SINGAPORE ZOO REPORT

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr Louis,

Forgive me for the inordinate delay in submitting the Singapore

Zoo report to you but it took some time to get it reviewed by Zoocheck Canada.

But here it is and I hope you or any other concerned South East Asian

organisation will be able to follow on the issues raised. Judging by your

messages on the AAPN listserve and also in the media, ACRES is definitely well

on its way to making Singapore a more animal friendly place. It is also nice to

note Prodip's work progressing remarkably in Vizag. All the best in your

campaigns.

Best wishes and kind regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

" Rob@Zoocheck Canada " <rob | Add to Address Book | This is spam

 

 

 

" ' Ghosh' " <shubhobrotoghosh

 

 

RE: REVISED SINGAPORE ZOO REPORT

 

 

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:18:53 IST

 

 

Note: To help protect your privacy, images from this message have

been blocked.View images | What is this?

 

 

 

 

 

I did a quick read through. A couple of additional comments below.

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

 

[shubhobrotoghosh]

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:09 AM

rob

Cc: shubhobrotoghosh

REVISED SINGAPORE ZOO REPORT

 

 

Dear Mr Laidlaw,

Please find attached the revised Singapore Zoo report. Please

let me know it is OK.

Best wishes,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

REPORT ON SINGAPORE ZOO

 

As a participant as the Project Coordinator Of The Indian Zoo Inquiry Project Of

Zoocheck Canada and Compassionate Crusaders Trust at the Asia For Animals

Conference in Singapore organized by ACRES(Animal Concerns and Research Society,

I had the opportunity to pay two visits to the Singapore Zoo on 21st June and

25th June. The following is a summary of my observations made whilst walking

through the zoo. It was not possible to take detailed notes in the format of the

Indian Zoo Inquiry due to time constraints so the report follows an anecdotal

format.

 

The entrance of Singapore Zoo announces its very brazen commercial intent. The

numerous stalls and the dancers in their African costumes merrymaking with

ethnic music with their exotic appeal welcome visitors. Strangely however, as I

noted, guidebooks are not for sale to the general public. They are apparently

only sold to members or Friends Of Singapore Zoo. Television sets eulogise the

‘conservation’ and maintenance of the zoo.

 

The entrance greets people with zoo guides handling snakes for ostensibly

educational purposes. Visitors can have their photographs taken with snakes

wrapped around their hands. The conservation and educational benefit of this

exercise is open to question. Snakes are not toys. As well, the stress

experienced by the reptiles due to frequent handling may be excessive and the

risk of human visitors contracting zoonotic diseases from the reptiles could be

high.

 

There are Scarlet Macaws and Sulphur Crested Cockatoos perched on branches in

the open for photo opportunities. I was unable to determine if their wings were

pinioned or clipped but it did not appear as though they could escape . It is

possible that the constant public viewing could cause them some duress. These

issues of animal handling need to be addressed by the zoo as a matter of

priority.

 

The Siamang enclosure is one of the best gibbon enclosures I have observed. It

gives the animals space, ample branching, swinging opportunities and excellent

cover. Indeed, the Siamangs on display seemed robust and in good health.

However, it does seem that the proximity of the vegetation to the perimeter

offers a chance for the animals to escape if they wish. This is a potential

danger that merits prompt attention.

 

Singapore Zoo seems very lush with varied species of rainforest plants. However,

the vegetation falsely creates the impression that the surroundings are

‘natural’ when they are not. This illusion is brought to book in the white

tiger enclosure where three animals are exhibited in a moated enclosure. The

illusion of space and naturalness is created by the lush vegetation. Also, for

apparent decorative effect, there is a waterfall inside the enclosure that

reduces the amount of ground space available to the animals. The tigers were

observed slipping in their efforts to cross the waterfall by pouncing on a log

above. Stereotypic pacing behaviours were extremely pronounced.

 

The Pygmy Hippopotamus enclosure offers an excellent opportunity to view the

animals underwater through glass panels. However, due to the lack of barriers

visitors, including children, were observed banging on the glass to solicit

movement in the animals. Indeed, the lack and inadequacy of barriers is a

central feature of Singapore Zoo. A good educational experience is thus

effectively distorted.

 

There seems to be an overpopulation of Antelopine Wallabies. A couple of these

animals were observed huddling in the same place during the two visits at the

side of an alleyway. There was no barrier between these animals and pathway.

The other animals were in a paddock with a very low fencing. It is unknown why

two animals were outside this paddock.

 

The Warthog enclosure seemed particularly filthy with excreta strewn with mud

causing a stench . Warthogs are known to enjoy a good wallow but not in their

own excrement .

 

Singapore Zoo boasts of having the ‘largest primate collection in any zoo in the

world’. The very concept of having ‘a collection’ is questionable since animals

are not collectors’ items like stamps or vintage cars. Zoos deny this aspect of

their existence but the lavish hoardings splashed on the walkway in Singapore

Zoo bear testimony to a different reality.

 

 

Baboons and Nubian Ibexes are exhibited in a mixed species exhibit. It seemed

that the space for the Ibexes , while moderately hilly, was insufficient to

meet their physiological and behavioural needs which are geared for a

mountainous existence.

 

The hyrax enclosure seems reasonably spacious but has no barriers.

 

There are a number of primate species in Singapore Zoo, some highly threatened

in the wild and it would be interesting to note the origin of rare animals such

as the Douc Langurs. Some enclosures for the primates were spacious but no dens

or shelters were observed. Indeed this also seems to be a regular feature of

Singapore Zoo, with most animals being forced out in the open for public

viewing. This is a practice that goes against the tenets of some modern zoo

directors. The late John Aspinall, owner of Howletts and Port Lympne zoos in the

United Kingdom was totally against this principle.

 

There seemed an overpopulation of Celebes Black Macaques.

 

Singapore Zoo makes Asian Elephants perform for the public. Needless to say, the

‘educational’ benefit of this kind of show is questionable . The majestic

animals are made to carry logs to demonstrate their utility in timber camps. At

a time when the very keeping of elephants in captivity is being challenged

around the world, such a practice seems anachronistic .

 

The Orangutan enclosure also seemed overcrowded, contrary to the animals natural

biology and behaviour. The ‘environmental enrichment’ tools seemed patently

artificial and of little real value to the animals.

 

Singapore Zoo exhibits Orangutans for animal shows where the animals are made to

stand on two legs and perform tricks, such as peeling coconuts. A young animal

with its mother in an open area was observed being punched by the keeper when it

tried to move away from him. Striking animals at any time is unacceptable.

 

The manatees and sea lions are exhibited together in a glass fronted pool. For

creatures like manatees, that inhabit lagoons reaching out to the open ocean,

any captive situation is bound to be restrictive. The animals have bred and the

breeding duly advertised, but breeding is not necessarily a sign of good welfare

because many animals (including humans) can reproduce in the most appalling

circumstances. For example, domesticated animals in factory farms reproduce very

well but often live in the most inadequate conditions. One sea lion seemed

extremely emaciated and appeared to be blind. This animal was also observed

swimming in circles in the pool and performing repetitive roundabouts. This

behaviour seems abnormal and has been observed by me in fur seals at Bristol

Zoo. The enclosure has no barrier and children were observed banging on the

glass. The glass-fronted Jackass penguin cage was also subject to similar

treatment.

 

Perhaps the most visible failure of the Singapore Zoo is the unnecessary and

thoroughly inadequate display of polar bears. Studies on polar bears in

captivity by Paul Horsman and Georgia Mason have shown that the average zoo

enclosure is one million times smaller than the species home range. The animals

in Singapore Zoo have very little space to move about and there is no provision

for cooling in the enclosure (There is a cooling facility in the den

apparently). One animal seems to have lost a great deal of hair and appeared

mangy. To counter this problem, the zoo has taken the ingenious step of having

announcements done by keepers extolling that ‘polar bears are actually black and

get their white colour by reflection from the sun in the Artic environment’. It

is a ludicrous claim at best and a harmfully insidious one at worst. Also, the

advertisement saying that Inuka is ‘the first polar bear born in the tropics’ is

inherently contradictory and meaningless. Indeed, the zoo has attempted to

glorify the display by claiming that polar bears are the largest species of

bears. This claim can be contested since Kodiak bears have attained bigger

sizes.

 

A first step toward improving the living conditions of the polar bears would be

the acknowledgement of the unsuitability of polar bears as captive animals

ANYWHERE, followed by proper arrangements at cooling and ‘environmental

enrichment’, although no amount of environmental enrichment could be deemed

satisfactory for an animal like the polar bear.

 

The Singapore Zoo polar bears have reportedly had other problems, such as

becoming green in colour because of algae growth in the fur due to the

excessively hot environment. If Singapore Zoo does not take steps to provide

these animals with a more tolerable life and ideally to move them out to another

more acceptable location, it will be a very unfortunate and regressive step for

them and for zoos in general.

 

A Malayan Sun Bear was observed eating its own vomit, a stereotypy known as

coprophagia (regurgitation and reingestion). The paddock also seemed too small

for the bears’ physical needs since all species of bears are inquisitive by

nature and need a wide range of stimulation in their daily lives.

 

A mixed species enclosure that seemed particularly odd was one housing a Nilgai,

a Thamin deer and a Dromedary. These animals inhabit radically different

habitats in the wild state and would never come into contact. Such mixed species

exhibits send very mixed messages to the visitors.

 

A Maned wolf was observed circling its enclosure. The enclosure seemed very

small for the animal’s physical needs. Also, during the second visit, there was

a wild party going on in the proximity with very loud music, apparently a

Singapore National Day celebration. It could be that sensitive and shy animals

like Maned Wolves feel distressed due to the prevalence of such loud noise.

Indeed, during the second visit, the zoo atmosphere seemed more of a do than

that of conservation. The alloy of conservation and entertainment in zoos is

always unsatisfactory for the cause of animal welfare since they cater to

contradictory objectives.

 

Some of the reptile enclosures seem adequate for the privacy of their inmates.

However, zoo visitors were observed banging the glass beside two resting Gila

Monsters, as well as a number of snakes.

 

The Komodo Dragon enclosure seemed spacious and the animals were observed moving

about. It would be interesting if the zoo were to mention what steps are being

taken to breed these animals in captivity or how their captivity is helping

their wild cousins. Just saying that their presence in a zoo situation is ‘for

conservation’ is not enough. These animals could form a valuable educational

exhibit provided the zoo cares to portray their captivity in the appropriate

context.

 

The walk-in reptile exhibit was interesting although the iguanas could come into

direct contact with humans. Contact with reptiles can be hazardous for both the

animals and for the human visitors who come into contact with them, with a

particular hazard being zoonoses.

 

Frog species like the White’s tree frog seem to be exhibited more for ornamental

purposes rather than for conservation.

 

Binturongs were exhibited with Asian Small Clawed Otters. There was not enough

vegetation cover for a rainforest animal like the Binturong.

 

The Cheetahs are exhibited in a paddock that seems way too small for their

physical prowess. They have no opportunity to indulge in their primary

behavioural activity of chasing prey at high speeds. It seems obvious that the

enclosure precludes efforts at behavioural enrichment by providing toys or dummy

animals for the cats to chase. Also, the single King Cheetah was observed pacing

repetitively. Reportedly, the Cheetahs of Singapore Zoo have been obtained from

Namibia but such a step is irrelevant for conservation. If the motive of the

African establishment was to get rid of surplus animals, then the zoo needs to

upgrade its enclosure. A much larger paddock, very possibly extending to acres

in area, would be needed to satisfactorily cater for the needs of these animals.

 

There were nine White rhinos observed in a small paddock. Breeding has been

successful but space is evidently limited. Some animals were observed fighting

and this may be due to their close proximity to each other. If alternative space

cannot be provided, the zoo should stop breeding the animals.

 

The small mammal enclosures were disappointing with glass fronts and the animals

displaying stereotypic behaviour. Two ocelots were seen continuously pacing. The

cage also stank.

 

Free-living Brown (or Mongoose) lemurs were observed and it was a very

interesting sight to see them gamboling around. However, a lemur was observed

pinching food from a Giant Tortoise and this should be avoided.

 

Eleven chimpanzees were observed in a family group. The enclosure had electric

fencing that was sparking in the rain. This could be potentially lethal if the

animals could access the fence and be electrocuted in the process. Also,

continuous breeding might create a surplus whereby animals may have to be sent

to substandard zoos in other countries.

 

The Mandrill enclosure had turtles in the moat. This could be dangerous for the

turtles since reportedly Mandrills have killed turtles in the precincts of their

paddock in Toronto Zoo.

 

The domestic animal section exhibits goats, cows, horses, donkeys and pigs and

dogs. Adults and children are encouraged to feed and make physical contact with

the animals. However, a signboard urges people not to feed the goats since they

might be incited to jump out of their enclosure in their eagerness to accept

food. There was no one to supervise the feeding of the goats.

 

This section also had a walk through aviary. The birds have vegetation and space

but a couple of Victoria Crowned pigeons were seen sitting on the railing. A

visitor keen on mischief could actually physically harm the birds.

 

The Caracals were exhibited in a small cage and were observed pacing. So were

the pumas which seemed overcrowded. Singapore Zoo has sent surplus pumas to

Kolkata Zoo where they died very quickly. Breeding has to be controlled and the

animals given more space and privacy. The leopards and the jaguars were also

observed constantly pacing.

 

Perhaps the most novel exhibit was the rainforest enclosure housing a variety of

species ranging from invertebrates to mammals. Victoria Crowned Pigeons, Ring

Tailed lemurs, a sloth two Black and White Ruffed lemurs and a couple of

Matschie’s Tree Kangaroos were observed. There were different species of

butterflies as well. It is well acknowledged that this exhibit gives a valuable

educational experience for visitors. However, the animals exhibited together

come from very different parts of the world (e.g., lemurs from Madagascar, Tree

Kangaroos from Papua New Guinea, sloths from South and Central America), so the

message is a muddled one tying all biomes together. The Black and White Ruffed

Lemurs were also observed in a small cage.

Singapore Zoo has Proboscis Monkeys on exhibit. The enclosure seems reasonably

spacious for the animals to perch and move about. The glass front however

remains prone to curious inspection and banging queries from the public. The

animals have bred and babies were observed. However, the source of these animals

seems quite suspect since a few years ago there was a scandal in Indonesia

involving the export of wild caught Proboscis Monkeys to zoos. Singapore Zoo was

involved in that case. It remains to be seen what conservation benefit has

emerged from the captive breeding of these primates at Singapore Zoo.

It is also not known if Singapore Zoo supports the preservation of the wild

habitat of these creatures. Simply exhibiting the animals as showpieces to draw

in visitors will not help them in anyway. But, as the former London Zoo

director, Jo Gipps has commented, “Conservation can sell tickets” and Proboscis

Monkeys can be crowd pullers by the same token.

 

The Naked Mole Rats are exhibited in a small plastic box with wood chips that do

not allow them to bury and disappear from human view. This is possibly extremely

uncomfortable for these very essentially subterranean creatures. People are

actually encouraged to view them closely. They however, deserve as much

attention as the polar bears since they are in captivity through no fault of

their own.

 

Singapore Zoo is spread over quite a large area and two water bodies surrounding

it provide a beautiful ambience. But the beauty of the grounds does not

necessarily mean that the animals are comfortable. In fact, many aspects of

Singapore are problematic from an animal welfare perspective.

 

The priority for Singapore Zoo should always be the welfare of their animals,

and welfare should take precedence over public relations and profit generation.

This is evidently an enormous challenge in a place like Singapore that seems to

be focused on getting as many visitors through the gates as possible..

 

Singapore Zoo does provide a limited opportunity for public education, but the

message is often contradicted by the methods being used. On the grounds there

are many free-living animals that provide unalloyed pleasure, such as

butterflies in the exotic fruit farm, wild skinks and wild monitor lizards, but

a short distance away other animals are caged in inappropriate conditions.

 

I observed a wild, baby water monitor lizard on the zoo grounds. That lizard

moved freely about, in sharp contrast to the other animals nearby that could

only move a few feet in any direction. Visitors see both and must come away

from their zoo experience in a state of confusion..

 

Conservation is more than forcing nature in a box. Singapore Zoo will have to

develop very different standards, practices and philosophies in future. A first

step might be to acknowledge their existing problems and to start cooperating

with outside agencies, including animal welfare organizations, to resolve them.