute and funny.

If zoos teach anything, they teach us a sad and dangerous lesson. They teach us that humans have the right to enslave other animals.

183


caged lives Zoos teach us to not respect individual sentient beings, and paint a false picture of habitats and ecosystems by displaying mainly charismatic mammalian megafauna i.e. large animal species with widespread popular appeal (Hancocks, 1995).

Animals in zoos, like humans in prison, develop mental problems. So what useful lesson does the observation of animals carrying out disturbed and often bizarre behaviours teach us? Surely only how animals should not be acting or how they should not be living, and provides further evidence that holding animals captive for their entire life is simply wrong.

Even the zoo apologist, Emily Hahn, admits that “the wild animal in conditions of captivity is bound to alter in nature and cease being the creature we want to see� (Hahn, 1967).

184


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

5.1. Investigation findings Investigators analysed the signage at the zoos to determine whether the facilities had made any meaningful effort to educate visitors, as zoos often use this as a reason for their existence. Animal Equality referred to the SMZP bare minimum guidelines (2004), namely that the signage should include the animal’s common name, scientific name; biological details and natural habitat.

5.1.1.Signage: condition Overall, signage was present for 94% of the species being held within exhibits visited by Animal Equality. Barcelona Zoo, Bioparc, Cordoba Zoo, Madrid Zoo and Zoobotanico Jerez displayed signage for each species within the exhibits visited. Signage was present for 97% of the species in exhibits at Castellar Zoo, 81% in exhibits at Seville Zoo and just 77% in exhibits at Rio Safari Park. The physical condition of the signage varied considerably amongst the zoos, however Castellar Zoo (Fig. 123-124), Rio Safari Park and Seville Zoo (Fig. 122) displayed signs that were weathered, dilapidated, illegible, containing irrelevant information or placed at inappropriate locations.

185


caged lives

Figure 123: The signage at Castellar Zoo was so filthy and dilapidated it was barely readable.

186

Figure 124: This sign (on the left the image) at Castellar Zoo was ignored by all visitors observed at the exhibit.


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

5.1.2.Signage: quality Signage was displayed for 94% of the species held within exhibits visited by Animal Equality.

Madrid Zoo The signage at Madrid Zoo included the correct species common name (in English), the correct scientific name, information on the natural habitat and the biological characteristics. Most signs were in reasonable condition.

Rio Safari Park Rio Safari Park displayed correct information in Spanish language but only in very poor English language (Fig. 125-127). For example, the zoo named the Rosey faced lovebird (also known as the Peach-faced Lovebird), ‘the very inseparable with peach colour face’. The zoo clearly had made little attempt to translate the signs correctly.

187


caged lives

Figure 125-126 (opposite): The poor translation of language on signage at Rio Safari Park.

188


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 127: Signage for the Ring-tailed lemurs displays incorrect information in poor English.

189


caged lives

190


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

5.2 Educational programmes Whilst seven of the nine zoos (Madrid Zoo, Barcelona Zoo, Bioparc, Cordoba Zoo, Zobotanico Jerez, Rio Safari Park and Seville Zoo) visited offered guided tours, educational talks and/or workshops, Animal Equality found no compelling evidence that any of the zoos placed education at the top of their priorities.

Castellar Zoo did not offer any guided tours, workshops or educational talks. Rio Safari Park states on its literature that the animal shows are for educational purposes. The zoo also offers the opportunity for young visitors to feed and touch the goats, and watch the carnivores being fed. There is a classroom available for students at the zoo though it appeared not to be in use during the investigation.

At Barcelona Zoo, there is also an area dedicated to Snowflake, the Western lowland albino gorilla who was captured from the wild, purchased by the zoo and subsequently died in 2003. Jane Goodall was quoted on the walls of the exhibition and on display leaflets.

Opposite page Figure 128: The 'face-to-face' encounter with dolphins offered at Madrid Zoo.

191


caged lives As part of its educational programme, Madrid Zoo offers ‘face-to-face’ encounters with dolphins (Fig. 128). The zoo also offers an opportunity for visitors to enter into the lemur and wallaby exhibits with an educator and keeper, and a ‘diving with sharks experience’ for visitors with diving qualifications.

Rio Safari Park offers dolphin assisted therapy (DAT), where the visitor is led to believe that the dolphin is the key therapeutic agent in the process. Studies analysing the scientific validity of DAT have showed that these programs are based on highly-flawed methods, and there is no evidence for the claim that DAT is effective treatment (e.g. Marino and Lilienfeld, 2007).

192


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

5.3 Zoo farm Whilst the investigation focused predominately on wild animals held within the zoos, investigators also visited the Barcelona Zoo farm which holds several domestic animals, such as a Percheron horse, a cow and Gabon goats. There were also several tanks (dimension, 5 x 3.75 ft.) containing domestic and wild rabbits, ‘pet’ and wild guinea pigs, fish, ‘lab’ (house) mice, ‘white’ and ‘sewer’ (brown) rats, and field mice. Aside from the tiny bare tanks that the animals were forced to live in, the information displayed on the tanks was at best derogatory.

For example: Field mouse – ‘We’re supper for night time birds of prey’. “Sewer rat” – ‘Unwanted but necessary’. Domestic rabbit – ‘An important element of Mediterranean cooking’ (Fig. 129)

Perhaps the most disturbing sight was a tank housing mice that displayed a backdrop featuring a white-coated scientist (Fig. 130) and the messages: ‘scientists need us’ and; ‘they no longer carry diseases because we cure them’

Investigators also found dead baby mice in one of the tanks. These animals were later removed by a zoo worker. This was captured on film.

193


caged lives

Figure 129: Barcelona Zoo. A small tank holding a rabbit with an information sign stating that these animals are an important part of Mediterranean cooking.

194


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 130: Mice in small cages at Barcelona Zoo with the message that ‘Scientists need us’ and ‘They no longer carry diseases because we cure them’.

195


caged lives

196


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

6. Animal exhibits 6.1 Primate exhibits FAMILY: CERCOPITHECIDAE.

SOOTY MANGABEY Genus: Cercocebus.

Opposite page Figure 131: Barcelona Zoo is Coordinator of the EEP for the Whitecrowned mangabey, yet the animals themselves live in this small, barren exhibit.

197


caged lives Rio Safari Park Sooty mangabey: Exhibit dimension, 20 x 37.5 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete substrate. Painted walls. Ladder. Glass barrier. Ropes. No food or water observed. Low wood stand-off barrier.

Barcelona Zoo White-crowned mangabey (sub-species of the Sooty mangabey): Exhibit dimension, 20 x 37.5 ft. Seven animals observed. Earth substrate. Dirty, stagnant water moat (15 x 12.5 ft.). Attached den (no access). Ropes. Large logs. Raised platform. Solid, tiled wall. No food observed. Barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Barcelona Zoo coordinates the European Endangered species Programme (EEP) for the White-crowned mangabey, yet the well-being of individuals appears of little concern. The space provided to the Sooty mangabeys is too small to allow the animals to exhibit normal arboreal-type and ground behaviours. Yet foraging and climbing are important for this active primate, who also has a large home range.

Neither of the exhibits at Rio Safari Park or Barcelona Zoo exploits the available vertical space, though ladders and ropes do facilitate some brachiating. The barriers are in good shape and prevent visitors banging on the glass front of the exhibit at Rio Safari Park, however barriers at both exhibits would not prevent visitors climbing over.

198


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

The substrate in each exhibit is a concrete/gunite-type material that does not allow for foraging behaviour. This hard, flat surface is boring for animals and can be physically damaging.

There are no shelters or privacy areas for the animals to retreat from public view, or the view of conspecifics, and visitor are able to view the animals from all sides at Barcelona Zoo.

199


caged lives

Figure 132: The Colobus exhibit at Madrid Zoo.

200

Figure 133: The forest canopy is replaced by prepared timber wooden beams at Madrid Zoo. There is little opportunity for climbing or brachiating.


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

BLACK AND WHITE COLOBUS MONKEY Genus: Colobus.

Madrid Zoo Black and white colobus monkey: Exhibit dimension, 22.5 x 30 ft. Three animals observed. Swings. Ropes. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Raised platform. No food or water observed. Glass barrier with steel mesh at the top. Solid wall stand-off barrier.

Investigators observed the animals lying listlessly on the wooden beams at the top of the exhibit, which is the only area that allows in fresh air (through steel mesh).

201


caged lives The Colobus monkey does not have a large home range, yet the exhibit at Madrid Zoo is too small, and not high or wide enough to permit the animal to perform species appropriate behaviours such as climbing or brachiating – which are so important for a highly arboreal animal.

The barriers would not prevent visitors from climbing over, though they are in good shape, and do not reach around the entire exhibit. Visitors were observed banging forcibly on the glass.

The surrounding glass barrier also does not provide the animals with an opportunity to retreat from the view of visitors.

202


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

RHESUS, BARBARY AND JAPANESE MACAQUE Genus: Macaca.

203


caged lives

Castellar Zoo Rhesus macaque: Cage exhibit dimension, 17.5 x 15 ft. Three animals observed. Earth substrate. Branches. Logs. Mature living trees. No food present. Water present. Steel mesh barrier. Broken stand-off barrier. Barbary macaque: Exhibit dimension, 20 x 15 ft. Seven animals observed. Sand substrate. No food or water observed. Unreinforced, dirty, broken glass barrier and stone wall. No stand-off barrier.

204


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Japanese macaque: Exhibit dimension, 20 x 12.5 ft. Ten animals observed. Concrete/gunite-type material substrate. Swing perch. Den with access. No food or water observed. Stone wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

The macaque exhibits at Castellar Zoo are deficient in all respects and many of the animals housed in them were suffering from severe hair loss, which was particularly severe on the Barbary macaques, who were in very poor bodily condition. This is likely to be the consequence of living in such a cramped, overcrowded and barren environment. The animals appeared uninterested in their surroundings. The exhibit do not stimulate the animals physically or mentally. The Rhesus macaque cage features a broken dilapidated steel mesh barrier and the Barbary macaque is housed behind broken, unreinforced glass. Visitors were observed banging on the glass as there is no stand-off barrier.

Barcelona Zoo Barbary macaque: Exhibit dimension 25 x 12.5 ft. Two animals observed. Earth and leaf substrate. Raised platforms. Large tree stumps. Large logs. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Hammock. Plastic ball. Mature living trees. No food or water observed. Glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

205


caged lives

206


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 135: Castellar Zoo. The Barbary macaque exhibit with a broken, filthy, unreinforced glass barrier. Animals were observed with severe hair loss, which is a sign of stress and boredom.

Opposite page Figure 134: The dilapidated Rhesus macaque cage at Castellar Zoo.

207


caged lives Seville Zoo Japanese

macaque:

Cage

exhibit

dimension,

33.5 x 33.5 ft. Three animals observed. Concrete/gunitetype material substrate. Wooden shelter. Raised platform. Wooden shelter facing visitors. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Hanging tyres. Ropes. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier.

The space provided by the zoos for the macaques is small and only Seville Zoo provides a privacy area for the animals to retreat from the view of the public and conspecifics, although this can not accommodate all animals at the same time and does not contain any bedding material (Fig. 137).

Each of the macaque exhibits is barren. Macaques are foraging species yet the Japanese macaque exhibits at both Castellar Zoo and Seville Zoo (Fig. 136-137) contain substrates of a hard concrete/gunite-type material. In the Japanese macaque exhibits, beams have been provided, presumably so the public are able see the animals at eye level. No other meaningful meaningful climbing apparatus is provided, rendering the rest of the available vertical space unusable.

Stereotypic behaviour was observed being carried out by several macaques at the zoos. Furnishing, where present, consists mainly of prepared and unprepared timber, and dead trees. Live vegetation was absent in all exhibits.

208


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Japanese macaques would sleep in trees in their natural environment (Gron, 2007) yet are unable to even perch above the eye-level of visitors at the zoos. There are hanging tyres and ropes available for the Japanese macaques at Seville Zoo, only prepared timber at Castellar Zoo and the Barbary macaques at Castellar Zoo have no furnishing except a scattering of dead branches lying on the floor. Several of the individuals observed at Castellar Zoo were suffering from severe hair loss.

The barriers on the Japanese, Rhesus and Barbary macaque exhibits at Castellar Zoo are broken and dilapidated, and there are no stand-off barriers present to prevent public contact with the animals. Visitors were observed banging on the glass barrier at the Barbary macaque exhibits at Castellar Zoo and Barcelona Zoo.

209


caged lives

Figure 136: The barren and overcrowded Japanese macaque exhibit at Castellar Zoo.

210


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 137: Japanese macaque exhibit at Seville Zoo where the animals have little privacy and live on a hard concrete/gunite-type material.

211


caged lives

212


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

MANDRILL Genus: Mandrillus.

Barcelona Zoo Mandrill: Exhibit dimension, 30 x 20 ft. Five animals observed (including one adult male). Earth substrate. Large logs. Hammock. Small trees, shrubs and high grasses. Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Castellar Zoo Mandrill: Immersion Exhibit dimension, 35 x 35 ft. Two animals observed. Earth substrate. Water pool and Opposite page Figure 138: Emersion Mandrill exhibit at Castellar Zoo.

waterfall. Rock pile structure. Large Logs. No food or water observed. Stone wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

213


caged lives The Mandrill exhibits at both zoos are small and the animals housed there are unable to undertake normal arboreal-type and ground behaviours. The exhibits provide little space for the animals to feel secure in, which is particularly important for a shy, forest-dwelling species. At Castellar Zoo, visitors are able to walk through the exhibit (Fig. 138) which reduces the animals’ space and privacy and there is no stand-off barrier, which means that visitors can bang on the glass.

The Mandrill is a climbing species, yet there is little in the way of climbing opportunity at both zoos. The substrate at Barcelona Zoo allows for some foraging behaviour, but at Barcelona Zoo, the vast majority of the substrate is a flat, concrete/gunite-type material.

Barcelona Zoo provides a hammock, large trees and foliage, but only in the centre of the exhibit which means that the animals have few places to retreat from public view, and scarce shelter from the elements.

214


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 139: The Mandrill exhibit at Barcelona Zoo. A barren and exposed home for this shy animals.

215


caged lives

216


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

DRILL Genus: Mandrillus.

Barcelona Zoo Drill: Exhibit dimension, 55 ft. circumference. Five animals observed. Concrete substrate. Large logs and tree stumps. Ropes/swings. Raised platforms. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Solid tiled wall barrier. Low wood fence and vegetation stand-off barrier.

There is little floor space available for the Drills at Barcelona Zoo and poor use of the available vertical space which means that the animals cannot move freely and exercise. The concrete/gunite-type material substrate does not allow for foraging behaviour and the topography is entirely flat. The ropes and large logs and rocks allow some climbing opportunity but not enough for a rainforestOpposite page Figure 140: The small, barren Drill exhibit at Barcelona Zoo.

dwelling species. There is insufficient shelter and privacy in the exhibit to enable the animals to remove themselves from the view of the public, conspecifics or the elements.

217


caged lives VERVET MONKEY Genus: Chlorocebus.

Seville Zoo Vervet monkey: Hexagon cage exhibit dimension, 75 ft. circumference. Three animals observed. Concrete substrate. Branches. Large logs. Wooden beams (prepared timber). Ropes. Ropes. Dilapidated, artificial structure for sleeping. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier. Danger sign.

Castellar Zoo Vervet monkey: Cage exhibit dimension, 12.5 x 12.5 ft. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Vegetation. Broken swing perch. Rocks. No food or water observed. Steel wall and steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier.

218


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

Figure 141: Visitors at Seville Zoo can view the Vervet monkeys from all sides of the cage. These animals never get any peace.

animalEQUALITY

Rio Safari Park Vervet monkey: Hexagon cage exhibit dimension, 37.5 ft. circumference. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Wooden beams (prepared timber). Ropes. Rope hammock. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier. The Vervet monkey cages at the three zoos are small and poorly equipped for these active primates. At two of the zoos - Castellar Zoo (Fig. 142) and Rio Safari Park (Fig. 143), the animals were living alone yet in the wild would live in large groups. The solitary animal at Rio Safari Park was neurotic and observed pulling at tail and fore-arm hair.

219


caged lives

Figure 142: A dilapidated Vervet monkey cage at Castellar Zoo, which is typical of the sub-standard living conditions observed at this facility.

Opposite page

Figure 143: The Vervet cage at Rio Safari Park. Located adjacently to the loud speakers used during sea lion shows. The solitary animal was observed chewing tail and fore-arm hair.

220


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

221


caged lives

222


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

BABOON Genus: Papio.

Seville Zoo Olive baboon. Hexagon cage exhibit dimension, 50 ft. circumference. One animal observed. Concrete substrate. Water bowl. Food bowl. Raised platform. Nest box. Steel mesh barrier. Food and water observed. Stand-off barrier. Figure 144: This baboon leads an excruciatingly boring life in solitary confinement at Seville Zoo, and may live up to 45 years in this cage. The animal had been ‘rescued’ by authorities according to an information sign.

Danger sign. The animal was living in solitary confinement (Fig. 144) and he had no interest in its surroundings, was slouched lifelessly on the ground and could be held in the cage for up to 45 years.

223


caged lives

Figure 145: Castellar Zoo. The dilapidated Olive baboon cage.

Castellar Zoo Olive baboon: Cage exhibit dimension, 25 x 20 ft. Four animals observed. Earth substrate. Logs. Wooden beams and perches (prepared timber). Hanging tyres. Attached den with access. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier. There is an information sign informing the public that there had been a recent birth, which is alarming given the space available for these animal (Fig. 145).

224


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Madrid Zoo Pit exhibit dimension, 80 x 50 ft. with 10 ft. dry moat. Over 100 baboons (including juveniles) observed. Concrete substrate. Large logs. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Concrete ledges. Attached dens (no access). Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier. The water bowl was placed on the floor, and could easily be knocked over by the animal.

The pit-style exhibit is a totally unsuitable living environment. It is overcrowded, barren, poorly drained and, as a consequence, waterlogged (Fig. 146-147). Visitors are able to view the animals from above and were observed throwing food down into the exhibit. The substrate was littered with plastic bottles, items of clothing, etc.

Baboons housed in this overcrowded exhibit were displaying acts of aggression towards conspecifics and there was evidence of fighting amongst eachother as many individuals had open sores and abrasions. There is little species-appropriate furnishing that allows animals to undertake normal behaviour, and little privacy for the animals to retreat from eachother and the public.

225


caged lives

Figure 146-147: Madrid Zoo. The concrete and barren Baboon exhibit.

226


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

227


caged lives FAMILY: CALLITRICHIDAE

MARMOSET Genus: Callithrix.

228


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Zoobotanico Jerez White-fronted marmoset: Cage dimension, 18.5 x 12.5 ft. One animal observed. Wood chip and grass substrate. Ropes. Logs and branches with intact bark. Rocks. Wooden perches (natural). Mature living trees. Attached dens (no access). No food or water observed. Steel mesh and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Cordoba Zoo White tufted-ear marmoset: Cage exhibit dimension, 18.5 x 12.5 ft. One animal observed. Gravel and concrete substrate. Ropes. Branches. Nest boxes. Ladders. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Wood fence standoff barrier.

229


caged lives TAMARIN Genus: Saguinus.

Zoobotanico Jerez Emperor tamarin: Cage dimension, 18.5 x 20 ft. Five animals observed. Wood chip and grass substrate. Ropes. Logs and branches with intact bark. Rocks. Wooden perches (natural). Mature living trees. Attached dens (no access). No food or water observed. Steel mesh and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Zoobotanico Jerez Cotton-top tamarin: Cage dimension, 18.5 x 20 ft. Five animals observed. Wood chip and grass substrate. Ropes. Logs and branches with intact bark. Rocks. Wooden perches (natural). Mature living trees. Attached dens (no access). No food or water observed. Steel mesh and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

230


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

GEOLDIS MARMOSET Genus: Callimico.

Zoobotanico Jerez Goeldi’s monkey: dimension, 18.5 x 20 ft. Five animals observed. Wood chip and grass substrate. Ropes. Logs and branches with intact bark. Rocks. Wooden perches (natural). Mature living trees. Attached dens (no access). No food or water observed. Steel mesh and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

231


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: CEBIDAE

SQUIRREL MONKEY Genus: Saimiri.

Cordoba Zoo Golden-backed squirrel monkey: Cage exhibit dimension, 18.5 x 20 ft. Three animals observed. Gravel and concrete substrate. Mature living trees. Vegetation. Water present. Nest boxes. Ladders. Steel mesh barrier. No food or water observed. Steel fence stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 148: Cordoba Zoo. Small primate and bird cages where visitors were observed poking sticks at the animals. One Squirrel monkey was tail chewing.

233


caged lives CAPUCHIN Genus: Cebus.

Zoobotanico Jerez Weeper capuchin: Island exhibit dimension, 150 ft. circumference. Four animals observed. Earth substrate.

Opposite page

Rocks. Mature living trees. Shade shelter. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). No food or water observed. Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier.

234

Figure 149: Zoobotanico Jerez. The Weeper capuchin exhibit that offers little foraging opportunity for the animals housed there.


caged lives

Figure 140: The barren Capuchin cage at Castellar Zoo that provides a sensory-deprived environment for the animals housed there.

The Weeper capuchin exhibit at Zoobotanico Jerez is small with no varied topography. The zoo has clearly made little effort to compensate for this by, for example, providing species-specific furnishings. The beams are made of prepared timber and the ground offers little in the way of foraging opportunity.

There is a dilapidated nesting box that would not house all animals at one time and it contains no bedding material. The exhibit provides little privacy and visitors are able to view the animals from above and all sides.

236


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

The Tufted capuchin has been shown to have an average group size of around 17 (Fragaszy et al., 2004) and, in Peru, the species has a home range of 80 ha. (Terborgh, 1983).

Castellar Zoo Tufted Capuchin: Cage exhibit, 8 x 6 ft. Three animals observed. Earth substrate. Hanging tyre. Rocks. Ropes. Mature living trees. Logs. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier present.

The small exhibit at Castellar Zoo, like most other exhibits at the facility, is in a state of disrepair. The zoo has provided only a rope hammock, swings and a tyre as furnishing, and the cage is filthy dirty, cramped and dilapidated. The furnishing has been positioned in order for the public to view the animals at eye level. There is no live vegetation in the cage, no privacy and little foraging opportunity.

Visitors were observed feeding and touching the animals who were reaching out of the mesh for food and stimulation.

One animal had an open sore on the flank. There was a ‘danger’ sign and a sign asking visitors to keep a distance from the animals, though the gate was left wide open so visitors could walk through and feed the animals.

237


caged lives

238


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: HOMINIDAE

CHIMPANZEE Genus: Pan.

Zoobotanico Jerez Three animals observed. Earth substrate. Large tree stumps. Large rocks. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Mirror. Ropes. Attached den (no access). No food and water observed. Glass (broken) and steel mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Seville Zoo Exhibit dimension, 70 x 37.5 ft. One animal observed (female). Grass substrate. Childrens playground furniture (bench, swing, slide and climbing frame). Attached den (12.5 x 20 ft.). Wooden beams (prepared timber). No food or water observed. Dirty, unreinforced glass and steel mesh barrier. Danger sign.

Rio Safari Park Square exhibit dimension, 27.5 x 37.5 ft. Three animals observed. Concrete/gunite-type material substrate. Raised platform. Open barred roof top. Ladder. Ropes. Hay. No food or water observed. Unreinforced glass barrier. Low wood stand-off barrier.

239


caged lives

Figure 151: The Chimpanzee exhibit at Zoobotanico Jerez which houses these understimulated animals.

240


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 152: The Chimpanzee exhibit at Seville Zoo. A solitary animal, ‘Gina’, lives here. Her exhibit is ‘designed to replicate a children’s playground.

241


caged lives

Figure 153-154: The Chimpanzees at Rio Safari Park live in small, barren, glass-fronted exhibits which display an information sign stating the zoo has breeding and environmental enrichment programmes.

242


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Bioparc Exhibit dimension, 73.5 ft. Five animals observed (including one juvenile). Grass substrate. Rock shelter. Rocks. Large tree stumps. Overhead bridge with perspex viewing. Solid rock wall with inside dens. No food or water observed.

Low

rock

and

wood

fence

barrier.

No stand-off barrier.

Chimpanzees are highly intelligent creatures capable of complex social behaviors, such as tool use. Social by nature, they suffer greatly when housed alone. It is disturbing that ‘Gina’ is forced to live in solitary confinement at Seville Zoo in an exhibit designed to replicate a children’s playground (Fig. 152). This exhibit is grossly deficient in many respects.

The other chimpanzee exhibits are undersized, barren cages that provide a sub-standard, sensory deprived environments. None of the animals are able to climb and the Chimpanzees at Rio Safari park live essentially in a bare room.

None of the chimpanzees observed in any of the zoos appeared interested in their environment. The animals at Bioparc were suffering from hair loss and there is a concerning lack of any meaningful barrier at this facility.

243


caged lives FAMILY: HYLOBATIDAE

GIBBON Genus: Hylobates.

Madrid Zoo Grey gibbon: Exhibit dimension, 22.5 x 30 ft. Two animals observed. Swings. Ropes. Raised platform. No food or water observed. Steel mesh and glass barrier. Solid wall stand-off barrier.

244


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: LEMURIDAE

LEMUR Genus: Varecia, Eulemur and Lemur.

Zoobotanico Jerez Black and white ruffed lemur: Pit exhibit dimension, 62.5 x 27.5 ft. Eleven animals observed. Concrete substrate. Large logs. Ropes. Wire mesh protected trees. Mature living trees. Large tree stumps. Attached den (no access). Carrots strewn across the floor. No water observed. Wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Seville Zoo Black and white ruffed lemur: Exhibit dimension, 32.5 x 20 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete substrate. Ropes/swings. Artificial shelter structure. Wooden beams (prepared timber). No water observed. Food observed in bowl. Corrugated iron and steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier.

245


caged lives

246


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 156: Visitors are encouraged into the Ring-tailed lemur exhibit at Castellar Zoo.

Castellar Zoo Ring-tailed lemur: Exhibit dimension, 32.5 x 15 ft. Six animals observed. Concrete substrate. Rocks. Branches. Water present. No food or water observed. Wall and steel Opposite page

mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier.

Figure 155: Zoobotanico Jerez. Lemurs are highly arboreal and in their natural environment would live in trees.

247


caged lives Rio Safari Park Ring-tailed lemur: Cage exhibit dimension, 37.5 x 47.5 ft. Nine animals observed. Hay and gravel substrate. Ropes/swings. Artificial structure shelter. Feed log. Raised platform. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Low metal bar stand-off barrier.

Madrid Zoo Black and white ruffed lemur: Exhibit dimension, 212.5 ft. circumference. Four animals observed (including one juvenile). Earth substrate. Large logs. Large tree stumps. Plastic ball. Attached den. Shade structure. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Glass and wood barrier. No Stand-off barrier.

All of the lemur exhibits are small and barren. None make use of vertical space and furnishing consists of large logs lying strewn on the ground. The concrete substrate at Zoobotanico Jerez, Seville Zoo and Castellar Zoo means that the animals cannot forage and there is no live vegetation in the cages. The trunks of trees are protected by wire mesh.

At Castellar Zoo, visitors were encouraged by a keeper to enter the exhibit to take photographs of the animals. The animals at Castellar Zoo have no shelter within the cage, which further reduces the animals’ privacy.

248


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 157: Madrid Zoo. The Ruffed lemur exhibit with poor use of vertical space.

249


caged lives

250


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

6.2 Large mammal exhibits FAMILY: ELEPHANTIDAE

ELEPHANT Genus: Loxodonta (African elephant) and Elephas (Asian elephant).

251


caged lives

Barcelona Zoo African elephant: Sand and gravel substrate. Wire protected mature living trees. Sand mounds. Iron poles. Large rocks. Water pool (9 x 7 ft.) in one of the exhibits. Visitor viewing at two levels. No water observed. Empty hay troughs. Electric (hot) wire barrier. Stand-off barrier. One animal observed dimension,198 x 62 ft. One animal observed dimension,120 x 62 ft.

252

(‘Yo

Yo’):

(‘Susie’):

Paddock

exhibit

Paddock

exhibit


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Bioparc African elephant: Paddock exhibit dimension, 167.5 ft. Six animals observed. Earth and concrete substrate. Water pool. Large rocks. Artificial shade structures. Mature living trees. No food or water observed. Low wood fence and rock barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Cordoba Zoo Asian elephant: Paddock exhibit dimension, 175 x 87.5 ft. One animal observed (female). Earth substrate. Water pool (dimension, 50 ft.). Large logs. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Stone wall and water moat barrier. Low wood and metal fence stand-off barrier.

Rio Safari Park Asian Elephant: Paddock exhibit dimension, 402.5 ft. circumference. One animal observed. Sand and earth substrate. Landscape/earth mounds. Rocks. Hanging tyres. Mature living trees. Attached den (62.5 ft. in length). Water pool.

No food observed. Bar barrier. No stand-

off barrier.

Madrid Zoo Asian Elephant: Paddock exhibit dimension, 420 ft. circumference. Three animals observed. Earth substrate. Large rocks. Attached den. Water pool. No food observed. Electric fence barrier. Wood fence stand-off barrier.

253


caged lives

Figure 158: The Barcelona zoo African elephant exhibit.

Zoobotanico Jerez African elephant: Dry moated paddock exhibit dimension, 150 x 92.5 ft. One animal observed (female). Concrete substrate. Shallow water pool (35 x 20 ft.). Wire protected mature living trees. Attached den. No food or water observed. Electric wire and low solid wall barrier. Metal fence stand-off barrier.

254


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 159: Cordoba Zoo exhibit holding a solitary elephant.

The elephant exhibits are far too small. There is no complexity to the environment and no provision to make for a varied habitat. No elephants have access to a pool that is large enough for them to bathe in and mitigate the effects of the summer heat.

255


caged lives At Barcelona Zoo, the two elephants (‘Yo Yo’ and ‘Susie’) were observed performing abnormal behaviours, likely to be motivated by long periods of frustration and boredom in such a cramped, barren environment. ‘Yo Yo’ was also showing signs of lameness as she had an uneven gait.

At Zoobotanico Jerez, the elephant was begging for food over the low barrier, and visitors were observed climbing over it to feed the animal.

The animals do not have access to privacy areas, and visitors are able to view the animals from all sides of the exhibits.

The elephant at Zoobotanico Jerez lives in solitude, as do the elephants at Rio Safari Park and Cordoba Zoo. The elephant at Rio Safari Park (‘Babaty’) is used for performances, and according to the trainer, “prefers to live alone”.

The keepers at Cordoba Zoo informed investigators that they are looking to purchase another elephant to breed from. This is alarming as the zoo does not have the space for even one elephant.

Opposite page Figure 160-161: Zoobotanic Jerez elephant reaching over barrier and begging for food from visitors.

256


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

257


caged lives

258


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: BOVIDAE

EUROPEAN BISON Genus: Bison.

Zoobotanico Jerez Exhibit dimension, 62.5 x 27.5 ft. One animal observed (male). Concrete and earth substrate. Bamboo protected mature living trees. Hay trough. No water observed. Shade structure. Solid wall and wire mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Rio Safari Park Opposite page

Paddock exhibit dimension, 127.5 x 150 ft. Three animals observed. Earth substrate. Shade structure. Attached den.

Figure 162: The barren Bison exhibit at Rio Safari Park. Figure 163: The European bison is a herd animal, yet this animal lives in solitary confinement at Zoobotanico Jerez.

Hay troughs. Metal bar barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Both exhibits are undersized (the exhibit at Zoobotanico Jerez particularly so), and do not allow for the expression of species-typical movements and behaviours.

259


caged lives Whilst there is greater space availability for the Bison at Rio Safari Park, the topography of the exhibit is flat and the environment barren (Fig. 162). These Bison have more space than the animal at Zoobotanico Jerez, as well as the company of conspecifics, however there is no live vegetation and so no browsing opportunity.

The small space available for the Bison housed at Zoobotanico Jerez prevents the animal from any meaningful physical exercise and the exhibit is devoid of furniture, apparatus and refuge to allow animal to rest, hide and express natural behaviours (Fig. 163-164).

The exhibit is deficient in many respects. The animal appeared lethargic and uninterested in the surroundings.

260


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 164: The European bison is a herd animal, yet this animal lives in solitary confinement at Zoobotanico Jerez.

261


caged lives

262


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: HIPPOPOTAMIDAE

HIPPOPOTOMUS Genus: Hippopotamus.

Barcelona Zoo Walkway and visitor cafĂŠ area separating two exhibits. Dirty, stagnant water pools. Wire protected mature living tree. No food or water observed. Low metal fence stand-off Opposite page Figure 165: The concrete hippopotamus exhibit at Barcelona Zoo. This animal is considered one of the most dangerous on earth, yet there is no meaningful barrier seperating animals and visitors. The animals are unable to completely submerge themselves in the shallow pools.

barrier. Sign stating that the exhibit is under construction.

Exhibit dimension, 150 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete/gunite-type material substrate. No food observed. Water pool. Exhibit dimension, 150 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete/gunite-type material substrate. No food observed. Water pool.

263


caged lives Cordoba Zoo Exhibit dimension, 62.5 x 52.5 ft. One animal observed. Concrete substrate. Dirty, stagnant water pool (50% of exhibit). Large rocks. Mature living trees. Attached den. No food or water observed. Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Zoobotanico Jerez Exhibit dimension, 60 x 60 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete substrate. Dirty, stagnant water pool (50% of exhibit). Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Solid wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Bioparc Exhibit dimension, outside area 75 x 75 ft. and inside area 75 x 75 ft. One animal observed. Sand substrate. Rocks. Dirty, stagnant water pool. No food or water observed. Glass barrier. Low metal fence stand-off barrier

264


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 166: The concrete hippopotamus exhibits at Barcelona Zoo. This animal is considered one of the most dangerous on earth, yet there is no meaningful barrier between the animals and visitors. The animals are unable to completely submerge themselves in the shallow pools.

265


caged lives At Barcelona Zoo, Cordoba Zoo and Zoobotanico Jerez, the topography of the hippopotomus exhibits are uniform and no earth or grass is provided for digging and grazing. The exhibits are small and the animals are forced to stand on hard, concrete substrates.

There are no accessible shelters to provide protection from the elements, or to enable the animals to retreat from the view of the public and the view of conspecifics.

Visitors are able to view the animals from all sides of the exhibits, and at Barcelona, from the cafĂŠ area which runs through the exhibit.

The exhibits are barren of any permanent furniture or features, aside from the stagnant and dirty shallow pools which the animals are not able to fully submerge in. At Barcelona Zoo there is an inappropriately low barrier separating the animals and visitors.

266


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 167: The small, barren, concrete hippopotamus exhibit at Zoobotanico Jerez.

267


caged lives

268


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

PYGMY HIPPOPOTOMUS Genus: Choeropsis.

Rio Safari Park Pygmy hippopotamus: Paddock exhibit dimension, 105 x 137.5 ft. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Attached den. Mature living trees. Water pool. Den. Hay pile. No food observed. Bar barrier. No stand-off barrier. Opposite page Figure 168-169: The Pygmy hippopotomus exhibit at Rio Safari Park. The animal would normally spend the day in water and possibly in a small group. The only water provided by the zoo is a small and stagnent, shallow pool.

269


caged lives

270


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: RHINOCEROTIDAE

SOUTHERN WHITE RHINOCEROS Genus: Ceratotherium.

Bioparc Southern white rhinoceros: Paddock exhibit dimension, 375 x 190 ft. Four Rhinoceros observed, three Zebra, Common errand, Ostrich and Marabu. Sand substrate. Mature living trees. Rock pile. Water pool. No food or water observed. Rock barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Madrid Zoo Southern white rhinoceros: Paddock exhibit dimension, 132.5 x 35 ft. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Mature living trees. Small, shallow water pool (20 x 5 ft.). No food observed. Wood fence barrier. Wood fence Opposite page

stand-off barrier.

Figure 170: The solitary White rhinoceros at Barcelona Zoo.

271


caged lives At Madrid Zoo, the two Southern white Rhinoceros exhibits are deficient in many respects and one of the animals lives in solitude. White rhinoceroses have a gregarious nature (Fouraker and Wagener, 1996).

These wide-ranging animals have little space to perform normal behaviours such as running or browsing, and live in barren exhibits devoid of any meaningful furnishing. There are no deep wallowing pools or scratching posts. There is no access to a retreat area in either exhibit and the animals are in full public view from all sides.

Carlstead and Brown (2005) found that stress levels were highest in Rhinoceroses housed in exhibits that allowed full visitor viewing around each perimeter. This suggests that the presence of humans is stressful for Rhinoceroses in captivity, especially when there is no opportunity to hide.

The barriers separating animals from visitors are low at the zoos. There is a sign displayed on one of the exhibits stating that the zoo had artificially inseminated the white rhino and a male calf had been born (apparently the third in the world born by artificial insemination at a zoo).

272


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 171: At Madrid Zoo, this Southern white rhinoceros lives alone in a barren exhibit that offers little sensory stimulation. The Rhinoceros is an active, intelligent animal yet only a hanging traffic cone and plastic barrel are offered to keep the animal occupied.

273


caged lives Barcelona Zoo Southern white rhinoceros: Paddock exhibit dimension, 160 x 42.5 ft. One animal observed (male). Earth substrate. Wire protected trees. Large rocks. Hanging tyre. Attached den (no access). Glass and rock barrier. No food or water observed. No stand-off barrier.

The Rhinoceros exhibit at Barcelona Zoo is small, barren, and does not allow for the expression of species-typical movements and behaviours.

The animal is also inappropriately housed alone. Visitors can observe the rhinoceros from all sides of the exhibit. The animal is sensory deprived and there are no rubbing posts or scratching surfaces, no meaningful wallows, pools or sand pits. The animal was observed performing stereotypic horn rubbing. Horn rubbing against abrasive objects is a common behavioural abnormality observed in rhinoceros in captivity (Fouraker and Wagener, 1996).

274


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

INDIAN RHINOCEROS Genus: Rhinoceros.

Madrid Zoo Indian Rhinoceros: Earth substrate. Wire and wood protected mature living trees. Small, stagnant, shallow water pools. Large logs. Large rocks. Attached dens (no access). No food or water observed. Wet moat barrier. Metal fence stand-off barrier.

Paddock exhibit dimension, 125 x 102.5 ft. Water pool, 7.5 x 7.5 ft. One animal observed.

Paddock exhibit dimension, 102.5 x 102.5 ft. Water pool, 17.5 x 10 ft. One animal observed.

275


caged lives

276


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 172-173: Two Indian rhinoceroses housed separately at Madrid Zoo.

277


caged lives

278


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: URSIDAE

BROWN BEAR Genus: Ursus.

Cordoba Zoo Brown bear: No animals observed (Fig. 176-177). Concrete and grass substrate. Large logs. Large rocks. Large tree Opposite page Figure 174: Madrid Zoo European brown bear exhibit where animals were observed begging for food from visitors.

stumps and mature living trees. Attached dens (no access). No food or water observed. Solid stone wall and metal barrier. Low solid wall stand-off barrier.

279


caged lives The European brown bear exhibit at Cordoba Zoo has, according to signage and one of the keepers, been empty for at least three months whilst the animals have been “hibernating�. However, whilst some zoos encourage hibernation in colder climates (as a lack of annual hibernation with constant feeding and no exercise can lead to grossly obese bears), in hot climates, this is unusual. Investigators observed one of the animals in a squalid, algae-covered area behind the main exhibit (Fig. 178). Regardless of the reason that these animals were off-exhibit, this area is a wholly unsuitable environment and indicates a poor management at Cordoba Zoo.

Madrid Zoo European brown bear: Island exhibit dimension, 70 x 87.5 ft. Three animals observed. Concrete and earth substrate. Large rocks. Large logs. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Solid wall and metal fence barrier.

The exhibit is small and does not facilitate engagement in natural behaviours. The exhibit lacks sufficient and effective shelter. There is no access to water for the bears to submerge in for enjoyment and to mitigate the summer heat. The permanent furniture is typically minimal and simplistic, and consists of large rocks and wire-protected trees. The animals displayed abnormal stereotypic behaviours.

280


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Barcelona Zoo European brown bear: Concrete and earth substrate. Large logs. Large rocks. Attached dens (no access). Dirty, stagnant water moat and solid wall barrier. No food observed. No stand-off barrier.

Pit exhibit dimension, 87.5 x 27.5 ft. Two animals observed.

Pit exhibit dimension, 250 ft. circumference. One animal observed.

The exhibit is small and whilst some furniture is provided for the animals (i.e. large logs), there is little in the exhibit to keep these active animals occupied and so they appear to spend their time begging for food from visitors.

The animals are unable to view outside of the exhibit yet visitors can view the animals from all sides. The bears do not have any privacy or shelter. One of the bears is living in solitary confinement. Whilst the brown bear is generally solitary in the wild, in captivity these animals require companionship and should not be kept alone. One of the bears was also observed pacing.

281


caged lives

Figure 175: The barren, concrete European brown bear exhibit at Barcelona Zoo.

282


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 176-177: The European brown bear exhibit at Cordoba Zoo which apparently has lay empty for three months when the animals were, according to the zoo signage and an interview with the keepers, “hibernating”. Figure 178 however indicates this not to be accurate information.

283


caged lives

284


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 178: Investigators observed this animal in a squalid area behind the exhibit. The presence of food was just one indication that this animal was not “hibernating”.

285


caged lives

286


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

SUNBEAR Genus: Ursus.

Madrid Zoo Malaysian sunbear: Island exhibit dimension, 62.5 x 40 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete and earth substrate. Dirty, stagnant water pool (12.5 x 10 ft.). Large tree stumps. Attached den (no access). No food observed. Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 179: The small, barren space available to the Malaysian sunbears at Madrid Zoo.

The Sunbear exhibit is too small to allow for significant movement and normal behaviours. It lacks sufficient furniture and is ill-equipped for this wide-ranging, arboreal species. The substrate is a concrete/gunite-type material, which can damage the bears’ soft pads. The climbing structures provided by Madrid Zoo are insufficient and there is no browse or live vegetation in the exhibit for the bears to make nests with. The animals cannot retreat from public view or the view of each other, and are not afforded shelter from the elements. One of the bears was observed pacing and begging.

287


caged lives

288


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

SPECTACLED BEAR Genus: Tremarctos.

Madrid Zoo Spectacled

bear:

Island

exhibit

dimension,

50 x 42.5 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete and earth substrate. Dirty, stagnant water pool (10 x 10 ft.) Large tree stumps. Large logs. Attached den (no access). No food observed. Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier.

The Spectacled bear exhibit is small, the animals are in constant public view, and there is no access to a shelter or privacy during the daytime. The bears were lying listlessly on the ground, and not interested in their surroundings.

Opposite page Figure 180: The Spectacled bear exhibit at Madrid Zoo. The animals were suffering from hair loss on their forelimbs and other areas of their bodies.

289


caged lives

290


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

AMERICAN BLACK BEAR Genus: Ursus.

Madrid Zoo American black bear: Island exhibit dimension, 42.5 x 75 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete and earth substrate. Water pool (7.5 x 7.5 ft.). Large logs. Large tree stumps. Large rocks. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Metal and solid wall barrier. Stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 181: The American black bear exhibit at Madrid Zoo.

291


caged lives HIMALAYAN BLACK BEAR Genus: Ursus.

Madrid Zoo Asiatic black bear: Exhibit dimension, 30 x 102.5 ft. Four animals observed. Concrete and earth substrate. Water pool (7.5 x 7.5 ft.). Large logs. Large rocks. Large tree stumps. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Metal and solid wall barrier. Stand-off barrier.

292


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

GIANT PANDA Genus: Ailuropoda.

Madrid Zoo Exhibit dimension, 125 x 125 ft. in length. Grass substrate. Large log structure. Raised platforms. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Glass and metal (designed to replicate bamboo) fence barrier. No feeding sign.

In the cub den, there is a twin incubator (Fig 182-183). On the glass barrier there is a ‘no flash photography’ sign though visitors were observed ignoring this. There is also TV monitor so visitors can observe the incubator.

293


caged lives

Figure 192-193: The Giant panda incubator at Madrid Zoo.

There is a sign stating that the young will remain isolated for an undefined period of time. The mother panda (‘Hua Zui Ba’) was apparently artificially inseminated on 25 April 2010 with semen from the male panda, ‘Bing Xing’. Technical staff involved in this were staff from Madrid Zoo, the Center for Giant Panda Breeding in Chengdu, the Germplasm Bank of Endangered Wildlife, the National Museum of Natural Sciences (CSIC-MNCN), and the Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Madrid.

294


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

295


caged lives 6.3 Small mammal exhibits FAMILY: CAVIIDAE

PATAGONIA MARA Genus: Dolichotis.

Cordoba Zoo Patagonian mara: Exhibit dimension, 30 x 27.5 ft. Six animals observed. Earth substrate. Mature living trees. Artificial structure. No food or water observed. Wood fence barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Zoobotanico Jerez Patagonian mara: Exhibit dimension, 80 x 25 ft. Five animals observed. Earth substrate. Wire protected trees. Large logs. No food or water observed. Wire mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

296


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: TAYASSUIDAE

COLLARED PECKARY Genus: Pecari.

Cordoba Zoo Collared peccary: Exhibit dimension, 30 x 27.5 ft. Five animals observed. Mature living trees. Water pool. Large rocks. Den (no access). No food or water observed. Solid wall barrier. Broken, dilapidated wood fence stand-off barrier.

297


caged lives

298


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: CANIDAE

ALASKA WOLF Genus: Canis.

Madrid Zoo Alaska wolf. Exhibit dimension, 97.5 x 97.5 ft. Four animals observed. Earth substrate. Mature living trees. Rocks. Natural shelter. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Wood fence barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 184: The Alaska wolf exhibit at Madrid Zoo. The exhibit lacks shelter to mitigate the summer heat. These animals are adapted to much lower temperatures.

299


caged lives GRAY WOLF Genus: Canis.

Barcelona Zoo Gray wolf: Exhibit dimension, 125 x 50 ft. One elderly animal observed (female). Earth and grass substrate. Water pool (25% of exhibit). Landscaping mounds. Mature living trees. Small trees, shrubs and high grass. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

300


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

IBERIAN WOLF Genus: Canis.

Cordoba Iberian wolf: Paddock exhibit dimension, 137.5 x 150 ft. Five animals observed. Earth substrate. Rocks. Den. Mature living trees. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Low wooden post stand-off barrier.

Seville Zoo Iberian wolf: Paddock exhibit dimension, 150 x 150 ft. Two animals observed. Grass substrate. Mature living trees. Artificial shelter facing visitors. Chain-link barrier. Stand-off barrier. Inside den 20 ft. in length attached to the hyenas exhibit. Two animals observed.

Exhibit dimension, 60 x 37.5 ft. Two animals observed. Earth substrate. Corrugated iron den (no access). Steel mesh barrier. Rope stand-off barrier. The rope barrier didn’t reach all the way around and visitors could simply walk under it or around it to put their fingers in the exhibit (Fig. 185). Danger sign. Animals were observed rubbing against the mesh as they paced.

Exhibit dimension, 22.5 x 22.5 ft. Three animals observed. Pebble substrate. Dry water pool. Attached glass-fronted den. Dirty glass barrier. No stand-off barrier. All three animals were pacing (Fig. 188).

301


caged lives Zoobotanico Jerez Iberian wolf: Exhibit dimension, 87.5 x 27.5 ft. Two animals observed. Earth substrate. Attached den (12.5 ft. in length). Water pool. Small trees, shrubs and high grasses. No food or water observed. Wire mesh barrier. Wood fence stand-off barrier.

The dilapidated, small and barren wolf exhibits at Seville Zoo are of particular concern. The animals here were performing neurotic behaviour such as actively pacing and walking ‘figure-of-eights’ in short, tight, repetitive patterns. All of their exhibits are completely devoid of meaningful enrichment, live vegetation and species-specific furnishings.

Wolves have an excellent sense of smell and acute hearing and, at Seville Zoo at least, the animals are sensory deprived. These illusive animals have no way of removing themselves from the view of the public and conspecifics, no accessible shelters and visitors can come far too close to them. In fact, visitors are able to touch the wolves at one of the exhibits.

At Madrid Zoo, there is insufficient shelter to protect the animals from the elements. These animals are adapted to the temperatures of Alaska. Whilst it was difficult to view the coat and disposition the animals due to them being positioned at the far-end of the exhibit, it is possible that these animals would become heat stressed in the summer months.

302


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 185: Dilapidated and small wolf exhibits at Seville Zoo. Most of these animals were performing neurotic behaviours.

Overall, the wolves physical and mental (psychological) requirements are not being met.

A disturbing finding was two wolves locked inside an area adjacent to the hyena exhibit. One of these animals was clearly distressed.

303


caged lives

Figure 186-188: Dilapidated and small wolf exhibits at Seville Zoo. Most of these animals were performing neurotic behaviours.

304


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

305


caged lives

306


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 189: Zoobotanico Jerez. The wolves were performing stereotypic behaviour (pacing and figure of eight).

307


caged lives

308


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: MYOCASTORIDAE

COYPU Genus: Myocastor.

Barcelona Zoo Exhibit dimension, 35 x 25 ft. Approximately fifty animals observed. Concrete substrate. Dirty, stagnant water pool (50% of exhibit). Logs. Den. No food or water observed. Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 190: The Coypu exhibit is too small, and does not allow burrowing or foraging behaviours. The exhibit therefore is deficient in some important aspects.

The Coypu exhibit is barren and overcrowded. There is not enough space for each individual to exhibit normal movement or feel secure. The substrate is a concrete/ gunite-type material that does not permit burrowing or foraging – activities that would take up a large proportion of the day for this animal in the wild. There is no live vegetation in the exhibit which would provide shelter and protection from the elements. Furniture consists of a single log.

309


caged lives

310


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: EUPLERIDAE

FOSSA Genus: Cryptoprocta.

Bioparc Island exhibit dimension, 62.5 x 45 ft. One animal observed. Earth and grass substrate. Rock. Mature living Opposite page

trees. No food or water observed. Wood fence stand-off barrier.

Figure 191: The Fossa exhibit at Bioparc. The species would naturally cover large areas in search of food and live in a forested habitat. This exhibit is too small, though it appears much larger because of the surrounding water moat.

311


caged lives FAMILY: MUSTELIDAE

OTTER

SPOTTED-NECKED OTTER Genus: Hydrictis.

Bioparc Spotted-necked otter: Exhibit dimension, 22.5 x 40 ft. Three animals observed. Earth and grass substrate. Water pool. No food observed. Rocks. Rock barrier.

312


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

EURASIAN OTTER Genus: Lutra.

Cordoba Zoo Eurasian otter: Exhibit dimension, 125 ft. circumference. One animal observed. Concrete substrate. Water pool (90% of exhibit). Vegetation. Large rocks. Attached den. No food or water observed. Solid wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

313


caged lives

314


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: SUIDAE

RED RIVER HOG Genus: Potamochoerus.

Bioparc Red river hog and Red forest buffalo: Island exhibit dimension, 65 x 92.5 ft. (available land area). Five Red river hogs and five Red forest buffalo observed. Sand substrate. Mature living trees. Rocks. Logs. No food observed. Rock barrier.

Despite first appearance, the living space for the animals at Bioparc is small. The exhibit is surrounded by a large Opposite page

area of water, and whilst these animals are good swimmers, there is little land area available and the animals have no

Figure 192: The Red river hog and Red forest buffalo exhibit at Bioparc. A small land area surrounded by water.

access to live vegetation. The rockwork is also extremely high, and it is unknown whether the animals would be able to access all areas of the exhibit

315


caged lives

316


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: PROCYONIDAE

COATI Genus: Nasua.

Seville Zoo Coati: Cage exhibit dimension, 25 x 7.5 ft. One animal observed. Sand substrate. Wooden beams (prepared timber). Water tray. No food or water observed. Steel mesh and corrugated iron barrier. Stand-off barrier. No sign.

Opposite page Figure 193: This sociable, nomadic animal is housed alone and within a small cage at Seville Zoo.

This cage is small and almost entirely devoid of any meaningful furnishings. The wooden beams are not appropriate as the animal is not able to use them; in fact they serve only to take up space in an already too-small environment. Coatis are social animals, often travelling in groups in the wild, yet this animal lives alone and was observed pacing.

317


caged lives

Figure 194: This sociable, nomadic animal is housed alone and within a small cage at Seville Zoo.

318


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

RACCOON Genus: Procyon.

Castellar Zoo Racoon: Exhibit dimension, 25 x 10 ft. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Large logs. Rocks. Vegetation. No water observed. Stone wall and steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier.

319


caged lives

320


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: VIVERRIDAE

COMMON GENET Genus: Genetta.

Seville Zoo Common genet: Cage exhibit dimension, 12.5 x 10 ft. One animal observed. Tiled substrate. Branches. Dead ferns. Nest box. Water bowl. No food observed. Steel mesh and corrugated iron barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 195: This grim cage houses a Genet at Seville Zoo.

The barren Genet cage is totally inappropriate for this shy, nocturnal species. Furniture consists of dead palms and a dilapidated ‘nesting’ box that has an entrance facing the public. Even therefore when sleeping, the animal is in full view. The tiled substrate offers no stimulation for the animal. The beams have been positioned so the public are able see the animals at eye level. No other meaningful beams or climbing apparatus is provided, rendering the rest of the available vertical space unusable.

321


caged lives

322


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

BINTURONG Genus: Arctictis.

Seville Zoo Binturong: Exhibit dimension, 40 x 22.5 ft. Two animals observed. Earth substrate. Dirty, stagnant water pool. Wooden shelter. Dilapidated den (no access). Large logs. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 196-197: The small, dilapidated and barren Binturong exhibit at Seville Zoo. This animal is nocturnal but is in full-public view, presumably each and every day the zoo is open. Visitors were observed feeding the animal by hand.

323


caged lives

324


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

COMMON PALM CIVET

Seville Zoo Cage exhibit dimension, 17.5 x 7.5 ft. One animal observed. Sand substrate. Branches. Water bowl. No food observed. Steel mesh and corrugated iron barrier. Stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 198: The Civet cage at Seville Zoo. The cage does not allow the animal to exhibit normal arborealtype and ground behaviours.

325


caged lives

326


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: CANIDAE

RED FOX Genus: Vulpes.

Seville Zoo Red fox: Cage exhibit dimension, 17.5 x 7.5 ft. Two animals observed. Sand substrate. Wooden beams (prepared timber). Nest box. No food or water observed. Steel mesh and corrugated iron barrier. Stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 199-200: Rows of small cages housing neurotic, solitary animals within the 'breeding area' of Seville Zoo. The Red foxes were circling and pacing neurotically.

327


caged lives

328


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: HERPESTIDAE

SLENDER-TAILED MEERKAT Genus: Suricata.

Seville Zoo Meerkat: Paddock exhibit dimension, 30 x 30 ft. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Rocks. Mature living tree. Logs. Shelter. No food or water observed. Solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier. Opposite page Figure 201: A solitary meerkat lives in this exhibit at Seville Zoo. This animal would live in groups of up to 50 in the wild and was observed burrowing in front of a metal grid in what appeared to be an escape attempt.

Zoobotanico Jerez Meerkat: Exhibit dimension, 30 x 12.5 ft. Eight animals observed. Earth substrate. Rocks. Small tree. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Wood fence stand-off barrier.

329


caged lives

330


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: PHASCOLARCTIDAE

KOALA Genus: Phascolarctos.

Madrid Zoo Koala: Exhibit dimension, 20 x 20 ft. Concrete substrate. Spot lighting. Wooden beams/perches (natural). Vegetation. No water observed. Painted, solid wall and glass barrier. Glass barrier.

The Koala exhibit is essentially a bare room with painted walls. The animal does not have sufficient quantity of useable, species appropriate furnishings. The wooden beams have been positioned so the public are able to view the animals at eye level. There is no privacy or foraging opportunity. It appears that the animal has nothing to keep him/her occupied aside from waiting for food to Opposite page

arrive. This makes for an extremely dull existence.

Figure 202: The Koala exhibit at Madrid Zoo with painted walls.

331


caged lives

332


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: HYSTRICIDAE

SOUTH AFRICAN PORCUPINE Genus: Hystrix.

Zoobotanico Jerez South African porcupine: Exhibit dimension, 40 x 20 ft. Three animals observed. Earth substrate. Stone shelter with spot light. Empty trough. Logs. Wire protected mature living trees. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Castellar Zoo Albino porcupine: Rectangle exhibit dimension, 17.5 x 10 ft. One animal observed. Concrete substrate. Opposite page Figure 203: Seville Zoo. The barren porcupine exhibit that does not allow for burrowing or foraging behaviours.

Dirty exhibit. Rocks. One barren and dirty nest box (too small for the animal to use). No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

333


caged lives Cape Porcupine: Exhibit dimension, 20 x 12.5 ft. Concrete substrate. Three animals observed. Loose rockwork. Large logs. Attached den (10 ft. in length). No food or water observed. Stone wall and dirty, cracked glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Cordoba Zoo Cape porcupine: Exhibit dimension, 40 x 22.5 ft. Two animals observed. Concrete substrate. Attached den (no access). Logs. Water pool. Shade structure. No food or water observed. Low wood fence barrier. No standoff barrier.

The Albino porcupine cage is small, barren and dirty. The excessive numbers of flies, excrement piles and strong odours, amount to unsanitary conditions. At the back of the cage, there are peeling paint walls. The exhibit does not contain appropriate furnishings, only a dilapidated wooden ‘nesting’ box that the animal would not be able to use, and several large rocks. The cage is not large enough to permit digging and foraging behaviours, and the substrate is not appropriate.

334


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 204: An Albino porcupine at Castellar Zoo lives in this squalid cage.

335


caged lives

Figure 205: The Cape porcupine exhibit at Castellar Zoo.

336


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: MACROPODIDAE

WALLABY Genus: Macropus.

Seville Zoo Red-necked wallaby: Paddock exhibit dimension, 90 x 55 ft. Three animals observed. Grass substrate. Water pool. Statue. Mature living trees. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

337


caged lives

338


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

FAMILY: HYAENIDAE

STRIPED HYENA Genus: Hyaena hyaena.

Seville Zoo Hyena: Exhibit dimension, 32.5 x 50 ft. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Large logs. Large tree stumps. Attached den (no access and investigators filmed two wolves locked inside). No food or water observed. Steel wire mesh, corrugated iron and glass barrier. Stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 206: This exhibit at Seville Zoo holds a neurotic, solitary Striped hyena. This animal is nocturnal yet there are no privacy areas.

The dilapidated hyena exhibit provides an extremely small living space. This prevents the animal from engaging in natural movements and behaviours, which are essential for the animal’s well-being. The animal is sensory deprived, has nowhere to hide and lives in solitary confinement. Presumably as a result of boredom and frustration, the animal performs chronic pacing behaviour.

339


caged lives

340


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

6.4 Cat exhibits FAMILY: FELIDAE

JAGUAR Genus: Panthera.

Barcelona Zoo Jaguar: Exhibit dimension, 65 x 27.5 ft. No animal observed. Earth substrate. Water pool (7.5 x 7.5 ft.). Waterfall. Earth substrate. Large logs. Large tree stumps. Opposite page

Mature living trees. Small trees, shrubs and high grasses.

Figure 207: Cordoba Zoo. This Jaguar was observed pacing besides the glass and being teased by visitors.

Shade structure. Natural shelter. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Bar and low solid wall stand-off barrier.

341


caged lives Cordoba Zoo Jaguar. Exhibit dimension, 80 x 62.5 ft. One animal observed. Grass and concrete substrate. Water pool and fountain. Large tree stumps. No shelter from the elements. Large Logs. Attached den (no access). Solid wall and glass barrier (visitor viewing from each side). No food or water observed. No stand-off barrier. Danger sign.

Seville Zoo Jaguar: Cage exhibit dimension, 47.5 x 47.5 ft. Two animals observed (male and female). Two animals were also locked inside according to a keeper. Concrete substrate. Large logs. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Large rocks. Concrete substrate. Loose rockwork. No food orwater observed. Steel mesh and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

The Jaguar exhibits are barren with a flat topography. Live vegetation is provided at Barcelona Zoo (Fig. 208), though the exhibit is still woefully small. The exhibit at Cordoba Zoo (Fig. 207) holds a single leopard who was observed lying in front of the glass window. It is not known whether the animal lives alone. The exhibit at Cordoba Zoo does not provide any protection from the elements. There is no live vegetation in the Cordoba Zoo (Fig. 207) and Seville Zoo exhibits (Fig. 209-210).

342


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 208: The Jaguar cage at Barcelona Zoo.

No climbing apparatus is provided for the cats at Seville Zoo which would enable the animal to exhibit at least some normal behaviours, and furnishing consists of rocks and several logs strewn across the ground. These animals also live on a concrete substrate, which can be damaging for their sensitive pads. There is no access to a water pool in any of the exhibits.

343


caged lives

344


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 210: No use is made of the vertical space, though in the wild Jaguars spend much of their time in trees.

Opposite page Figure 209: The Jaguars at Seville Zoo live on a concrete substrate in a barren and small cage. No effort has been made to allow expression of a full range of species-typical behaviours such as running, climbing and swimming.

345


caged lives

346


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

LEOPARD

Bioparc Leopard: Exhibit dimension, 92.5 x 50 ft. Two animals observed (including one female black leopard). Grass and sand substrate. Large rocks. Water pool. Waterfall. Netting roof. No food. Glass and rock barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 211: The Leopard cage at Madrid Zoo.

347


caged lives Madrid Zoo Leopard: Exhibit dimension, 150 x 150 ft. One animal observed (the other was locked inside). Grass and earth substrate. Hanging Logs. Water pool (2.5 x 2.5 ft.). Large tree stumps. Large logs. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Glass and solid wall barrier. No standoff barrier.

Rio Safari Park Leopard: 52.5 x 85 ft. Two animals observed. Earth and grass substrate. Wooden raised platform. Trough. No food or water observed. Solid wall, Glass and wire mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

None of the leopard exhibits provide enough space for the animals to express a full range of species-typical behaviours, such as running and climbing. The leopards are able to climb a large rock at Bioparc but there is little else for the animals to do. There are no other furnishings that would allow species-typical behaviours.

The days that the leopards at Madrid Zoo are permitted outside are rotated, and so each leopard remains in an area behind the exhibit every other day.

At Rio Safari Park, the animals have only a single platform for furnishing. Visitors are able to view the animals from all sides, and there are no shelters for privacy or to protect the animals from the elements.

348

Opposite page Figure 212: The Leopards at Bioparc have climbing opportunities, though the exhibit offers little else for the animals to do. Figure 213: A depressing home for the Leopards at Rio Safari Park. These animals have only a single platform to lie on, and no shelter or climbing apparatus.


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

349


caged lives

350


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

AFRICAN LION

Bioparc African lion: Exhibit dimension, 45 x 125 ft. Two animals observed (male and female). Grass substrate. Rocks. Water Opposite page

pool. mature living trees. No food or water observed. Rock barrier with glass viewing pane.

Figure 215: The Lion exhibit at Cordoba Zoo. According to the keeper, the zoo did not aim to breed the lions; however they did so to “keep the lioness company�.

As with most exhibits at Bioparc, the available space for the animals is much smaller than first meets the eye.

351


caged lives The lack of an adequate stand-off barrier to prevent contact between visitors and the lions is a widespread problem at Bioparc.

Cordoba Zoo Lion: Concrete substrate. Grass. Logs. Waterpool. No shelter to protect from the elements. Dens (no access). Raised platform. No food or water observed. Solid wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Exhibit dimension, 90 ft. Two animals observed. One animal observed. The male lion is separated from mother and cubs. Both exhibits are small and barren, and neither has any meaningful furnishings.

352


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 216: The lion exhibit at Bioparc is situated adjacent to the ungulate exhibit which is likely to be a cause of stress to the ungulates and possibly frustration for the lions.

353


caged lives

354


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

BARBARY LION

Madrid Zooz Barbary Lion: Size: 150 x 150 ft. Four animals observed. Concrete and grass substrate. Shade structures. Large logs Wire protected mature living trees. No food or water observed. Water moat and wood fence barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Seville Zoo Lion: Paddock exhibit dimension: 150 x 45 ft. Two animals observed. Earth substrate. Broken platform structure. Mature living trees. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 217: The Lions at Madrid Zoo live on a concrete/gunite-type material substrate and have little protection from the elements. At least one of the cats did not appear to have an appropriate amount of muscle mass.

355


caged lives

Figure 218: The Lions at Madrid Zoo.

356


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Figure 219: Visitors get up close to the Lions at Seville Zoo. The exhibit is situated adjacent to the busy cafe where noise levels are excessive.

357


caged lives

358


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

ASIAN LION

Zoobotanico Jerez Asiatic lioness: Exhibit dimension, 60 x 60 ft. One animal observed. Concrete substrate. Two mature living trees. Small trees, shrubs and high grasses. Bar and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 220: The Asiatic lioness at Zoobotanico Jerez became so distressed by the presence of visitors that she charged the glass barrier. This excited the public further and they screamed and laughed, which in turn further aggravated the animal.

359


caged lives

360


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

BENGAL TIGER

Castellar Zoo Bengal tiger: Cage exhibit dimension, 42.5 x 42.5 ft. Two animals observed (male and female). Concrete substrate. Attached den with no access. Mature living trees. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Steel mesh stand-off barrier.

There are three tigers housed at Castellar Zoo, and each individual has access to the outside only once day out of three. Investigators could hear tigers vocalising inside cages adjacent to the exhibit. The barren exhibit is small and poorly equipped to allow for normal, species-typical Opposite page Figure 221: The Tigers at Rio Safari Park appear overweight and have little to keep them occupied. The exhibit is wholly deficient in many respects.

movements, such as running. The exhibit contains a small, stagnant water pool which the tigers are unable to swim in, or even fully submerge.

361


caged lives

Cordoba Zoo Bengal tiger: Paddock exhibit dimension, 75 x 70 ft. One animal observed (three animals were apparently locked inside). Grass and concrete substrate. Water pool and fountain. Raised platform. Large logs. Attached den (no access). No food observed. Wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier. Danger sign.

362

Figure 222: The tiger cage at Castellar Zoo is wholly deficient in many respects. There are three tigers housed here. One animal was locked away during the investigation. The animals observed on exhibit did not appear to have an appropriate amount of muscle mass.


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

Figure 223: The Tigers at Cordoba Zoo are rotated so that there is only one on display to the public at all times.

animalEQUALITY

Rio Safari Park Bengal tiger: Exhibit dimension, 37.5 x 32.5 ft. Three animals observed. Earth substrate. No food or water observed. Solid wall, glass and wire mesh barrier.

Zoo Botanico Jerez Bengal tiger: Exhibit 57.5 x 42.5 ft. Two animals observed (including one white tiger). Large logs. Shallow water pool. Mature living trees. Attached den (no access). No food or water observed. Solid wall and glass barrier. Wood fence stand-off barrier.

363


caged lives

364


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

SIBERIAN TIGER

Madrid Zoo Siberian tiger and white tiger: Exhibit dimension, 125 x 62.5 ft. Three animals observed. Concrete and sand substrate. Mature living trees. Large logs. Dead foliage. No food observed. Algae-covered, stagnant water moat and solid wall barrier. No stand-off barrier.

The exhibit at Madrid Zoo is barren and the exhibit is mainly concrete, which can cause problems for the animals’ soft pads. There is no access to the attached dens or to shelter to protect from the elements. The trees offer little relief from the sun. The public are able view the exhibit from all sides and there is little opportunity for the tigers to retreat. The barrier could easily be climbed over by visitors. Opposite page Figure 224: The tiger exhibit at Madrid Zoo surrounded by an algaecovered, stagnant water moat.

365


caged lives

366


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

WHITE TIGER

Seville Zoo White tiger: Paddock exhibit dimension, 125 x 75 ft. One animal observed. Grass substrate. Large logs. Mature living trees. Water pool (70% of exhibit). Large rocks. Steel mesh and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier. Danger sign.

Exhibit dimension, 75 x 70 ft. Nine animals observed. Steel mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 225: The juvenile tiger and lion exhibit at Seville Zoo.

367


caged lives

368


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

OCELOT Genus: Leopardus.

Castellar Zoo Ocelot: Cage exhibit dimension, 12.5 x 12.5 ft. One animal observed. Earth substrate. Vegetation. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Den (no access). No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 226: An inappropriate living space for the shy, nocturnal Ocelot at Castellar Zoo.

The Ocelot cage at Castellar Zoo is dilapidated and small. This carnivore, who would normally be active only during the night has no opportunity to retreat from public view and the perches within the exhibit are positioned at the visitor’s eye level. The animal was observed performing chronic pacing behaviour.

369


caged lives

370


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

EURASIAN LYNX Genus: Lynx. Distribution: Central and northern Europe to Asia.

Castellar Zoo Eurasian lynx: Exhibit dimension, 37.5 x 37.5 ft. Two animals observed. Earth substrate. Overgrown vegetation. Mature living trees. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Stand-off barrier present.

Cordoba Zoo Eurasian lynx: Exhibit dimension, 85 x 32.5 ft. Five animals observed. Earth substrate. Water pool (dimension, 3 x 3 ft.). Large logs. Mature living trees. Branches. No food or water observed. Painted wall and glass barrier. No stand-off barrier.

The exhibit at Cordoba Zoo is not large enough for the Opposite page Figure 227: A Eurasian lynx at Castellar Zoo. Visitors could reach into the exhibit and touch the animals.

lynx to carry out normal behaviours such as running. The exhibit is barren and there is no place for the animals to retreat from public view, or the view of each other. There is no stand-off barrier and so the visitors, who can see the animals from all sides, are able to bang on the glass.

371


caged lives The topography of the exhibit is entirely flat and offers no variation. There were juvenile animals in the exhibit which is concerning as the zoo does not have space for these animals. There is no live vegetation in the exhibit.

Seville Zoo Lynx: Cage exhibit dimension, 42.5 x 30 ft. One animal observed. Grass substrate. Swing. Attached den (no access). Dry rock pool. No food or water observed. Steel mesh, glass and dilapidated corrugated iron barrier. No stand-off barrier.

Opposite page Figure 228: At Cordoba Zoo, visitors can view a family of Eurasian lynx from all sides of the exhibit. Figure 229: The dilapidated Eurasian lynx cage at Seville Zoo where the animal has only a swing perch, and a wooden beam as furnishing. The animal can view above the eye level of visitors, but this exhibit is wholly deficient in many respects.

372


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

373


caged lives

374


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

BOBCAT Distribution: southern Canada to northern Mexico, including most of the continental United States.

Zoo Botanico Jerez Exhibit dimension, 40 x 15 ft. Four animals observed. Concrete substrate. Logs. Wooden beams/perches (prepared timber). Hanging plastic ball. Attached den. No food or water observed. Steel mesh barrier. Wood fence standoff barrier. Opposite page Figure 230: The Bobcat cage at Zoobotanico Jerez.

375


caged lives

376


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

References

Abaigar, T., del Barrio, G. and Vericad, J. R. (1994) Habitat preference of wild boar (Sus scrofa L., 1758) in a mediterranean environment. Indirect evaluation by signs. Mammalia 58: 201–210 Abernethy, K. A., White, L. J. T. and Wickings, E. J. (2002) Hordes of mandrills (Mandrillu shinx): Extreme group size and seasonal male presence. Journal of Zoology (London) 258: 131-137 Adeyemo A. I. (1997) Diurnal activities of green monkeys Cercopithecus aethiops in Old Oyo National Park, Nigeria. South Africa Journal of Wildlife Reserves 27 (1): 24-26 AFP Berlin polar bear star Knut disturbed: scientists [online] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2kIjpaNAZFbMSQgcu1rFzNFKCZQ [Accessed 12 August 2011] Anderson, E. C., Hutchings, G. H., Mukarati, N. and Wilkinson, P. J. (1998) African swine fever virus infection of the bushpig (Potamochoerus porcus) and its significance in the epidemiology of the disease. Veterinary Microbiology 62: 1–15 Anderson, E. M. (1987) A critical review and annotated bibliography of literature on the bobcat. Colorado Division of Wildlife Terrestrial Wildlife Research. No. 62 Astaras, C., Mühlenberg, M. and Waltert, M. (2008) Note on drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus) ecology and conservation status in Korup National Park, southwest Cameroon. American journal of Primatology 70 (3): 306-310

377


caged lives Bailey, T. N. (2005) The African Leopard: Ecology and Behaviour of a Solitary Felid (2nd Edition). Blackburn Press: New Jersey Balme, G., Hunter, L. and Slotow, R. (2007) Feeding habitat selection by hunting leopards Panthera pardus in a woodland savanna: prey catchability versus abundance. Animal Behaviour 74 (3): 589-598 Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N., Mace, G., Manica, A., Walter, O., West, C. and Cimmerman, A. (2008) Message received? Quantifying the impact of informal conservation education on adults visiting UK zoos. In: Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L. and West, C. (Eds.) Zoos in the 21st Century: catalysts for conservation? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Barton, R. A, Whiten, A., Strum, S. C., Byrne, R. W. and Simpson, A. J. (1992) Habitat use and resource availability in baboons. Animal Behaviour 43 (5): 831-44 Beardsworth, A. and Bryman, A. E. (2001) The wild animal in late modernity: the case of the Disneyization of zoos. Tourist Studies 1: 83-104 Bergeron, R., Badnell-Waters, A., Lambton, S. and Mason, G. (2006) Stereotypic behaviour in captive ungulates: foraging, diet and gastrointestinal function. In: Mason, G. J. (Ed.) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare CABI Publishing: Wallingford, Oxon Birke, L. (2002) Effects of browse, human visitors and noise on the behaviour of captive orang-utans. Animal Welfare 11: 189-202 Boitani, L., Mattei, L., Nonis, D., Corsi, F. (1994) Spatial and activity patterns of wild boars in Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Mammalogy 75: 600–612 Borgnia, M., Galante, M. L. and Cassini, M. H. (2000) Diet of the coypu (Myocastor coypus) in agro-systems of the Argentinean Pampas. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 354–361 Boyd, L. (1986) Behavior problems of equids in zoos. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Equine Practice 2: 653-664 Britt, A. (2000) Diet and feeding behaviour of the black-and-white ruffed lemur (Varecia variegata variegate) in the Betampona Reserve, eastern Madagascar. Folia Primatologica 71 (3): 133-141

378


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Brown, J. L., Olson, D., Keele, M. and Freeman, E. W. (2004) Survey of the reproductive cyclicity status of Asian and African elephants in North America. Zoo Biology 23: 309-321 Butynski, T. M., Cortes, J., Waters, S., Fa, J., Hobbelink, M. E., van Lavieren, E., Belbachir, F., Cuzin, F., de Smet, K., Mouna, M., de Iongh, H., Menard, N. and CamperioCiani, A. (2008) Macaca sylvanus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. [online] www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed 2 June 2011] Carlstead, K. and Brown, J. L. (2005) Relationships between patterns of fecal corticoid excretion and behavior, reproduction, and environmental factors in captive black (Diceros bicornis) and white (Ceratotherium simum) rhinoceros. Zoo Biology 24 (2): 215-232 Carlstead, K. and Seidensticker, J. (1991) Seasonal variations in stereotypic pacing in American black bears ursus americanus. Behavioural Proceedings 25: 155-161 Caso, A., Lopez-Gonzalez, C., Payan, E., Eizirik, E., de Oliveira, T., Leite-Pitman, R., Kelly, M., Valderrama, C. & Lucherini, M. (2008) Puma concolor. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org> [Accessed 25 July 2011] Cascelli de Azevedoa,b, F. C, Murray, D. L. (2007). Spatial organization and food habits of jaguars (Panthera onca) in a floodplain forest. Biological Conservation 137: 391-402 Cawthon Lang, K. A. (2005) Primate Factsheets: Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology [online] http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/common_marmoset [Accessed 2011 June 3]

Cawthon Lang, K. A. (2006) Primate Factsheets: Vervet (Chlorocebus) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology [online] http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/vervet [Accessed 3 June 2011] Chamove, A. S., Hosey, G. R. and Schaetzel, P. (1988) Visitors excite primates in zoos. Zoo Biology 7: 359-369 Chapenoire, S., Camiade, B. and Legros, M. (2001) Basic instinct of a feline. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 22: 46-50 Chundawat, R. S. (2001) Tiger conservation in dry tropical forests of India. Annual Report. Center forWildlife Studies. Bangalore

379


caged lives Clavero, M., Prenda, J. and Delibes, M. (2003) Trophic diversity of the otter (Lutra lutra L.) in temperate and Mediterranean freshwater habitats. Journal of Biogeography 30: 761–769 Clubb, R. and Mason, G. (2002) A Review of the Welfare of Zoo Elephants in Europe. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Clubb, R. and Mason, G. (2003) Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. Nature 425: 473–474 Clutton-Brock, T. H., Russell, A. F. and Sharpe, L. L. (2004) Behavioural tactics of breeders in cooperative meerkats. Animal Behaviour 68: 1029–1040 Clutton-Brock, T. H., Russell, A. F., Sharpe, L. L., Young, A. J., Balmforth, Z. and McIlrath, G. M. (2002) Evolution and development of sex differences in cooperative behavior in meerkats. Science 297: 253–256 Crawshaw Jr., P. G. (1995) Comparative ecology of ocelot (Felis pardalis) and jaguar (Panthera onca) in a protected subtropical forest in Brazil and Argentina. Unpublished Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville Crawshaw Jr., P. G. and Quigley, H. B. (1991) Jaguar spacing, activity, and habitat use in a seasonally flooded environment in Brazil. Journal of Zoology (London) 223: 357–370 Conde, D. A., Colchero, F., Zarza, H., Christensen, N. L. Jr, Sexton, J., Manterola, C., Rivera, A., Chávez, C., Azuara, D. and Ceballos, G. (2010). Sex matters: modeling male and female jaguar habitat for conservation. Biological Conservation 143: 1980–1988 Conroy, J. W. H. and Chanin, P. R. F. (2002) The status of the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra). IUCN Otter Specialist Group Bulletin 19A: 24–48 Csuti, B., Sargent, E. L. and Bechert, U. S. (Eds.) (2001) The Elephant’s Foot: Prevention and Care of Foot Conditions in Captive Asian and African Elephants. Ames, I. A: Iowa State University Press D’Adamo, P., Guichón, M. L., Bó, R. F. and Cassini, M. H. (2000) Habitat use of coypus (Myocastor coypus) in agro-systems of the Argentinean Pampas. Acta Theriol 45: 25–33 Davis, C. S. (1991) Parrot psychology and behavior problems. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 21 (6): 1281-1288

380


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Dawkins, M. S. (2003) Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology 106: 383-387 Defler, T. R. (2004) Primates of Colombia. Bogota, D. C: Colombia: Conservation International Dettmer, E., and Fragaszy, D. (2000) Determining the value of social companionship to captive capuchin monkeys (Cebus paella). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3: 293-304 Dique, D. S., Thompson, J., Preece, H. J., de Villiers, D. L., Carrick, F. N. (2003) Dispersal patterns in a regional koala population in south-east Queensland. Wildlife Research 30: 281â&#x20AC;&#x201C;290 Eagle, T. C. and Pelton, M. R. (1983) Seasonal nutrition of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. International Conference on Bear research and Management 5: 94-101 Eltringham, K. S. (1999). The Hippos. London: Academic Press Ferrari, S. F. and Lopes Ferrari, M. A. (1989) A re-evaluation of the social organization of the Callitrichidae, with reference to the ecological differences between genera. Folia Primatologica 52: 132-147 Fooden, J. and Aimi, M. (2005) Systematic review of Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata (Gray, 1870). Fieldiana: Zoology 104: 1-200 Fooden, J. (1982a) Ecogeographic segregation of macaque species. Primates 23: 574579 Fooden, J. (2000) Systematic review of the rhesus macaque, Macaca mulatta (Zimmermann, 1780). Field Zoology 96: 1-180 Fouraker, M. and Wagener, T. (1996): AZA Rhinoceros husbandry resource manual Fort Worth Zoological Park, Texas, USA Fragaszy, D. M. and Boinski, S. (1995) Patterns of individual diet choice and efficiency of foraging in wedge-caped capuchin monkeys (Cebus olivaceus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 109: 339-348

381


caged lives Fragaszy, D. M., Visalberghi, E. and Fedigan, L. M. (2004) The Complete Capuchin. The Biology of the Genus Cebus. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Galat, G. and Galat-Luong, A. (1985) La communauté de primates diurnes de la forêt de Tai, Côte-d'Ivoire. Terre Vie 40: 3–32 Garber, P. A. (1993) Feeding ecology and behaviour of the genus Saguinus. In: Rylands, A. B. (Eds.) Marmosets and Tamarins: Systematics, Behaviour, and Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press Garbutt, N. (2007) Mammals of Madagascar: A Complete Guide. A & C Black Publishers Garshelis, D. L. and Pelton, M. R. (1981) Movements of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 912–925 Glatston, A. R., Geilvoet-Soeteman, E., Hora-Pecek, E. and Van hoof, J. A. R.A. M.(1984) The influence of the zoo environment on social behaviour of groups of cotton-topped tamarins, Saguinus Oedipus. Zoo Biology 3: 241-253 Gron, K. J. (2008) Primate Factsheets: Sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology [online] http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/sooty_mangabey [Accessed 2 June 2011] Gron K. J. (2007) Primate Factsheets: Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology [online] http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/japanese_macaque [Accessed 2 June 2011] Gordon, G., Menkhorst, P., Robinson, T., Lunney, D., Martin, R. and Ellis, M. (2008) Phascolarctos cinereus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org> [Accessed 24 July 2011] Gompper, M. E., Gittleman, J. L. and Wayne, R. K. (1997) Genetic relatedness, coalitions and social behaviour of white-nosed coatis, Nasua narica. Animal Behaviour 53: 781-797 Gosling, L. M. and Baker, S. J. (1991) Family Myocastoridae In: Corbet, G.B., Harris, S. (Eds.), Handbook of British Mammals. Blackwell Scientific: Oxford Grassman Jr., L. I. (1997) Ecology and behavior of four sympatric carnivore species (Mammalia: Carnivora) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand. M.Sc. Thesis, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand

382


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Grubb, P. (2008) Hystrix africaeaustralis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org> [Accessed 11 August 2011] Guichón, M. L. (2003) Distribución espacial, comportamiento y estructura de poblaciones del coipo Myocastor coypus en la cuenca del río Luján (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires Guilherme Canho Bittner MD., Nelise Ritter Hans MD., Günter Hans Neto MD., Monique Oliveira Morais MD., Günter Hans Filho MD PhD. and Vidal Haddad Jr, MD, PhD. (2010) (CASE REPORT: Coati (Nasua nasua) Attacks on Humans: Case Report) Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 21: 349–352 Guthlin, D., Knauer, F., Kneib, T., Kuchenhoff, H., Kaczensky, P, Rauer, G., Jonozovic, M., Muston, A. and Jerina, K. (2011) Estimating habitat suitability and potential population size for brown bears in the Eastern Alps. Biological Conservation 144: 1733-1741 Hahn, E. (1967) Animal Gardens. Garden City: Doubleday Haines, A. M., Janecka, J., Tewes, M. E. and Grassman, L. I. (2006) Surveying for the endangered ocelot Leopardus pardalis in the United States using camera traps. Oryx 40: 90–94 Hancocks, D. (1995) Lions and tigers and bears, oh no! In: Norton, B. G., Hutchins, M., Stevens, E. and T. L. Mapel, T. L. (Eds.) Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare and Wildlife Conservation. Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington DC/London Harmsen, B. J., Rebecca J. Foster, R. J., Scott C. Silver, S. C., Ostro, L. E. T. and Doncaster, C. P. (2011) Jaguar and puma activity patterns in relation to their main prey. Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 76 (3): 320-324 Harrison, M. J. S. (1983) Patterns of range use by the green monkey, Cercopithecus sabaeus, at Mt. Assirik, Senegal. Folia Primatol 41 (3-4): 157-79 Harrison, M. J. S. (1988) The mandrill in Gabon’s rain forest – ecology, distribution and status. Oryx 22: 218-228 Harris, M., Sherwin, C. and Harris, S. (2008) Final Report: The welfare, housing and husbandry of elephants in UK zoos. University of Bristol Harveson, P. M., Tewes, M. E., Anderson, G. L. and Laack, L. L. (2004) Habitat use by ocelots in south Texas: implications for restoration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 948–954

383


caged lives Hayes, S., Pelton, M. (1994) Habitat characteristics of female black dens in northwestern Arkansas. International Conference of Bear Research and Management 9: 411–418 Hawkins, A. F. A. and Dollar, L. (2008) Cryptoprocta ferox. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org>. [Accessed 21 July 2011] Hawkins, C. E. (2003) Cryptoprocta ferox. Fosa, Fosa In: Goodman, S. M. and Benstead, J. P. (Eds.) The Natural History of Madagascar The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA and London, UK Hediger, H. (1965) Man as a social partner of animals and vice versa. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 14: 291-300 Hediger, H. (1969) Man and Animal in the Zoo. Delacorte Press, New YorkHeinsohn, R. (1997) Group territoriality in two populations of African lions Animal Behaviour 53 (6): 1143-1147 Hochadel, O. (2005) Science in the 19th Century Zoo. Endeavour 29 1: 38-42 Hofmann, S. G., Moscovitch, D. A., Litz, B. T., Kim, H. J., Davis, L. L. and Pizzagalli, D. A. (2005) The worried mind: autonomic and prefrontal activation during worrying. Emotion 5: 464–475 Hosey, G. R. (2005) How does the zoo environment affect the behaviour of captive primates? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90 (2): 107-129 Hosey, G. R. (2000) Zoo animals and their human audiences: what is the visitor effect? Animal Welfare 9: 343–357 Hu, J. (1990) Study and Progress in Biology of Giant Panda. Sichuan Science and Technology Press, Chengdu IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group (2008) Tragelaphus eurycerus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org>. [Accessed 26 July 2011] IUDZG/CBSG (1993) The World Zoo Conservation strategy; The Role of Zoos and Aquaria of the World in Global Conservation. Chicago Zoological Society: Chicago, IL

384


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Jaanmaat, K. R. L., Byrne, R. W. and Zuberbuhler, K. (2006) Evidence for a spatial memory of fruiting states of rainforest trees in wild mangabeys. Animal Behaviour 72: 797-807 Jackson, P. (2000) The status of the tiger in 2000 and threats to its future. IUCN Cat News Jamieson, D. (2006) Against Zoos. In: (Eds.) Singer, P. In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Blackwell Publishing Judas, J. and Henry, O. (1999) Seasonal variation of home range of collared peccary in tropical rain forests of French Guiana. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 546–555 Jhala, Y.V., Mukherjee, S., Shah, N., Chauhan, K.S., Dave, C.V., Meena, V., Banerjee, K. (2009) Home range and habitat preference of female lions (Panthera leo persica) in Gir forests, India. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 3383–3394 Kaminski, G., Brandt, S., Baubet, E. and Baudoin, C. (2005) Life-history patterns in female wild boars (Sus scrofa): mother–daughter postweaning associations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83: 474–480 Kelly, M., Caso, A. and Lopez Gonzalez, C. (2008) Lynx rufus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org> [Accessed 25 July 2011] Keulen-Kromhout van, G. (1978) Zoo enclosures for bears: their influence on captive behaviour and reproduction. International Zoo Yearbook 18: 177-186 Keuroghlian, A. (2003) The response of peccaries to seasonal fluctuations in an isolated patch of tropical forest. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada Kiltie, R. A. and Terborgh, J. (1983) Observations on the behavior of rain forest peccaries in Peru: why do white-lipped peccaries form herds? Z. Tierpsychol 62: 241–255 King, D. and Green, B. (1999) Goannas: The Biology of Varanid Lizards. University of New South Wales Press Kinzey, W. G. (1997) Synopsis of New World primates (16 genera). In: Kinzey, W. G. (Ed.) New world primates: ecology, evolution, and behavior. New York: Aldine de Gruyter Kruuk, H. (2006) Otters. Ecology, Behaviour & Conservation. Oxford University Press: Oxford

385


caged lives Kurt, F. and Khyne, U. Mar. (1996) Neonate mortality in captive Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 61: 155-164 Kurt, F. and Garai, M. E. (2007) The Asian elephant in captivity – a field study. Foundation Books, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi Kurt, F. and Hartl, G. B. (1995) Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in captivity – a challenge for zoo biological research. In: Gansloßer, U., Hodges, J. K. and Kaumanns, W. (Eds.) Research and captive propagation Finlander Verlag, FurthKurt, F. (2006) Die Geschichte der Haltung von Elefanten in Menschenobhut [History of management in captive elephants]. Zeitschrift des Kölner Zoo 2: 59-74Kurt, F. (1995) The preservation of Asian elephants in human care – a comparison between the different keeping systems in South Asia and Europe. Animal Research and Development 41: 38-60Kutsukake, N. and Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2006b) Social function of allogrooming in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Animal Behaviour 72: 1059–1068 Kutsukake, N., Suetsugu, N. and Hasegawa, T. (2006) Pattern, distribution, and function of greeting behaviour among Black and white colobus. International Journal of Primatology 27 (5): 1271 – 1291 Lanszki, J. and Sallai, Z. (2006) Comparison of the feeding habits of Eurasian otters on a fast flowing river and its backwater habitats. Mammalian biology 71 (6): 336–346 Lindburg D. G. (1971) The rhesus monkey in north India: an ecological and behavioral study. In: Rosenblum L. A (Ed.) Primate behavior: developments in field and laboratory research, Volume 2. New York: Academic Press Laidlaw, R. (2000) Zoos: Myth and Reality Satya, July 2000 [online] http://www.zoocheck.com/articlepdfs/Zoos%20Myth%20and%20Reality%20Laidlaw%2000.p df [Accessed 10 August 2011] Latham, N. R. and Mason, G, J. (2008) Maternal deprivation and the development of stereotypical behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110: 84-108 Law, G., MacDonald, A. and A. Reid., A. (1997) Dispelling some common misconceptions about the keeping of felids in captivity. International Zoo Yearbook 35: 197-207 Laws, R. M. (1968) Dentition and ageing in the hippopotamus. East African Wildlife Journal 6: 19–52

386


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Lightfoot T. and Nacewicz C. L. (2006) Psittacine behavior. In: Bays, T. B, Lightfoot, T. and Mayer, J. (Eds.) Exotic Pet Behavior. Saunders: St. Louis, Missouri Li, X., Yiqing, M., Zhongxin, G. and Fuyang, L. (1994) Characteristics of dens and selection of denning habitat for bears in the south Xiaoxinganling Mountain, China. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9: 357–362 Lovari, S., Herrero. J., Conroy, J., Maran, T., Giannatos, G., Stubbe, M., Aulagnier, S., Jdeidi, T., Masseti, M. Nader, I., de Smet, K. and Cuzin, F. (2008) Cervus elaphus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org>. [Accessed on 26 July 2011] Lucherini, M. and Crema, G. (1994) Seasonal variation in diet and trophic niche of the red fox in an alpine habitat. Z. Sa¨ugetierkd. 59: 1–8 Ludlow, M. and Sunquist, M. (1987) Ecology and behavior of ocelots in Venezuela. National Geographic Research Report 3: 447-461 Ludwig, E. G. (1981) Study of Buffalo Zoo. In M. Fox (ed.), International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Animal Problems Macdonald, D. (2001) The New Encyclopedia of Mammals. Oxford University Press Macdonald, D. and Hoffmann, M. (2008) Suricata suricatta. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org> [Accessed 24 July 2011] Mallapur, A., Sinha, A. and Waran, N. (2005) Influence of visitor presence on the behaviour of captive lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus) housed in Indian zoos Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94: 341-352 Marino, L. and Lilienfed, S. (2007) Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions. Anthrozoos 20 (3): 239-249 Marino, L., Bradshaw, G. and Malamud, R. (2009) The Captivity Industry. The Reality of Zoos and aquariums. In: Best Friends Magazine [online] http://www.zoocheck.com/articlepdfs/CaptivityIndustryBFarticle2009.pdf [Accessed at 29 July 2011] Martin, R. W., Handasyde, K. A. and Krockenberger, A. (2008) Koala, Phascolarctos cinereus. In: Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (Eds.) The mammals of Australia (Third Edition). Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia

387


caged lives Mason, G. J. (1991) Stereotypies and suffering Behavioural Processes 25 (2): 103-115 Mason, G. and Vickery, S. (2004) Stereotypic behavior in Asiatic black and Malayan sun bears. Zoo Biology 23 (5): 409-430 Mauget, R. (1980b) Home range concept and activity patterns of the European wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) as determined by radio tracking. In: Amlaner, C.J., MacDonald, D.W. (Eds.), A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking. Pergamon Press Inc., New York Mauget, R. (1980a) Régulations écologiques, comporta-mentales et fisiologiques (function de reproduction) de l’adaptation du sanglier au milieu. Univer. De ToursOrleans, France May, D. L. (1996) The behavior of African grey parrots in the rainforest of the Central African Republic. Psittascene 8: 8-9. 18 McGraw, W. S. (1996) The positional behavior and habitat use of six monkeys in the Tai forest, Ivory Coast. PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook McGraw, W. S. (1998) Comparative locomotion and habitat use of six monkeys in the Tai Forest, Ivory Coast. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 105 (4): 493-510 McGraw W. S., Zuberbühler, K. and Noë, R. (2007) The monkeys of the Ta Forest: an African primate community. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK) Meehan, C. L., Garner, J. P. and Mench, J. A. (2004) Environmental enrichment and development of cage stereotypy in Orange-winged Amazon Parrots, Developmental Psychobiology 44: 209-218 Meyer-Holzapfel, N. (1968) Abnormal behaviour in zoo animals. In: Fox, M. W. (Ed.) Abnormal Behaviour in Animals Philadelphia PA: W. B. Saunders Mehlman, P. T. (1989) Comparative density, demography, and ranging behavior of Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) in marginal and prime conifer habitats. International Journal of Primatology 10 (4): 269-292 Mills, M. G. L. (1990) Kalahari hyaenas: The comparative behavioural ecology of two species. Unwin hyman: London Mills, M. G. L. (1989) The comparative behavioral ecology of hyenas: the importance of diet and food dispersion. In: Gittleman, J. L. (Ed.) Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 1. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York

388


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Mitchell C. L., Boinski, S. and van Schaik, C. P. (1991) Competitive regimes and female bonding in two species of squirrel monkeys (Saimiri oerstedi and S. sciureus). Behavioual Ecolological Sociobiology 28 (1): 55-60 Mitchell, G., Herring, F., Obradovich, S., Tromborg, C., Dowd, B., Neville, L. and Field, L. (1991a) Effects of visitors and cage changes on the behaviours of mangabeys Zoo Biology 10: 417-423 Mosser, A. (2008) Group territoriality of the African lion: behavioral adaptation in a heterogeneous landscape. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota Mudappa, D. (2001) Ecology of the Brown Palm Civet Paradoxurus jerdoni in the Tropical Rainforests of the Western Ghats, India. PhD Thesis, Bharathiar University Coimbatore, India Naughton-Treves L., Treves, A., Chapman, C. and Wrangham, R. (1998) Temporal patterns of crop-raiding by primates: linking food availability in croplands and adjacent forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 35(4): 596-606 Newberry, R. C. and Swanson, J. C. (2008) Implications of breaking mother – young social bonds Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110: 3-23 Neyman, P. F. (1977) Aspects of the ecology and social organization of free-ranging cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus Oedipus) and the conservation status of the species. In: Kleiman, D. G. (Ed.) The Biology and Conservation of the Callitrichidae. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC: USA Ngoprasert, D., Lynam, A. J. and Gale, G. A. (2007) Human disturbance affects habitat use and behaviour of Asiatic leopard Panthera pardus in Kaeng Krachan National Park Thailand. Oryx 41: 343–351 Nicol, C. J. and S. J. Pope (1993) A comparison of the behaviour of solitary and group housed budgerigars. Animal Welfare 2: 269-277 Nowak, R. (1999) Walker’s Mammals of the World, sixth ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD Nú˜nez, R., Miller, B., Lindzey, F. (2000) Food habits of jaguars and pumas in Jalisco, Mexico. J.ournal of Zoology 252: 373–379 Nyhus, P. J., Tilson, R. L. and Tomlinson, J. L. (2003) Dangerous animals in captivity: ex situ tiger conflict and implications for private ownership of exotic animals. Zoo Biology 22: 573-586

389


caged lives Oftedal, O. T., Baer D. J. and Allen, M. E. (1996) The feeding and nutrition of herbivores. In: Kleiman D. G., Allen, M. E., Thompson, K. V., & Lumpkin, S. (Eds). Management of Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles an Techniques University of Chicago Press: Chicago Owens, D. and Owens, M. (1996) Social dominance and reproductive patterns in brown hyaenas, Hyaena brunnea, of the central Kalahari desert. Animal Behaviour 51 (3): 535-551 Packer, C. (2010) Lion. Current Biology 20 (14): R590-R591 Palomares, F. and Delibes, M. (1994) Spatio-temporal ecology and behaviour of European genets in Southwestern Spain. Journal of mammalogy 75 (3): 714-724 Price, E.O. (1999) Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 245-271 Reid, D., Jiang, M., Teng, Q., Qin, Z., Hu, J. (1991) Ecology of Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in Sichuan, China. Mammalia 55: 221–237 Robinson, J. G. and Eisenberg, J. F. (1985) Group size and foraging habits of the collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu). Journal of Mammalogy 66: 153–155 Rose, N. A., Parsons, E. C. M. and Farinato, R. (2009) The case against marine mammals in captivity (4th edition). The Humane Society of the United States and the World Society for the Protection of Animals [online] http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/marine_mammals/case_against_marine_captivity.pdf [Accessed 31 July 2011] Poole, J. H. and Moss, C. J. (2008). Elephant Sociality and Complexity: The Scientific Evidence. In: Wemmer, C. M. and Catherine A. Christen, C. A. (Eds.) Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Johns Hopkins University Press Pook, A. G. and G. Pook. (1981) A field study of the socio-ecology of the Geoldi’s monkey (Callimico goeldii) in northern Bolivia. Folia Primatologica 3: 196-216 Pusey, A. E. and Packer, C. (1987) Dispersal and philopatry In: Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W. and Strushaker, T. T. (Eds.) Primate Societies University of Chicago Press: Chicago Pusey, A. E. and Packer, C. (1994) Non-offspring nursing in social carnivores: minimizing the costs. Behavioural Ecology 5: 362–374

390


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Richard, A. F., Goldstein, S. J. and Dewar, R. E. (1989) Weed macaques: the evolutionary implications of macaques feeding ecology International Journal of Primatology 10: 569-594 Ruiz-Olmo, J., Lopez-Martin, J. M. and Palazon, S. (2001) The influence of fish abundance on the otter (Lutra lutra) populations in Iberian Mediterranean habitats. Journal of Zoolology (London) 254: 325–336 Simcharoen, S., Barlow, A. C. D., Simcharoen, A. and Smith, J. L. D. (2008) Home range size and daytime habitat selection of leopards in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand Biological Conservation 141 (9): Pages 2242-2250 Samson, J. (1996) Behavioural problems of farmed ostriches. A special report. Canadian Veterinary Journal 37: 412-414 Savage, A. (1990) The reproductive biology of the cotton-top tamarind (Saguinus Oedipus Oedipus) in Colombia. Dissertation Abstracts International B51 (4): 2108 Schaller, G. B., Teng, Q., Johnson, K. G., Wang, X., Shen, H. and Hu, J. (1989) The feeding ecology of giant pandas and Asiatic black bears in the Tangjiahe Reserve, China. In: Gittleman, J. (Ed.), Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution. Comstock Publishing Associates. Ithaca: New York Schaller, G. B., Hu, J., Pan, W., Zhu, J. (1985) Wolong’s Giant Panda. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Schmidt, M. (1986) Elephants (Proboscidae). In: Fowler, M. E. (Ed.) Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia Schoener, T. W. (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Reviews of Ecological Systematics 2: 369-404 Scognamillo, D., Maxit, I. E., Sunquist, M. and Polisar, J. (2003) Coexistence of jaguar (Panthera onca) and puma (Puma concolor) in a mosaic landscape in the Venezuelan Ilanos. Journal of Zoology 259: 269–279 Seibert, L. M. (2006) Social behaviour of Psittacine birds. In: Luescher, A. U. (Ed.) Manual of Parrot Behavior. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp43-48.

391


caged lives Seth, P. K., Chopra, P. K. and Seth, S. (2001) Indian rhesus macaque: habitat, ecology and activity patterns of naturally occurring populations. In: Gupta, A. K. (Ed.) Nonhuman primates of India, ENVIS bulletin: wildlife & protected areas. Dehradun (India): Wildlife Institute India Seydack, A. (1991) Monographie des Buschschweines (Potamochoerus porcus). Bongo Berlin 18: 85â&#x20AC;&#x201C;102 Skinner, J. D. and Smithers, R. H. N. (1990) The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. University of Pretoria Press: Pretoria Smith, T. (2004) Zoo Research Guidelines: Monitoring Stress in Zoo Animals. BIAZA: London, UK Smithers, R. H. N. (1983) The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. University of Pretoria: Africa Spitz, F. and Janeau, G. (1995) Daily selection of habitat in wild boar (Sus scrofa). Journal of Zoology London 237: 423â&#x20AC;&#x201C;434 Spruijt, B. M., Hol, T. and Rousseau, J. (1992) Approach, avoidance, and contact behaviour of individually recognized animals quantified with an imaging technique. Physiology and Behaviour 51: 747-752 Stevenson, M. F., and Rylands A. B. (1988) The marmosets, genus callithrix. In: Mittermeier R. A., Rylands, A. B., Coimbra-Filho A. F. and da Fonseca G. A. B. (Eds.) Ecology and Behaviour of Neotropical Primates. Volume 2. World Wildlife Fund: Washington DC: USA Stewart, J. S. (1994) Ostrich behaviour and behavioural problems. Proc. Annu. Conf. Assoc. Avian Vet 103-109 Sukumar, R. (2000) Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). In: Reading, R. P. and Miller, B. (Eds.) Endangered Animals: a reference guide to conflicting issues Greenwood Press: Westport, Connecticut, London Sukumar, R. (2006) A brief review of the status, distribution and biology of wild Asian elephants. International Zoo Yearbook 40: 1-8 Sunquist, M. E. and Sunquist, F. (2002) Wild Cats of the World. University of Chicago Press: London

392


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Taber, A. B., Doncaster, C. P., Neris, N. N. and Colman, F. H. (1994) Ranging behavior and activity patterns of two sympatric peccaries, Catagonus wagneri and Tayassu tajacu, in the Paraguayan Chaco. Mammalia 58: 61–71 Taylor, V. J. and Poole, T. B. (1998) Captive breeding and infant mortality in Asian elephant: a comparison between twenty western zoos and three eastern elephant centers. Zoo Biology 17: 311-332 Terborgh, J. (1983) Five New World Primates: A Study n Comparative Ecology. New Jersey: USA Thierry, B. (2004) Macaque Societies: A Model for the Study of Social Organization (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology) Thierry, B., Singh, M., and Kaumanns, W. (Eds.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Thornton, A. (2008) Early body condition, time budgets and the acquisition of foraging skills in meerkats. Animal Behaviour 75: 951-962 Turley, S. K. (1999) Exploring the future of the traditional UK zoo. Journal of Vacation Marketing 5: 340-355 van Schaik, C., Griffiths, M. (1997) Activity periods of Indonesian Rain Forest Mammals. Biotropica 28: 105–112 van Zeeland, Y. R. A., Spruit, B. M., Rodenburg, T. B. et al., (2009) Feather damaging behaviour in parrots: A review with consideration of comparative aspects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121: 75–95 Vercammen, P., Seydack, A. H. W. and Oliver, W. L. R. (1993) The Bush Pigs (Potamochoerus porcus and P. larvatus). In: Oliver, W. L. R. (Ed.), Status survey and conservation action plan: pigs, peccaries and hippos. IUCN –World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland Veron, G. (1999) Pads morphology in the Viverridae (Carnivora). Acta Theriol. 44: 363– 376 Vidya, T. N. C. and Sukumar, R. (2005) Social and reproductive behaviour in elephants Current Science 89: 1200-1207Von Borell, E. and Hurnick, F. (1991) Stereotypic behaviour, adrenocortical function, and open-field behaviour of individually confined gestating sows. Physiology and Behaviour 49: 709-713

393


caged lives Waga, I. C., Dacier, A. K., Pinha, P. S. and Tavares, M. C. H. (2006) Spontaneous tool use by wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) in the cerrado Folia Primatologica 77 (5): 337-344 Walter J. Rosskopf, W. J. and Woerpel, R. W. (1996) "Feather Picking and Therapy of Skin and Feather Disorders.". In: Diseases of Cage and Aviary Birds, Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Warwick, C., Frye, F. L. and Murphy, J. B. (2001) Health and Welfare of Captive reptiles. Chapman & Hall Weckel, M., Giuliano, W. and Silver, S. (2006) Jaguar (Panthera onca) feeding ecology: distribution of predator and prey through time and space. Journal of Zoology 270: 25â&#x20AC;&#x201C;30 Weldon, P. J., Gorra, M. F. and Wood, W. F. (2000) Short-chain carboxylic acids from the anal glands of the binturong, Arctictis binturong (Viverridae, Mammalia). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 28: 903-904 Wells, D. L. (2005) A note on the influence of visitors on the behaviour an welfare o zoo-housed gorillas Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93: 13-17 Wielebnowski, N. C., Fletchall, N., Carlstead, K., Busso, J. M. and Brown, J. L. (2002) Non-invasive assessment of adrenal activity associated with husbandry and behavioural factors in the North American clouded leopard population. Zoo Biology 21: 77-98 Wiesel, I., Maude, G., Scott, D. and Mills, G. (2008) Hyaena brunnea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. [online] <www.iucnredlist.org> [Accessed 24 July 2011] Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (2011) EU Zoo Inquiry. Dolphinaria: A review of the keeping of whales and dolphins in captivity in the European Union and EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (Written by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society for the European coalition ENDCAP in association with the Born Free Foundation) [online] http://www.bornfree.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/files/reports/Dolphinaria_Report_engl_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 27 July 2011] White, A. M., Swaisgood, R. R. and Czekala, N. (2007) Ranging patterns in white rhinoceros, Ceratotherium simum simum: implications for mating strategies. Animal behaviour 47: 349-356 Whiten, A, Byrne R. W., Barton, R. A, Waterman, P. G. and Henzi, S. P. (1991) Dietary and foraging strategies of baboons Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 334 (1270): 187-97

394


AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY

Wong, S. T., Servheen, C. and Ambu, L. (2002) Food habit of Malayan sun bears in lowland tropical forest of Borneo. Ursus 13: 127â&#x20AC;&#x201C;136 Wong, S. T., Servheen, C. W. and Ambu. L. (2004) Home range, movement and activity patterns, and bedding sites of Malayan sun bears Helarctos malayanus in the Rainforest of Borneo. Biological Conservation 119: 169â&#x20AC;&#x201C;181

Websites ABC website. Nika, el delfin mas Viejo de Europa en cautividad, muere en Zoo de Barcelona http://www.abc.es/agencias/noticia.asp?noticia=665714 [Accessed 31 July 2011] National Geographic website. Indian Rhinoceros [online] http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/indian-rhinoceros/ [Accessed 21 July 2011] National Geographic website. Mandrill [online] http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/mandrill/ [Accessed 24 June 2011] The Rhino Resource Center website [online] http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/species/indian-rhino/ [Accessed 21 July 2011] IUCN Hyaena Specialist Group website [online] http://www.hyaenidae.org/the-hyaenidae/brown-hyaena-parahyaena-brunnea/brunneasocial-behavior.html [Accessed 25 July 2011].

395


caged lives

caged lives AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION BY

animalEQUALITY ACTIVISM FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS

More information at: www.SpanishZoos.org

Animal Equality / Igualdad Animal All rights reserved.

396


Caged Lives | An Animal Equality investigation on Spanish zoos