Dartmoor Wildlife Park This second section of the Dartmoor Wildlife Park report deals with the animal enclosures, signs and hand-rearing. The third section goes on to look at health and safety.
European Brown Bears: There were three bears in the enclosure. Most of the enclosure was a grassy slope with trees (the zoo is in a wooded area). There is a large drop from where the visitors gather to see the bears, making this section of the enclosure appear like a pit. I could see no attempt at enrichment (although the zoo brochure does claim to hide peanuts in the grass and put honey dips in the trees) and little furniture. The only water appeared to be a section of the 'pit', and this seemed to be just a small amount (a few inches) of dirty rainwater (picture 1). The bears certainly couldn't swim or fully submerge in it. Even if the pool was full to the top the bears wouldn't be able to fully submerge. Visitors could buy bags of peanuts at the entry and children were seen feeding these to the bears. The bears didn't seem too interested although they came over to the edge of the enclosure once a group of children appeared, in obvious anticipation of food - they had been sitting still on the grass until then. Children were often throwing the nuts at the bears as well as throwing sweets into the enclosure. This feeding, as well as the pit-like section of the enclosure, gave this the appearance of the bear pits of Bern in Switzerland, with the bears begging for food more out of wanting something to do rather than being hungry (picture 2). If people are being encouraged to feed animals then there should be proper supervision to ensure that animals are not overfed or given the wrong type of food. Point 1.10 of the SMZP: "Uncontrolled feeding of animals by visitors should not be permitted. Where controlled feeding occurs, it should be on a selective basis only, with suitable food sold, provided or approved by the operator. The quantity supplied per day must be managed to avoid over feeding." It is clearly impossible for the zoo to monitor feeding if they continue to sell bags of food to the public. Despite signs warning not to sit on the wall over the enclosure children frequently did - the 'pit' directly below the wall encouraged children to do this as by sitting on the wall and leaning over they got a better look at the bears. One of the bears was seen pacing up and down in the 'pit'. Canadian Timber Wolves: There were two adjoining enclosures containing the wolves. One appeared to hold just one wolf who seemed to be in a state of great frustration. He was constantly pacing around and going close to the fence that separated the two enclosures to see the other wolves (who would also go close to the fence and whimper). As wolves are pack animals part of the frustration may have been the denial of access to the other wolves. He often stopped and howled, particularly when the lion roared from a nearby enclosure. The stand-off barrier at this enclosure was too close to the main fence, and you could easily reach over and put your hand into the enclosure. Although a sign warned 'These animals bite. Do not reach or lean over barrier', the barrier should have been moved further back to prevent this (picture 3). In front of the enclosures was an extremely dirty and faded sign appealing for funds to enlarge the enclosure (picture 4). I overheard a group of visitors questioning each other on whether this work had been done. The sign had obviously been there a very long time. African Lions: These were difficult to observe as they spent their time lying down on the far end of the enclosure from public view. One lioness was seen pacing up and down along the perimeter fence. According to the zoo brochure the lions have bred two cubs, Nahla and Floyd.
Close Encounters: A building containing various small cages is where each day the zoo allows visitors to handle various animals.
Pumas: There were 4 pumas in a wooden aviary-style enclosure. The smallness of this enclosure, its low roof, the fact that it was surrounded by trees and there was lots of leaf-litter on the mesh roof (the latter two points making it dark), made the whole enclosure feel very claustrophobic. A small indoor enclosure was in one corner, and apart from a small old wooden shelter on which was some meat, a few logs and the trunks of a few trees the enclosure was bare. Not surprisingly the pumas often paced up and down - there was absolutely no stimulation whatsoever for these animals. I would question whether this enclosure is even safe for containing 4 pumas as it was clearly made a long time ago from wood and mesh which appeared in a deteriorated state. Two keepers threw in various bits of meat which stank putrid and attracted lots of flies.
Siberian Tigers: Only one adult was seen. The moat was a thick green with algae, from which the tiger drank. A family with a Yorkshire Terrier were seen with the dog close to the enclosure (picture 12), and at one point even held the dog over the stand-off barrier to tease the tiger. They were seen doing similar things at one of the Jaguar enclosures. The dog was also barking at the pacing tiger. The father of the family was also leaning over the barrier teasing the tiger (picture 13) (again the barrier was close to the enclosure fence) who one occasion reared up against the fence at him. One of the five principles for animal welfare listed in the SMZP is the Provision of Protection From Fear and Distress - allowing dogs into the zoo, and the lack of supervision that allows people to antagonise animals, is removing that protection. A separate enclosure (marked on the map in the zoo brochure as 'Site of new Cheetah enclosure') held two cubs, both around 10 months old. I later heard a keeper telling someone that the cubs mother had produced 4 cubs but 2 died and these 2 were removed to be hand-reared. According to the zoo brochure the zoo's previous breeding tigers, Sylvester and Linka, produced nearly 30 cubs, and their son 'Spa' "is now carrying on their duties with Tammy and Tasmin from Blackpool Zoo." The only water that could be seen in this enclosure was a small pool of muddy rain water that had gathered in a corner. The cubs walked and drank in this. A sign named them as Stripe and Blotch but Kirsty seemed to be calling them by different names. Jaguars: There were two separate Jaguar enclosures, one a wooded area and the other a small grassed area. The indoor house of the first enclosure appeared dirty with scraps of meat and dirty wood shavings on the floor. During the Close Encounter session two 8-day old Jaguar cubs (a male and a female) were brought in for the children to see. These are being hand-reared. The zoo brochure boasts that the zoo's pair of Jaguars "have bred many cubs, which have again been sent around the UK and abroad". During the Close Encounter the audience were told that the cubs father had tried to drown one of them and the mother (Troy) ignored the second, so both were removed. They said that the cubs won't be staying at the zoo. They also said that there are two adult females and one adult male Jaguar at the zoo. The sign on one of the enclosures describing the species and their natural environment was small and at the top of a high fence (picture 14), resulting in it being very easy to miss and difficult to read, especially for children. If any thought had been given to the positioning of this sign it would have been placed much lower down. Arctic Foxes: Two were seen in what appears to be a temporary enclosure in the corner of the tiger cub enclosure. The 2 foxes were observed constantly pacing around their enclosure in an agitated state, seemingly watching the tiger cubs and the builders who were working in the cub enclosure. Being in this corner made it difficult to fully observe them and no signs naming or describing the animals could be seen. Their small enclosure seemed to consist of just a bit of grass and a small kennel.
Birds: There were various aviaries around the zoo containing a range of birds. Invariably these were old wood and mesh aviaries with the minimum amount of furniture (ie perches) and no enrichment. Many were dirty and had dirty water - the SMZP states that "All birds of prey must have access to clean drinking and bathing water daily" (Appendix 8, point 8.7.3) which clearly wasn't the case during my visit (picture 15). Dead chicks given as food were left in the open and were covered with flies. Many aviaries didn't have any stand-off barriers and fingers (or whole hands in the case of young children) could be put through the mesh. Signs on the aviaries were some of the most inadequate and least educational anywhere in the zoo. For example one simply said 'Tawny Owl. Great Britain' (picture 16). Several appeared to have no signs at all. This clearly breaches the conditions of the SMZP, as described in the section on Signs later in this report.
Grey Seal: 'Lizzie' the grey seal who has lived at the zoo for the past 25 years in what the zoo strangely describe as a "large pool" but which more accurately resembles a filthy flooded field, was allegedly moved to the Seal Sanctuary at Gweek on 18 October 2001. Tapir, Emu, Mara: These shared a large field near the zoo entry. The field was empty (apart from the seal pool) and I could see just one small shelter which looked as though it would fit just a couple of animals. However the zoo guide book appears to show access from this field into a small enclosure with possibly some form of shelter. Siberian Lynx: They were seen pacing around their small enclosure. The handle of the pully which raises and lowers the door of the indoor section could easily be reached by the public standing against the stand-off barrier. Anyone touching the handle could seriously injure a Lynx if the door dropped on it. Point 2.4 of the SMZP require "All plant and fixed equipment ... must be installed and maintained in such a way that they do not present a hazard to animals". The sign describing the animals and their natural environment consisted of a small typed sheet attached to a part of the enclosure that made it difficult to see close up; it was also very dirty and difficult to read (picture 19).
Caracal Lynx: These two Lynx were next to the vervet monkeys and near a picnic bench. There was little vegetation in their enclosure and one side of their indoor enclosure had a glass front making it open to public view, meaning they had nowhere to hide away. They clearly didn't like being so close to people as they hissed when people stopped to look at them. The glass on the indoor enclosure had a sign saying 'do not tap on the glass'. As with the Siberian Lynx the handle of the pully which raises and lowers the door of the indoor section could easily be reached by the public (picture 20). Servals: Another aviary-style enclosure, narrow with no obvious enrichment. When I first arrived three young keepers were cleaning the enclosure and the servals were on a raised platform in the corner. When I returned later the two servals were pacing up and down the fence. Red Fox: There was a horrific putrid stench coming from the enclosure which presumably resulted from the open tray of meat that attracted swarms of flies. Point 1.3 of the SMZP: "Supplies of food and drink to be kept and prepared under hygienic conditions" and "must be protected against dampness, deterioration, mould or contamination by insects, birds, vermin or other pests." This was the most inappropriate fox enclosure I have ever seen at any zoo (picture 21). Visitors look down into it from a high wall and the small narrow enclosure has a cobbled floor, clearly not designed for an animal that digs. The SMZP states that "animals that dig and root must be provided with suitable substrates" (page 6). Point 4.4 requires that: "Enclosures should be equipped in accordance with the needs of the animals with bedding material, branchwork, burrows, nesting boxes, pools, sub-strates and vegetation and other enrichment materials designed to aid and encourage normal behaviour patterns and minimise any abnormal behaviour". The enclosure was empty except for a wheelbarrow of straw, and old wooden kennel-type structure and a block of wood with a hatchet sticking in it (the latter raising a possible safety risk to the fox). The fox itself was seen in a glass-fronted structure above the enclosure which it presumably reached by climbing a wooden ramp. Otters: There were 3 different enclosures, all appearing to hold Asian Short Clawed Otters
A filthy and faded sign (picture 26) next to the 3rd enclosure appealed for donations to enlarge the otter enclosure - the sign had obviously been there for some time and it was unclear whether the necessary funds had never been raised or whether the money had been spent on something else. The map in the zoo guide does have an area marked 'Site for new Otter enclosure' further down the zoo in a small section of the field that currently holds the emus, rhea, mara and tapir. The map shows just one otter enclosure (described above as enclosure three. The first enclosure above appears to be marked as Barn Owls) - presumably the otters have all been separated for some reason, although there was no notice to say why. In all 3 enclosures the otters appeared very interested in the public coming over, and often stood right up to the fence and standing on their back legs leaning against the mesh. In the 2nd enclosure the otters would run up and down along the corner of the fence. The otter enclosures appear to be in total breach of the SMZP requirements on providing suitable accommodation (see 'Overall Impression' for details on those requirements). Domestic Rabbits: There were several domestic rabbits running free in the grounds. They were often being chased by children and even when some children shouted that they'd caught a rabbit they were totally ignored by 3 keepers nearby.
Vervet Monkeys: Next to the Caracal Lynx, these are the only primates at the zoo. Typical monkey enclosure, with climbing ropes and a tyre. One of the monkeys had a young baby and appeared stressed whenever people stopped to look, but at least there was the opportunity to escape from public view in the indoor house. The only water I could see in this enclosure was a plastic container with filthy water and leaves (picture 27) - the SMZP, point 1.2 states: "Fresh, clean drinking water of sufficient quantity must be available at all times for all animals requiring it." Point 1.8: "Food, water and other drinking receptacles, where used, should be cleaned regularly." The stand-off barrier was very close to the fence and people would be able to reach over and put their fingers through the mesh - not only could this result in injury, but it also increases the risk of disease transmission. Point 3.6 of the SMZP: "Distance or barriers between animals and between enclosures and visitors must be sufficient to minimise transmission of disease or potential pathogens." Signs warning that the animals bite were faded (picture 28). Signs: According to the SMZP, in order to fill the necessary criteria for education, "accurate information about the species exhibited must be available. This should include, as a minimum, the species name (both scientific and common), its natural habitat, some of its biological characteristics and details of its conservation status" (point 7.7). Usually this information is given on signs on each enclosure. Other signs should provide warnings about animals biting or requesting visitors not to feed the animals. At this zoo many of the signs were hand-painted and had clearly been there a long time, and many were faded so badly as to be illegible (picture 29). Many provided just the common name of the animal and the country it lives in the wild (picture 30). There was next to no information about the individual animals at the zoo, although there is some information in the zoo's brochure for those willing to spend £2 on top of the entry fee. There appears to be some recent attempt to improve some of the signs - this may have been a condition made by the Zoo Inspectors on their last visit. The new signs are A3-sized, laminated, giving fuller details about the species and their natural habitat. Hand-Rearing Animals: Whilst animals in the wild sometimes do reject their young, in captivity there are many more reasons for them doing so. Serious questions should be raised when so many animals at one place reject their young who then have to be hand-reared, as at Dartmoor Wildlife Park (pictures 31 and 32). One factor may be that the adults may be stressed by their surroundings and thereby reject or try to kill their young. The zoo brochure has a half-page article about hand-rearing, presumably to explain why this happens so often. This article appears to put rejection of young down to the fault of the adult animal: "sometimes an animal will reject its offspring, this can be due to the age of the mother since captive animals live longer and breed later in life leading to a healthy litter but little or no milk, or simply being a bad mother with no interest in her young." It is disingenuous for the zoo to put all blame on the adult animals rather than face up to the possible failings of the zoo environment. The zoo brochure states in a proud way that staff have had to hand-rear a whole range of animals including tigers, lions, pumas, foxes, raccoons, deer and lambs. Surely breeding programmes should be suspended if the zoo doesn't know why this is happening, rather than boasting about it. The third and final section of this Dartmoor Wildlife Park report looks at health and safety. Photographs © Captive Animals Protection Society |
