Investigation Into Malaysian Zoos

If anyone is interested, here is a 213-page document (published in 2010) from ACRES (Animal Concerns Research and Education Society) in which 10 of the most substandard Malaysian zoos are extensively reviewed. As of March 2009 Malaysia had 39 established "zoos", and 10 were earmarked for further review due to the conditions of the enclosures and animal collection. For those that want to see some grim photos there are many scattered throughout the document, and hopefully this will bring more awareness to the plight of certain zoos. I'm not attempting to denigrate a specific nation's zoos, as I'm simply passing on a worthwhile and intriguing document:

http://zoocheck.com/Reportpdfs/MalaysiaZooReport2010.pdf

 

Given it is Born Free, I don't have to read it, I know what says in it from the preface to the conclusion. So I hope those of you who can be bothered will enjoy it, but I certainly won't waste my time on any of their rubbish.

 

Sadly, some self fulfilling agit prop and you just have to read the intro to know the *** are biased as hell! If you are into that sorta thing linger, if not ignore ...

 

Thanks Chlidonias,
As someone who has visited some appalling zoos in SE Asia, as well as some of their best and so-called best, I'll read this with gusto.

 

Too many folks turn a blind eye to the truly horrible zoos of the world, and so literature such as the document that I posted on this thread can be fascinating in its starkness. The photos tell a story all of their own, but far too many people dismiss such reports as some kind of bizarre propaganda and thus they might believe that the majority of zoos are excellent. Just in North America only 10% of all wildlife facilities are even AZA-accredited, and even some of those accredited institutions have many substandard enclosures. In reality between 5-10% of the zoos and aquariums of the world are impressive, wonderful facilities, meaning that 90-95% of the wildlife establishments are below par. Sad but true.

 

Far be it from me to defend some of the dumps out there in the world, but surely that figure may be a bit misleading unless all the zoos in North America have actually been assessed by AZA?

Only 10% may have been accredited but if only 15% have been assessed then that's a much better picture than if 80% have been assessed and only 10% accredited. Is there any information on what proportion of zoos have been assessed and not accredited?

The zoo organisations over here (BIAZA and EAZA) do have very strict requirements for membership but do not (that I have seen) refer to it as an accredition process, meaning non-membership isn't generally viewed as a negative in terms of press coverage etc*, so I've always found the American system intriguing - particularly given that just being non-AZA accredited seems to cast such a bad light on a zoo in many people's eyes.




*although discipline, suspension or expulsion of existing members will be picked up on, as Noah's and Dvur Kralove have found out in recent years.

 

I for one don't turn the blind eye on that there are bad zoos around. I have been to over 140 zoos in 5 continents and if I said that all their exhibits had been pleasant, I'd be lying. But I have enough common common sense to realise that not all zoos are bad and I have indeed visited zoos that I enjoyed visiting from the minute I entered to the minute I left. They are the reason I continue to visit zoos and support them, that is the concept as such. I won't visit the bad zoos again. But as Born Free and their partners are known to be against the concept of zoos, regardless of there being good zoos too, I won't read anything by them because I know what their raison d'etre is.

I'm not sure what to think of your percentage calculation but I would look at it differently and take it country by country as there are so many things that you need to take into the equation.

 

I have no idea how many establishments are actually assessed in North American zoos, but AZA accreditation is the "holy grail" of zoological assessment. Zoos strive to be accredited and in some cases they plaster stickers and signs all over their entrances to show off their newly accredited status. There are around 220 accredited zoos, aquariums and wildlife parks in North America and those that are not accredited definitely have some dodgy elements to them and to extent are indeed cast in a bad light. It is widely known that less than 10% of wildlife establishments are accredited, and those that have reached this pinnacle of success have to go through an intensive review every 5 years to remain accredited. My point is that many of those accredited zoos and aquariums are actually not even that good, and so in my personal opinion only about 5% of North American zoos are excellent. I shudder to think what that percentage would be for other continents just from me perusing through the ZooChat gallery. Of course there are different standards worldwide and many "homegrown" zoos in various nations that would never make the cut of AZA accreditation in North America.

In Canada there is CAZA accreditation, and my local Greater Vancouver Zoo has its 5-year renewal accreditation inspection in 2012. The zoo has already hired a new director, outlined several key maintenance improvements, and is gearing up for a year's worth of minor and major improvements just to ensure that the zoo remains accredited. In British Columbia, due to fairly new amendments to the wildlife act, the zoo must remain accredited or face possible closure and dispersal of its more than 600 animals. Accreditation is a HUGE DEAL in North America, and yet 90% of the wildlife facilities are not accredited and basically very poorly run. Of course there are some fantastic zoos that are amongst the best on the planet, but they are a very small percentage overall. Most people don't realize that the percentage of good zoos in the world is as tiny as a needle in a haystack.

 

ACRES started out as a typical zoo-bashing/hating organisation, creating sensationalistic campaigns against Singapore's wildlife parks. After a couple of years they realised that they were being viewed by the general public as a frivolous outfit, and decided to channel most of their energy on the illegal wildlife trade. They have been actively involved in animal rescue and undercover operations in Southeast Asia and have built a confiscated animal rescue centre in Singapore.

They continue to do zoo checks, but as can be seen in the posted report, they are scientific in their method and use WAZA guidelines as basis for their critiques. For someone who has little tolerance of groups like Peta and Born Free, I agreed with much of what ACRES reported. The ten zoos investigated are really really abysmal.

 

While I don't especially contest your main point, the bit I quoted above was more or less my point - because those 90% are not accredited, they are assumed to be 'very poorly run', without knowing whether they've even been assessed or not. Just seems to me that maybe accreditation is a little too big of a deal in the US. But my personal experience of US zoos is limited.

 

I for one have never understood the focus on accreditation in the US; seeing as a thread here in the USA forum mentioned a number of excellent zoos in the USA that are not AZA members but still do excellent work.

 

Accreditation by an industry group is always partially about quality and partially about control and political power. That is one reason why some institutions chose NOT to seek accreditation. They wish to remain independent. Another reason is the cost of membership and accreditation.

So accreditation does not, in itself, reveal much necessarily about the quality of a specific facility. I suppose that there is a greater likelihood that an accredited facility is well run and a greater likelihood that an unaccredited facility is not, but you can't draw specific conclusions from such statistical generalities

 

I have absolutely no respect for money grabbing, animal exploiting, two-faced groups who's raison d'etre is to bash zoos for their own profit.

However, although bits of it are slightly embellished and dramatised, if you actually read the ACRES report you would have to be appalled. And if you are not, then look at some of the pictures.

 

You have far more experience than I do working in the zoo industry, as you have been involved within the field directly, but as an outsider it would seem to me that quality is indeed a specific factor when it comes to AZA accreditation. Just glancing through the list of AZA facilities I can see that I've heard of just about every single establishment, but can you name any major zoos of decent quality that are not AZA accredited? (Your response might well be better placed on the "Zoos Without Accreditation" thread as this one has strayed from its original intent.)

 

My comment was focusing on what accreditation means and what it is worth rather than ticking off quality accredited vs. non-accredited facilities.

Whether we have heard of a zoo or whether it is a major zoo or not is a different matter -- and no indication of the quality of how animals are cared for -- then what does accreditation or non-accreditation mean.

I should add that you are a better source than I of a list of poor zoos that are AZA accredited... the flip side of this discussion