Woburn Safari Park Woburn Safari Park Sea Lion Exhibit Goes

The ‘Animal Care’ team at Woburn has long felt sea lions were somewhat of an anomaly at the park as they require huge amounts of ever decreasing fish stocks to feed, chemicals to maintain their water quality and also don’t have the same degree of freedom as most of Woburn’s other animals. It has therefore become clear that it is time to say a fond farewell to these amazing and very popular animals.

New Lion House Breaks Ground as Sea Lions Move On and Penguins Move In! ~ Woburn News


Well that's the official line.

The animals have been moved to a dolphinarium in Turkey

Delphintherapie | Dolphin Therapy | im Freiwasser DTZ Marmaris - Tuerkei - TURKEY

 

A casualty of the pressure to give pinnipeds saltwater pools, perchance?


(I love 'don't have the same degree of freedom' - maybe compared to the lions but it's not like the river hogs or penguins are roaming the wide open spaces...)

 

Any details on the 4th Asian elephant to come from Holland mentioned in the Press Release ?

 

I find the quote from Woburn as to the reasons for removing the sea lions laughable particularly when Woburn invested large sums of money in 2002 building an large 540 cubic meter (120,000 gallon) outside extension to the sea lion exhibit measuring 28m x 20m with a graduated depth of 3.0.



This is hardly small and does not include the inside pool and holding pools.

Maguari has put up an excellent larger photo of the pool here:

http://www.zoochat.com/220/sealion-pool-woburn-20-06-09-a-88248/

Chemicals in water? They are no doubt talking about chlorine but that isn't a problem. Some background here:

An Introduction to Basic Water Treatment Protocols for Pinnipeds Exhibits

In any event, they could have installed a biological system like they have on their penguin pool or on the seal pool at Bristol and various other places.

I don’t think it was an issue of salt as Woburn did salinate their pools from what I can remember. Moreover, Longleat has lots of room but the animals are in an unfiltered fresh water lake.

Moreover, California sea lions may not be endangered but nether are the African lions and many other animals they displayed at Woburn and they have just spent £250,000 upgrading the lions accommodation.

As for decreasing fish stocks one could also question what they are going to feed their penguins on and have they done any calculations regarding the carbon footprint of feeding their "none-endangered" carnivores domesticated cattle, etc?

I suspect that they just didn’t want to have sea lions any more which is fair enough and reading between the lines it sounds as if they considered them more trouble than they are worth. However, putting forward rather silly and lame excuses for their actions to remove the animals from the park will just give more ammunition to groups like Born Free Foundation as regards the display of none-endangered animals in a zoological collection which do have a legitimacy.

* There was talk sometime ago of converting the sea lion house into a tropical house so this may ultimately be it's fate.

 

Asian small clawed otters for the existing penguin pool?

 

Some years ago Woburn announced plans for a massive 'Asian Elephant Breeding Centre' to house up to 20 females and two males. This didn't happen (planning permission denied?) but later on the new and somewhat smaller complex to hold (I believe) up to 10 animals, was completed to replace the very basic Elephant accomodation. Yet they still only have the same trio of elephants and no breeding results to date. Possibly they haven't been able to import any more animals direct from Asia? One more 'zoo' female is a welcome, but rather minor addition.

Sealions- a pity for them to lose these spectacular animals- one of the most popular exhibits for the average visitors I think. Woburn might later regret this decision. Chester have also announced they are going out of Sealions too.

Lions- I'm pleased to hear they are building decent night/indoor accomodation for the Lions. I noticed when I went quite recently that their night accomodation was a row of grim looking kennel-type structures which presumably they have to spend many hours every night shut up in.

 

Yes, I think from an animal welfare point of view the improvement in the lions accommodation can only be welcome.

I too think that the sea lions going is a mistake as they have always been popular - I ran the sea lions show at Woburn between 1987 - 1993. It a bit funny that some zoos who have traditionally kept these animals for years have stopped keeping them particularly when the continue to keep other 'main-stream' zoo species.

 

I am sure we will find out soon enough. I can't see them leaving such a big exhibit empty. As regard the sea lion building, I also can't see them keeping that empty either. Going to be some very pissed off customers at Woburn this coming season me thinks

 

And don't penguin require chemicals in their water and aren't they fed fish? They kind of failed with that statement!

 

Indeed. The current penguin pool did originally have a biological filter system that used ozone. The sea lion pools used chlorination - so unless they convert the outside sea lion pool to biological/ozone system they are still going to have to use chlorine.

The dangerous premise is also that some how the facilities were inadequate for the 3 or 4 sea lions housed there which is nonsense. It had two large pools and off-show holding areas which also had small bathing pools.

The have been rumours for ages that whilst the sea lions were popular they weren't like by some and there was designs to turn the building into a tropical house or something similar.

The sea lions have gone to a sea-pen based dolphinarium at Marmaris in Turkey that specialises in 'dolphin therapy'. The faculty employs one of the former senior trainers from Woburn so I am sure the animals will be in excellent hands.

However, I am not aware of this facility belonging to EAZA and any other professional zoo or aquarium body. Therefore, the question is: what steps where taken to ensure these animals were going to a suitable environment? Particularly as Woburn belongs to BIAZA which in it’s Codes of Practice on members sending animals out their collections state:

When a Member is sending an animal(s) to another collection or individual that is not known to them, the sending institution MUST ensure that they have either inspected the facilities at, or received suitable references concerning, the receiving collection. Such reassurances, regarding facilities and expertise, are MANDATORY for all species included in Category I of the Dangerous Animal Categorisation under the Zoo Licensing Act and the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP)

More information here:

http://www.biaza.org.uk/resources/library/images/ATP09.pdf

 

Hi there,

One of the main reasons the sealions are moving on is because of the chemicals in the water, they are going to natural water in Turkey and therefore will benefit greatly from this. I know there has been certain condtions agreed with the company in Turkey to ensure the best for the animals and a employee last year did go out to Turkey to see to the facilities and there are a few ex-woburn employees working out there now.

There is plans in place for both the sealion pool becoming the new penguin pool and the current penguin pool but as of yet these are not finalised and are still in the planning process. Currently the penguins have a biological system of ozone and again there are ideas floating around regarding the filtration system for the sealion pool but im nearly 100% sure that chemicals will not be used as that is an important factor on why the sealions are moving.

Regarding the elephant, plans are still in place for bringing in the new female and the breeding programme is still on going and hopefully there will be good news sometime soon.

 

Is there an indoor area for the sea lions that would need to be converted, or is it all outdoor?

 

There is an indoor and outdoor pool and some holding pens that also have pools in. I think the indoor pool isn't going to used for the penguins but as i say the plans are still ongoing so things can change.

 

Chemicals?? Are we talking: Salt? Chlorine?

If it is chlorine then I have say that there is absolutely no problem with using chlorination with marine mammals. How many times can I say this!

This has been extensively researched e.g. Klinowska and Brown (1986) Spotte (1991) and to promote the idea that it is harmful is total and absolute rubbish. This is the kind of nonsense we hear from The Born Free Foundation etal. Any problems with use chlorine is due to misuse and not understanding of how this system works.

If animals are being irritated by the use of chlorine it's either due to the pools being too small in volume or staff have little idea of the basic science behind it use. In the case of Woburn the water volumes certainly are large enough but as far as staff training in this field is concerned I have know idea. I can only say I had little problems using chlorine when I ran the sea lion faculty at Woburn between 1987 – 1993 and this was prior to the new outside pool being constructed.

Nonetheless, as stated before if this is perceived as a problem then the conversion to a biological system is very straight forward or adding an ozone system to augment the chlorination.

Details on the matter of aquatic mammals water treatment here:

PRINCIPLES OF WATER TREATMENT IN AQUATIC MAMMAL POOLS

In Woburns on-line blog it states:

...a decision has been made to move these engaging animals to another collection in the Mediterranean which can provide large lagoons for them to live in...



The dolphinarium at Marmaris are floating sea pens which are ostensibly large mental cages in the water certainly not 'lagoons'. See above picture.

What would have been helpful would be the detailed disclosure of the sea lions new accommodation perhaps with photographs. Whilst the facilities may be reasonable for dolphins how are the sea lions going to confided - unlike dolphins sea lions can climb.

Please forgive me but the more information I hear about this the more concerned I become. I sincerely believe Woburn may have shot itself in the foot here because if these facilities are no up to any recognised standards then animals rights groups like CAPS, BFF, etc will have a field day and no body wants to give these groups even more ammunition to throw at zoological collections.


Reference:

Klinowska, M. and Brown, S. (1986). A Review Of Dolphinaria, London: Department of the Environment.

Spotte, S (1991) Sterilization of Marine Mammal Pool Water: Theoretical and Health Consideration. APHIS Technical Bulletin No. 1797

 

Since my above post I have received further information regarding the sea-pens at Marmaris. Apparently, last two winters bad weather with heavy seas damaged the sea-pens and the during the winter of 2008/2009 the dolphins were forced to be relocated to local hotel swimming pools. Which suggests this facility is not as robust as one would think.

 

This story seems to go from bad to worse-those poor sea-lions!

 

John,

What an interesting debate that I'd love to get in on!!

I worked at Woburn for 7 1/2 years and managed the sealion department. The team managed the water treatment effectively and we were all fully trained to run any 'swimming' pool in the country.

I feel, as I'm sure you do, frustrated at Woburn’s statement especially as I fought hard to improve the animals conditions for years.
Before you get frustrated about chlorine, and understandably, I and the team understand that the agent chlorine is not the issue, but the dirt or faeces/urine/hair etc that mixes with this chemical, to create damaging chloromine or dichloramines (apologies for spelling, writing quick) These particles, of course, damage eyes and skin.
The new outside exhibits was made and designed around cost saving and therefore has low rate filters and a turn over rate of up to 5 hrs. Ridiculous in regards to appropriate filtration for the size of pool. You can therefore see that despite managing the water to best of our ability the water filtration itself was not good enough.

Many water treatment specialists looked at our levels and were surprised that despite the design issues the water levels were satisfactory. However I can assure you that throughout my time at Woburn the sealions did suffer from eye and skin issues, as do most facilities with a chemical systems and even Longleat. (I have recorded questionnaires from 10 uk facilities all of which have health problems with their pinnipeds and use chemicals) not scientific but still evidence

The pinniped EAZA guidelines also state that biological systems are advised over chemical treatment pools. You just have to talk to John Partridge at Bristol zoo to discover the welfare improvements their animals have gained from changing to biological systems.

Anyway John I don't want to patronise you, as I know you are experienced in the field, I am as equally disappointed that Woburn didn't spend £500,000.00 to update the system and yes we had 6 quotes, you are just unaware of the existing issues with the filtration.

The indoor building needs knocking down as is falling down and leaking a foot a night (nothings been improved since you left!) I do believe that we should be spending more money to improve environments for all species and that is obviously a managerial choice in regards to what animals environments are improved. The fish bit made me laugh!

Marmaris is a good facility, go and visit, I have for 2 weeks! The pens are bigger than woburn and the water beautiful, of course being a penned off piece of the ocean, there will be storms and damage, but this is common as i'm sure you know. A risk worth taking!!

3 of my best friends (15 years experience with pinnipeds) are currently there and I assure you the Woburn sealions’ welfare will improve, something all species deserve.
Just wish zoos' took more responsibilities rather than passing on issues,

Anyways rant over but I will be really interested to keep in contact over this matter,

All the best.

 

Hello. Quite a few points to address.

Maybe that’s the problem as these faculties are not swimming pools. They may derive some of their technology and science from public water treatment and swimming pools but they are not the same. To start with they have a ‘fixed bathing load’ unlike private and public swimming pools.

Chloramine formation is due to an interaction with ammonia which is derived from the animals urine – feaces, hair and skin play a very small part in this. Dichloramine is a species of chloramine along with other types formed who occur at various levels and are pH dependant the most noxious being trichloamine (nitrogen trichloride). However these compounds are destroyed by the continuities addition of more ‘free’ chlorine (hypochlorous acid). I am not going into huge detail about this but a full explanation is in the two papers I published cited perviously and again below. Did you bother to read them?

MAINTAINING THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT

I also have put up a guide I produced for staff at Chessington when I was Head of Animal Behaviour which details the nuts and bolts of the daily operation of the aquatic environments using chlorination:

Water Treatment Protocols for Sealion and Penguin Exhibit

The bottom line is too little chlorine addition continues cause chloramines formation. In my experience many keeping staff don’t really understand this and basically panic and stop adding chlorine.

I have to say in my 35+ years experience I have seen a number of problems with eye and skin issues but this was down to mismanagement on various levels: either the staff and/or the facilities themselves for providing inadequate systems, too small pools size, no pH control, over use of aluminium sulphate, etc.

Sadly, you actually destroy your case against the use of chlorine by citing Longleat because it is a large unfiltered system. However, it’s a real pity you didn’t publish your research as this is always welcome.

The eye problems in sea lions stem more from the fresh water environment than the use of chlorination. Chlorine per se is not the problem when managed by people who know what they are doing in an exhibit with enough water volume and reasonable filtration.

Even then there are ‘work rounds’. Did you ever consider bulk chlorination over night in one of the two main pools at Woburn with the animals held the other non- chlorinated pool overnight? It worked very well when I worked at Dolfirama Zandvoort in the Netherlands 1977.

Whilst high turnover rates are an advantage 5 hours isn’t that bad. Blackpool Zoo when I working with sea lions in 1975 did have a 12 hours turnover and the quality was good (when it was managed properly) the system there was upgraded and they are having a further up grade with the current pool renovation. Chessington also had a turnover of something like a 12 hour turnover rate.

It all down to loading i.e. animals and food consumption.

A 4 hour turnover rate in closed and semi-closed exhibit pools is recommended by the European Association for Aquatic Mammals and the US Animal Welfare Act code for marine mammals.

Low rate filters? If you actually mean slow progression through the filter bed as these are far better than high rate filter systems in my professional opinion having operated more filter systems on aquatic animal pools and tanks – low rate, high rate sand even diatomaceous earth (D.E.) - than care to remember. My CV is here if you are interested.

One has to ask why EAZA has made this statement and what research it actually based on. The Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice does not preclude the use of chlorine but interestingly recommend salt water as being benefice for sea lions.

Biological systems are fine and I have some experience using the systems. However, biological systems do have their own problems as well. Believe me they do!

Bristol never used chlorine in the current exhibit and their experience with chlorination relates to the old sea lion pool which had a very low animal to water ratio which is why they had problems. I know this because they did ask my advice on the matter many years ago.

This is such a common problem despite it been known for many years but everyone blames chlorination. There a number of UK aquatic mammal exhibit I know where they have constructed pools which are by volume completely inadequate to operate chlorination and this is why people bang on about “chemicals”. It is a statement made in complete ignorance of the actual facts.

I actually know quite a bit about the place so hope my concerns are proved fruitless. But by your own addmission the sea pens are likely to recieve more damage from storms and I am not really sure it is "a risk worth taking" for either humans or animals.

You proberaly are not aware that this kind of set-up would be illegal in the UK for dolphins as there is no dedicated land-based holding facilites and hotel swimming pools wouldn't actually count.

Nothing wrong with a good rant!

Please believe that my argument is not against you or keepers working with the sea lions. But I found the statement from Woburn basically lazy spin and (as you have more or less confirmed) the facts are they simply were not prepared to invest enough money to up grade the current Woburn faculty which is entirely their right and decided to re home the sea lions and develope the site for other animals.

 

Wow! Ok I Guess you believe that I have no knowledge regarding filtration systems! When you have no idea who I am or what I do!
You obviously know more than anyone else, a dangerous and typical old skool trait. Most of your references are far to old.

Anyway John thanks for the lecture, maybe you should make and design marine mammal pools because you clearly know more than the designers (blackpool and bristol passed on their company to us who told us what I told you, clearly wrong!) and Andrew Greenwood is obviously also miss-informed with his advice. A marine mammal vet too maybe?

I agree with the ridiculous Woburn statement but feel very insulted that you suggest that the staff are incompetent when you know nothing of the management.
Automatic dosing systems do inevitably go wrong and do effect welfare when they do,but please publish something for your pro chemical evidence.

They have already had storms in Turkey and the pens are fine, don't be bitter, we have all moved on! out with the old in with new!

 

Chlorinated marine mammal swimming pools vs ocean. Difficult contest!

A very interesting debate so far. There is obviously a lot of compassion expressed with regards to the welfare of marine mammals here which can only be a positive thing.

Being passionate myself, I thought I'd add a little something to the mix.

I find it a little strange that when talking about chlorine and its compounds, that the dangers of said constituents are not also being acknowledged John. It's chlorine. It's position in the periodic table says it all! You sound like a scientist and yet you are not exploring all aspects of this debate. Your referencing is, I agree with 'ratbags' here, most certainly outdated. Is it not common sense that there are also well documented dangers with the use of chlorine and it's compounds for disinfecting water?! I imagine you must have come under fire in your years of experience working with marine mammals (in the UK I presume?) so I totally understand this knee jerk reaction.

Anyway as a scientist, I'm sure you're aware that just because the research hasn't been done yet that a problem doesn't exist. It's a matter of time before something is published with regards to marine mammals and the chlorine for disinfection of their water. That is if it hasn't been done already.

Here's something for your perusal...



The Negative Health Effects of Chlorine.
(Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2000).

https://www.sophytoorganics.co.uk/downloads/super_bioactives.pdf



Impact of Chlorinated Swimming Pool Attendance on the Respiratory Health of Adolescents
(Pediatrics, 2009)

Impact of Chlorinated Swimming Pool Attendance on the Respiratory Health of Adolescents -- Bernard et al. 124 (4): 1110 -- Pediatrics



Survey of construction workers repeatedly exposed to chlorine over a three to six month period in a pulpmill: II. Follow up of affected workers by questionnaire, spirometry, and assessment of bronchial responsiveness 18 to 24 months after exposure ended.

(Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1994) - a bit outdated I know, apologies!

I think you may agree it is a little shortsighted to support the use of chlorine and its compounds for marine mammal swimming pools. Maybe the ocean will be better for them afterall?

Regards,

Dr Green.