Sei sulla pagina 1di 30

FINDINGS & ACTION PLAN

ZOO MANAGEMENT ACTS QUICKLY ON REVIEW FINDINGS This document delivers a seamless version of the Review findings and the Zoo Managements correlated Action Plan. It provides a quick and concise awareness of the Review Teams findings and what the Zoo Management is doing about them.

In December 2009, Dr. Clment Lanthier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Calgary Zoo, called for a review of animal care following a number of incidents involving animal mortality. These incidents gave Dr. Lanthier cause for concern and brought into question the zoos policies, practices and procedures regarding animal care. The review highlighted many strengths of the Calgary Zoo, emphasizing that animal welfare is a top priority, that our staff are very dedicated to the animals and that the zoo is a community asset of which the citizens of Calgary should be proud. The review also highlighted many areas that could be improved. Dr. Lanthier and his senior management team have listened to the findings of the Review Team and are taking immediate and definitive actions to correct the problems. Since receiving the review on June 9, 2010, Dr. Lanthier and the senior management team have developed a 36-point action plan that will address each of the review findings. All original documentation from the review process has been provided and is available to all our stakeholders. In the spirit of maintaining total transparency, we will publish quarterly status reports on our website relating to delivery of our action plan.

Implementation of the action plan will also be monitored carefully by the Calgary Zoos Board of Trustees. Copies of the report have been provided to all Board members and the Board has directed management to provide updates on its progress in implementing the plan at every regular Board meeting.

Joint CAZA / AZA


Special Review: Background Detail

Calgary Zoo
February 2010 CONFIDENTIAL

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

JOINT CAZA/AZA SPECIAL REVIEW OF CALGARY ZOO Background Detail General


The Calgary Zoo has formally asked the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), its two accrediting bodies, to carry out a thorough and objective review. It has been noted that there have been a series of accidents and animal deaths at the Zoo in recent years, and the Zoo has stated that it wishes to determine whether any remedial actions need to be taken. The Calgary Zoo last underwent an AZA accreditation review in the summer of 2008. This report is formatted to match the Terms of Reference document. The language contained in that document is indicated in blue italics.

Review Team Members


Nancy McToldridge, Zoo Director Santa Barbara Zoo, AZA Accreditation Commission Advisor, Special Inspection Chair Dave Barney, PhD, Manager, Animal Care, Toronto Zoo Alastair Cribb, DVM, PhD, Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary Clint Wright, Sr. Vice President, Operations, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre Jeff Wyatt, DVM, Director of Animal Health and Conservation, Seneca Park Zoo

Animal Handling Protocols, Husbandry Protocols, Program Animal Policy


The written policies and procedures are comprehensive and meet the standards of AZA and CAZA. However, standard operating guidelines were not followed in some instances. Several of the incidents specified for review occurred despite the existence of these policies and procedures and despite the fact that personnel involved were familiar with them. There were several examples noted where keepers appeared not to know or not to have followed specified procedures. For example, the Review Team entered tiger holding and was shown the system in place that allows keepers to communicate where each tiger is at any one time. The Review Team commented that the chart indicated that there was a tiger in a holding pen where there clearly was no tiger. When we pointed it out we were told that the tiger that the tag represented was not even in the collection any longer. When Dr. Cribb returned a week later, a number of tags indicating tiger locations were out of place and there was no indication that the extra tag had been removed. In other locations, workers did not appear clear on locking procedures (e.g. the bear enclosure). Over-all, animal husbandry protocols appeared adequate. The animals were well cared for and appeared to be in good body condition. Although a few animals

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

demonstrated signs of confinement stress for the most part the animals appeared welladapted. Confinement of some animals during the winter holding period may have been creating some problems. In particular, it was reported that the guinea fowl were kept in an over-crowded area which could have contributed to the Capillaria. The area was observed after six birds had been removed. With the birds removed, the space was adequate. The Zoo staff at all levels appears to be very comfortable with maintenance of avian, reptilian and mammalian species. The number of aquatic exhibits is minimal and the only keeper training at the time the cow nose ray exhibit was open was self-taught. This lack of keeper / curator expertise appears to have been a major contributing factor to the problems with the ray exhibit where the Zoo was reliant on external expertise which appears to have been inadequate (see below). The Zoo has since increased its expertise in the aquatics area.

Action 1: The Interim Director of Animal Care, curators, veterinarians and zookeepers will review and update all policies and procedures related to animal handling, husbandry and the use of program animals. Once this review is completed, all sections of the zoo will receive a quarterly reminder of the relevant protocols and compliance will be monitored regularly. Expected Completion: December 2010

Action 2: Animal Care staff will be more closely supervised by newly-appointed area managers (see Action 17), enabling a more consistent application of operating protocols. These protocols will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Each time there is an update, an appropriate training session will be held with area managers and keepers and a formal sign off obtained to ensure the new procedures have been communicated and are understood correctly. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Action 3: A review of procedures and protocol will become a standard agenda item at every regular meeting of the Animal Management Committee. All discussions/concerns and suggestions regarding the processes and protocols will be documented for appropriate and timely follow-up. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

Animal Welfare Process


The written animal welfare process document is very clear. However, it does not provide recourse for the person with the concern if he/she feels that the concern was not addressed according to process or if they believe the concern still exists after their initial report (taken to CEO, Board of Directors, etc.) The Animal Welfare Committee should include one independent advisor according to the written policy but it was unclear to the Review Team who that person was. The staff knows there is a process in place but did not have a full understanding of exactly who was involved. The Review Team queried a number of workers regarding their understanding of their ability to submit a written concern regarding animal welfare. Most workers were unaware of the possibility of submitting a concern and those that were had not used it. Most workers felt comfortable in providing comments to their curator but some staff also feel that the process dead ends with the curator or the Director of Conservation, Education, and Research (DCER). Many staff expressed a general view that it was difficult to get animal welfare concerns addressed.

Action 4: A stronger animal welfare review process, including a reorganization of the zoos Animal Welfare Committee, has been implemented. The committee now meets monthly, rather than sporadically as in the past, and includes an independent advisor from a major Western Canadian university. The committee will seek input from staff on animal welfare concerns and will review and approve all proposed animal acquisitions. Minutes of committee meetings will be circulated to the senior management team. Terms of Reference of the Animal Welfare Committee are attached as Appendix A. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Animal Mortality Natural Death vs. Human Error


The diversity in zoo and aquarium collections makes it difficult to benchmark when examining mortality rates. The five members of the Review Team reviewed the data and analyzed trends then based opinions concerning animal mortality on the combined years of professional experience and exposure to a wide diversity of programs in the AZA and CAZA. Zoos with a preponderance of animals with naturally short life spans (e.g. fish and small mammal species living one to two years) will have a higher mortality rate than zoos with longer lived animals (e.g. primates, hoofstock, carnivores living greater than 20 years). Zoos with many mixed species exhibits will realize more interspecific interactions possibly leading to morbidity and mortality in the best planned and managed scenarios. Zoos with many active breeding programs will experience higher neonatal mortality rates due to inexperienced parents and challenges intrinsic to pediatric survival. In contrast, zoos with a preponderance of aging animals will experience higher mortality rates associated with degenerative diseases such as organ (heart and kidney) failure, degenerative joint disease (disabling arthritis) and cancer. Therefore, the review team paid careful attention to the historic data provided by the Zoo. In discussions with Zoo staff, it was apparent that while the data was collected,
Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail Page

it was not formally summarized and reviewed. Rather, there appeared to be a reliance on impressions of over-all trends, rather than a critical analysis of the data available to determine internal trends. The following graphs illustrate some key trends, based on both the Zoos interpretation of the data provided and the review teams assessment: Over-all mortality: There has been a general increase in over-all mortality over the last ten years, with an unexplained spike in 2004 (see following graph). The Review Team was provided with over-all mortality data from 2000-2009, but more detailed data was only provided for 2005-2009. Therefore, a detailed analysis was only possible for 2005 -2009:

One species that seemed to experience significant mortality (see below) was the Pallas bats. As shown in the red line above in which the Pallas bat mortality from 2004 2009 is removed, the spike in mortality in 2004 was not the result of the large number of Pallas bat deaths. Therefore, the spike in 2004 remains unexplained and the increase in mortality from 2005 - 2009 can not be attributed to the Pallas bats. Removing invertebrate deaths also did not change the trend towards an increased mortality (detailed data only available for 2005-2009) (see left hand graph below, in which deaths of the Pallas bats and invertebrates were removed labelled No P bats or invertebrates). Nor was the trend of increased deaths explained by changes in the over-all Zoo population, because the trend of increased deaths is still apparent when expressed as a percent of the over-all collection (right hand graph below; this analysis does not include invertebrate deaths, but the trend is the same when invertebrates are included). It was noted when conducting this analysis that the population of major species in the Zoo (e.g., all animals, excluding fish or invertebrates) increased by 25% from 2000 to 2005 and then shrank to about 20% above 2000 levels by 2009.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

In attempting to discern an explanation for this apparent increase in mortality, the Review Team looked at cause of death and at the species affected. The trends, based on the information provided by the Zoo, are shown below:

The stability in toxic, nutritional, infectious, and parasitic death rates suggests over-all good husbandry and veterinary care (as described above and noted below). The stability in neoplasia and the decrease in degenerative disease suggests that we are not dealing with an aging population of animals that would explain the increased deaths. The general trend of an increase in accident/trauma deaths is concerning and could reflect a problem in over-all animal care. This is explored further below. The spike in 2008 in accidental deaths presumably reflects the death of over 40 rays in a single incident (discussed below). However, since the Review Team was not given a detailed breakdown of this information, it can not be confirmed. The nearly tripling of undetermined causes of death over the five years shown is of concern. The review team was not able to determine a clear reason for this. Some submissions were too autolyzed for a diagnosis (why the delay in submission?) and many of the undiagnosed animals were bats (see below for further discussion). The large increase in unknown causes does mean that care needs to be taken in interpreting the other categories of deaths.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

The Review Team attempted to further explore the apparent increase in deaths and the number of unknown causes by giving further consideration to morbidity data. While the Zoo was more than willing to provide this data, they did not have on hand a detailed breakdown of morbidity over previous years (there is no standard requiring this type of data be compiled and analyzed). We were provided with mortality data but unfortunately it was not in a format that we were able to interpret for trends other than to say that there did not appear to be an increase in number of animals examined. The majority of animals examined were for routine care however, so any trends in morbidity could not have been easily discerned. To further understand the role of human error or other human-related deaths, the Review Team examined the incidence of trauma related deaths. Of the trauma related deaths reported, approximately 88% were identified by the Zoo to be related to exhibit mate aggression and incompatibility. The Zoo identified a number of deaths that they considered to be related to human error. The graph below shows the trend in deaths or incidents over the last five years. In this presentation, incidents with multiple deaths due to a single cause were counted as one (eg two gecko deaths, 40+ ray deaths), with the Y-axis representing the number of death events related to human error per year.

Context: There are almost 2,000 animals at the Calgary Zoo with natural life spans that range from weeks to decades. They range in size from animals that weigh several grams to those that weigh tons. Each day our animal care staff undertakes over 10,000 tasks to care for these animals; over 3.6 million tasks every year. These tasks include feeding, cleaning and moving within exhibit areas, but exclude other key elements such as veterinary care and external transportation. In 2009, 214 animals died at the Calgary Zoo and we celebrated 202 births. Of the animals that died, five were attributable to human error.

This graph suggests an increasing incidence, particularly notable over the last two years. The Review Team, based on reviews of data from other accredited institutions, believes that the number of deaths due to human error is significantly greater than at

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

other similar institutions. The Review Team examined the case history of all the trauma related deaths. Based on the descriptions provided, the team identified deaths which occurred during human handling and those situations where recurring aggression in the same exhibit preceded a trauma related death. For the purposes of this analysis, the latter were included because we believed that when there was clear evidence of aggression and injury in an exhibit or during handling, action should have been taken, and so these were deemed to be related to human error in not responding to a scenario. The following graph shows the trends over the last five years:

Over-all, these data demonstrate an increasing mortality at the Zoo over the last few years and a clear increase in deaths that are human-related and in many cases could have been avoided by prompt and more aggressive response to identified problems. The Review Team recognizes that there will always be avoidable deaths because errors will occur, but believes that the increasing number over the last few years is indicative of an underlying problem. In addition to these trends, the Review Team noted some specific examples of recurrent injuries or mortalities that are a cause for concern over the last five years: Taking all of this into consideration there appears to be a few examples since 2004 of higher than expected mortality listed below: SPECIES Sebas Bats # of Deaths 25 in 2009 Comments These are new arrival bats presenting with maladaptation to the same piano wire bat exhibit contributing to mortality of Pallas bats described below. The Sebas bats present with wing fractures in this exhibit.

Sebas bats in the wild experience a 53 percent mortality rate in the first two years; and 22 percent in the third. The average life expectancy is 2.6 years.
See: Cloutier and Thomas 1992, Carollia perspicillata: Mammalian Species, No. 417, pp. 1-9, 3 figs.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

Pallas Bats

35 in 2008 35 in 2007 9 in 2006 26 in 2005 40 in 2004 45 in 2008

These bats exhibited mal-adaptive syndrome in the piano wire exhibit related to environmental (temperature/humidity) challenges causing a fatal negative energy balance.

Cow Nose Rays

These rays all died about the same time due to lack of oxygenation in the exhibit designed by a contractor. Knowledgeable husbandry staff did not have input into the design of the life support systems for this exhibit.

Annual patterns of single species mortality, or acute large numbers of mortality, raise the question of exhibit suitability or preparedness considering the diagnoses for the deaths of the above animals were exhibit related (lack of ideal temperature, humidity (Pallas bats), oxygenation (cow nose rays) or exhibit size & materials (piano wire causing Sebas bat wing fractures). This raises the question of the adequacy of collection planning, exhibit design, and preparedness. The 2009 death of the capybara (related to trauma from a hydraulic operated shift door) was related to a keeper not following protocol. Additional animal deaths including a spider monkey being fatally injured by the hydraulic door and feather tailed sugar gliders being mortally injured by keepers (one each in 2007, 2008 and 2009 being stepped on; one crushed in a manual door in 2007) raise questions of keeper error, training or attention and possible exhibit design problems. Although the deaths were due to keepers not following established protocols, it is not common practice to manage these species with hydraulic doors. A spider monkey died in 2005 from frostbite complication (gangrene) after a junior level keeper let the animal outside in cold weather. There were also a number of capture or manual restraint related traumas in mule deer. While the handlers may not have committed any specific errors, these deaths occurred during handling and so are attributable to human intervention. The deaths were related primarily to poor handling facilities, but this was a clearly identified problem that has not been resolved over multiple years. It was reported that the deaths had been preceded by a number of injuries. These deaths therefore appear to reflect a poor institutional response to a clearly identified problem in exhibit and handling design. It is particularly noteworthy that an ultimate solution to the problem is possible, but has not been enacted. Although the Zoo has taken steps to alter the exhibit, those incremental steps have not yet been effective. Specifically, there is another capture system used with a similar species in the Zoo which works fine, but has not been installed in the mule deer exhibit. The Zoo continues to attempt to fix the problem by making adjustments to the present system, which seems only to cause more problems. The veterinary staff informed the Review Team that they have refused to provide some basic, routine health care, and some reproductive programs have been disrupted because of the inability to handle the animals properly. This is because the veterinary staff believes that capturing the animals to perform routine health care could cause injury or worse to an animal due to poorly designed handling facilities and they are not willing to

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

risk it. The veterinary staff believes it is potentially more dangerous for the animals to receive preventative care than it is to live without it. The intraspecific and interspecific aggression deaths cross many different species and appear mostly to be related to neonatal mortality and incompatibility, especially in mixed species exhibits. Self induced/environmental injury was mostly related to exhibit design (animals becoming entrapped or traumatized by exhibit furniture, fencing or glass barriers, or predation). Of concern were occasions noted where there was evidence of interspecies aggression that was not responded to, with repeated injuries or deaths (e.g. woodland caribou and muskoxen). A similar situation, although now being resolved, which resulted in injury but not death, appears to have played out in the African wild dog exhibit. Intraspecies aggression was noted and a number of varying responses were tried, with different keepers trying different approaches. There was a lack of consistent overview and response to the identified problem, which ultimately led to a serious injury to one dog. The animals are now scheduled for relocation to another Zoo. Potential reasons for inconsistent responses to identified problems are discussed later in this report.

YEAR

Intraspecific & Interspecific Aggression 17 cases 24 cases 18 cases Intraspecific & Interspecific Aggression 11 cases 20 cases

Self-Induced / Environmental

2005 2006 2007 YEAR

10 cases 12 cases 13 cases Self-Induced / Environmental

2008 2009

10 cases 13 cases

One should not conclude that all aggression between animals or trauma on exhibit is related to human error but it does raise the question of the adequacy of exhibit design and collection planning processes. Summary: There is evidence of a recent increase in over-all mortality, human error and human intervention related deaths, particularly over the last 5 years. The over-represented cases of mortality in the Sebas bats, Pallas bats and cow nose rays; the repeated cases of mule deer injuries and fatalities related to restraint & capture; the ongoing (yet unpatterned) cases of mortality related to aggression (intraspecific and interspecific); and self induced/environmental trauma raise questions of delayed response to identified issues, problems in collection planning, and deficiencies in some exhibit designs that were not promptly resolved. There are some indications that attempts to provide enhanced visitor experiences at the cost of careful exhibit planning within the Zoos expertise may have contributed to some of the deaths observed (e.g., bats were put behind piano wire for the visitor experience and were kept there after

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

10

deaths and injuries, and the cow nose ray exhibit was brought in to enhance attendance even though the Zoo had little expertise on staff).

Action 5: The zoo will compare its animal mortality rate with benchmark data for other institutions with similar collections and age groups of species. Benchmark data is not currently available from either the AZA or CAZA, but the Calgary Zoo will work with both organizations in an effort to gather this information. When available, the report will be provided to the Animal Management Committee. Expected Completion: December 2010

Action 6: Twice a year, veterinarians will formally review and analyze morbidity and mortality within the animal collection. Veterinary staff will be instructed to reprioritize their current activities and, where necessary, to discontinue some of their off-site field work to ensure sufficient time is allotted to this critical aspect of their duties. This will be facilitated by the addition of a third clinical veterinarian, who joined the zoos Animal Health Centre team in March 2010. The mortality and morbidity report will be submitted to the Animal Management Committee for review and discussion. The Animal Management Committee consists of senior members of the Animal Care staff, including the Director, and is responsible for reviewing and discussing animal management concerns and future plans for the animal collection. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Action 7: Sebas bats and Pallas bats, two of the species identified in the report as having high mortality rates, will no longer be part of the Calgary Zoos collection. Sebas bats will be relocated by the end of June and efforts are now being made to find a new location for the Pallas bats. The zoo is taking this step in direct response to the concerns expressed in the review panels report. It should be noted, however, that published scientific research indicates that mortality rates for Sebas bats among the zoos collection are consistent with mortality rates of that species in the wild and Jamaican fruit bats in captivity.1,2 Expected Completion: As soon as possible

Cloutier and Thomas 1992, Carollia perspicillata: Mammalian Species, No. 417, pp. 1-9, 3 figs. Handley, Wilson, and Gardner, Demography and Natural History of the Common Fruit Bat, Artibeus jamaicensis, on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, Number 511.
2

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

11

Action 8: All future incidents of accident/trauma and interspecies aggression deaths and injuries will be reported immediately by veterinarians to the Animal Management Committee. These incidents will also be reviewed by the Animal Welfare Committee. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Action 9: Feather-tailed gliders will be relocated from the zoos collection as soon as suitable alternative accommodation can be found. The report described several incidents where these small animals had been injured or killed in their exhibits. Expected Completion: As soon as possible

Action 10: Four, of the zoos collection of six African wild dogs, have been moved to another zoo and the remaining two animals are expected to be relocated shortly. Expected Completion: August 2010

Veterinary Program Overview


The veterinary team is led by two highly credentialed (ACVP, ACZM) and experienced veterinarians with longevity at Calgary Zoo, fostering excellent communications and respect with animal care staff. In addition, there is an on-site veterinary internship position. An additional full time veterinarian will be added to the team on March 15, with the two senior veterinarians taking on teaching and research duties at the University of Calgary. The veterinary team at Calgary Zoo is supported by three veterinary technicians and two animal hospital keepers, but administrative/ secretarial support is lacking. A capital campaign is currently underway to expand the animal hospital.

Preventative Health Care Protocols and Program


The Zoo veterinary preventive medicine program follows the AAZV guidelines. Records indicate that the examination of the mule and white tail deer is three years overdue for TB and other screening due to risk of animal injury given current exhibit design (see previous section).

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

12

Quarantine Protocols and Procedures


Quarantine protocols and practices adhere to AAZV guidelines. A Bengal tiger was on quarantine during the inspection. The off site dedicated quarantine building and hospital more than satisfy all provincial expectations.

Veterinary Records
The three hospital veterinary technicians enter all animal medical records. Records were current and complete. There were not, however, summary documents of mortality and morbidity trends readily available. The veterinary staff, due to workload, was relying primarily on over-all impressions to identify trends or problems.

See Action 6

Animal Diets and Nutrition


The diets are designed and evaluated by the veterinary staff. Appropriate food handling and thawing standard operating procedures are practiced and are in place. The commissary is neat and clean and meets all standards. Diets are assessed appropriately.

Inspection of Animal Health Center Facilities including Holding, Quarantine, Isolation, Surgery, Necropsy
The appropriate functional zones (animal prep, surgeon prep, operating room, clinical exam area, pharmacy, necropsy and quarantine) exist. A dedicated hospital vehicle transports animals and supplies between the hospital and the Zoo campus. The necropsy room is undergoing a $400K funded upgrade this year.

Adequacy of the Extent of Veterinary Services Provided the Collection


Keepers indicated that the veterinarians have a daily presence on the Zoo campus and perform scheduled rounds. The veterinarians have an excellent working relationship based on mutual trust and respect. The lead veterinarians interact directly with the curators at Curator meetings where collection planning is discussed. Although they are present at meetings and participate in collection planning discussions, it is unclear what authority or role the vets have in animal decisions and exhibit planning & preparedness for animal acquisitions. The day-to-day veterinary care of the animals is excellent. The institution must have the necessary resources to support and provide for the professional

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

13

care and management of species, so that the physical and social needs of both specimens and species are met. The Institutional Collection Plan must include justification of each species based upon criteria such as husbandry requirements, husbandry expertise and veterinary issues and concerns. Although the written Institutional Collection Plan outlines these procedures, they are not always followed according to the written plan. The veterinary and curatorial staffs appear to be placed in a position to be more reactive than proactive with collection planning and exhibit design decisions. This apparent gap in collection planning may have contributed to the mortality trends identified previously, especially with the Sebas bats, Pallas bats and cow nose rays (e.g., it is possible that the cow nose rays incident could have been avoided with more inclusion of veterinary staff in exhibit planning. (See Collection Planning below)

Animal Care Staffing Levels, Training, and Experience


There are many long-term, experienced keepers at the Calgary Zoo. Most animal care staff are brought in as labourers and hourly staff, pass through an apprenticeship program (sometimes this takes 6 7 years), then become keepers. Despite this tiered appearance, all levels of the animal care staff appear to share the same responsibilities and authorities regardless of where they currently are in the training program. All keepers report to the area curators who report to the DCER. The education animal handling protocols were extensive. Handlers were trained one-on-one in a tiered system, starting with easier and progressing to more difficult animals. Hand washing or sanitation of public after handling animals was enforced by education staff. Protocols were in place and practiced by education staff considering feeding schedule, temperature extremes, and handling frequency. All of the education animals were beautifully housed in spacious, naturalistic enclosures in one area which doubled as class rooms. It was very evident to the Review Team that the staff, as a whole, is proud of their Zoo, proud of their role in the Zoo, and are dedicated to the profession of saving wild animals through inspiring and educating their guests. The complement of full time keeper staffing appears to be thin, and / or, inefficiently utilized. There is a complex system of levels of keepers, a complex and rigid apprentice keeper program, and a union-negotiated, complicated scheduling system. There are hourly keepers, labourers, seasonal keepers, apprentice keepers, junior keepers, and senior keepers. Keepers work long days (either 9 hour days on a 4 day week, or 11 hours per day switching from a 4 day week one week to a 3 day week another week (one 3 day weekend followed by one 5 day weekend). While having 40 keepers for approximately 1000 animals of this nature could be sufficient (some zoos have more, some less), the scheduling system, time off, and the short two-week pay period of 76 hours reduces efficiency in the opinion of the Review Team, and the result is a perception of being very short staffed. Keepers opinions of this system vary widely. Communications, overlap days, and regular on-the-job training are challenged by these systems. As a result, communications are poor, keepers do not always receive the

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

14

kind and depth of training they should have, and animal care staff feels very stretched. It is also the opinion of the Review Team that working with dangerous animals for 11 hours per day with minimal break time makes it difficult to maintain the kind of mental concentration required for a safe work environment. It should be noted that the animal care staff does not share this opinion. The team also noted that the same routines and the same work tasks occur whether it is completed in a 9 hour day or in an 11 hour day. This could lead to inefficiencies and the perception of being short staffed. On the job training is limited, with very little time dedicated to working with more senior staff before assuming responsibilities to work alone. Keepers are passed through the complex levels described above but can be assigned to work in any area by themselves at any of these levels, including working with dangerous animals as a labourer. It was unclear how these decisions are made and who was responsible for determining when a keeper is ready for these responsibilities, especially outside of the apprenticeship program which takes several years to go through. Several junior keepers expressed concern that they did not have confidence to work some of the areas because of limited training or lengthy periods of time between assignments in these areas. Elephant care staff appear to be on a different training system and appear to meet AZA Elephant Standards for keeper training. In 2008 an elephant knocked down a keeper and the zoo immediately switched to protected contact with that animal. In 2010 the Zoo transitioned to protected contact with all the elephants. We do not know if all behaviours have been trained with the animals in this system as it is relatively new. Most of the animals looked well cared for and there was some behavioural enrichment. The Review Team witnessed some excellent animal training. It appears that more animal training is going on in some areas than others and some of the training methodologies are inconsistent. Part of this may be due to different work loads, lack of formal staff training, and/or the skill levels of individual staff members. There were impressive animal training programs with the African lions, giraffe, and hippopotami. The elephant program has been successfully transitioning from free to protected contact in a very organized and scheduled manner, evaluating staff accomplishments with elephant behaviours on a case-by-case basis. With the addition of the newest curator animal training has become an institutional priority but many staff (including curatorial level) believes that there is not sufficient time to work with keepers on this throughout the Zoo.

Action 11: A staff succession plan will be put into place in Animal Care that will include re-training and, where necessary, external hiring to obtain required skills not available internally. This plan will include personal development programs for key staff members in the branch. Expected Completion: December 2010

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

15

Action 12: A new departmental structure was implemented in May that clarifies the Animal Care branchs mandate and the responsibilities of each manager. Lines of supervisionand communicationhave been redefined in this new structure, which more closely follows an industry model. This will allow curators to better manage the animal collection and give responsibility for staff supervision to area managers. Having supervisors frequently on the grounds and in contact with keepers will substantially improve communication at this level. Expected Completion: Completed

Action 13: The Interim Director of Animal Care and the animal care senior management team have reassigned various keeper tasks to distribute workloads more evenly across the Animal Care branch. Expected Completion: Started - Ongoing

Action 14: The Creatures of the Night exhibit, which required extensive and costly upgrading, has recently been closed, providing further opportunities to redeploy keepers into other areas. Bats housed in this exhibit are to be relocated, as described in Action 7. Expected Completion: Completed

Action 15: All training programs will be formalized, recorded and tracked and all certification obtained by staff documented so that skills and abilities can be readily identified and matched to the zoos needs. A training plan for each individual will be determined yearly at evaluation time. On-the-job training will also be documented. Expected Completion: December 2010

Action 16: The zoos existing zookeeper apprenticeship program will be re-examined. Other possible approaches considered for zookeeper training include the completion of the CAZA keeper training program, or equivalency, as a new requirement and/or the recruitment of more experienced keepers from other institutions, as described in Action 19. The outcome of this review will be to adopt a training/recruitment program that best meets the zoos current and future requirements. Expected Completion: December 2010

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

16

Relationships Between Management and Staff


Please see Animal Welfare Process above. The Review Team observed that both management and the staff are frustrated with the current operations of the facility. There is general dissent of capabilities at both levels, with neither trusting the other. Line staff and middle management feel they are understaffed to the point that it impacts animal welfare. All expressed concern about the financial situation now that the CRIPPS money from the City has been discontinued. In short, the keepers do not believe that management is capable of solving the problems, and management doesnt listen to or trust solutions offered by keepers. The Review Team identified a number of communications challenges among the staff that include keeper-to-keeper, keeper-to-curator, keeper-to-Director of Conservation, Education, and Research (DCER), curator-to-DCER, and DCER-to-CEO. There were several instances cited where poor communications have led to delayed resolution of problems or contributed to the issues. Over-all, it appears that the deficiencies in communication are impacting animal care and welfare. Examples of affected areas include the African wild dog exhibit, problems in the gorilla area, and resolution of guinea fowl overcrowding. In any organization communications can be a challenge and should be a priority for improvement each and every year. This can be complicated in organizations with longstanding very flat organizational structures such as the Calgary Zoo. Too much supervisory, reporting, and communicating responsibility at any level will dilute a managers ability to excel in this area. It can also be complicated where dual cultures exist, such as at the Calgary Zoo where some staff work for the City and some for the Society. The animal care area is very large for one DCER, 3 curators, and an animal health director to effectively cover with no mid-level supervisors and coordinators. The team identified several areas of concern which keepers knew about but Curators were not informed of. In at least two cases this was because the keepers did not agree on the exact nature of the problem or on the solution, so it was never kicked up to the next level. Examples of this include the management of the wild dogs, and two groups of gorillas. Although management believes the issue has been resolved, the line staff still believe there are, and identified, radio dead spots throughout the Zoo that make physical communication difficult and a challenge with operating the devices properly (training issue?). There are differences of opinion among the staff as to the severity of this issue. The organizational structure within animal care which divides the Zoo into three separate and distinct curatorial areas has created silo situations which add to the communications struggles. Each area is managed very differently. The Review Team found that there is widespread respect for the CEO and he is well-liked and supported by the majority of staff and by the Board of Trustees.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

17

Action 17: The zoo is currently recruiting for a new Director of Animal Care, Conservation and Research. A key qualification being sought in the successful candidate is a strong ability to communicate effectively with colleagues and staff. Recruitment has also begun for a new curator and area managers and, again, excellent communications skills will be essential criteria for candidates for these positions. Expected Completion: As soon as possible

Action 18: All existing job classifications within the Animal Care branch will undergo a detailed review. Job descriptions will be updated and modified to segment duties in accordance with levels of skill, experience and competence. As a result, staff accountability will better match the professional capabilities of each employee. Modifying job descriptions, titles and duties is subject to discussion and agreement by the City of Calgary and CUPE Local 37, which represents City personnel working at the Zoo. Expected Completion: December 2010

Action 19: Efforts will be made to recruit, where and when appropriate, experienced keepers from other institutions. The zoos existing approach of training and promoting from within has, in some cases, limited the organizations ability to benefit from new industry knowledge. Acquiring relevant knowledge of and experience with evolving industry standards is an important step toward increasing the zoos overall level of animal care expertise. Expected Completion: As soon as possible

Action 20: The zoo has requested urgent discussions with the City of Calgary to assess and redefine the working relationship between the City and the zoo. While the zoo is owned by the City of Calgary, it is operated by the Calgary Zoological Society in accordance with an operating agreement negotiated between the two parties. The zoos workforce consists of two segmentsemployees who work for the Calgary Zoological Society and those who are employees of the City of Calgary assigned to the zoo. The structure creates a number of challenges related to issues identified in the CAZA/AZA report. The zoo is the only City of Calgary civic partner operating under this kind of arrangement. The zoo believes the relationship should be revisited at the earliest opportunity and, where appropriate, changes made to ensure operations can be managed in a way that more closely reflects the needs of operating the zoo. Expected Completion: As soon as possible

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

18

All Animal Facilities, Exhibits and Holding Areas


At both the Zoo and DWCC there is a general impression of deferred maintenance. Examples include rotting wood, older facilities and equipment, rust, peeling and worn painted surfaces, etc. Operational funding for maintenance does not appear to be meeting the needs. In addition, at the time of this inspection, there was no routine, preventative maintenance plan. The Zoo has recently purchased a new software program called Impulse which, if used to its full extent, can assist in digitizing and prioritizing maintenance, can plan routine and preventative maintenance schedules; inventory supplies and equipment; and allow for long-range planning of facility and system improvements and replacements. Data is being entered at this time with the expectation of having the system up and running this year. There is a great deal of capital being expended on new projects but the Review Team did not see any plans to refurbish, or demolish and rebuild the aging facilities. These older facilities present some challenges for the animals, and they require much more manpower and time to maintain from both the keeper and maintenance staffs. The newer exhibit areas are well designed and maintained and exhibit modern zoological practices and philosophies. The African areas (both hippo complex and gorilla complex), and the new elephant barn and exhibit are especially nice. Other animal areas of the Zoo meet the needs of the animals and the animal care staff works hard to maintain them to standards. The bear and big cat holding areas are marginally adequate now and should become a priority for upgrade in the near future. The mule deer restraint system is problematic, dangerous and should be replaced ASAP. The Australian, Nocturnal, and South American buildings are outdated. Animals are being managed in spaces that were designed for other purposes; and service areas are cramped, challenging to clean and maintain, and difficult to navigate. The floor surface in the Nocturnal Building public areas is dangerously eroded. These facilities add to the animal care work load and contribute to the perception of short staffing. The piano wire bat exhibit has been a challenge for many years. It is inappropriate for the animals that have been maintained there, has contributed to the deaths of several colonies, and is responsible for many injuries of individuals in the colony currently being housed there. There are animals maintained in marginal holding facilities for which there is no exhibit space. This appears to be poor collection planning and decision making.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

19

Action 21: Handling areas for mule deer and white tail deer will be reconfigured and new equipment installed to permit the completion of herd veterinary inspections as recommended by federal and provincial regulations. The report states that zoo veterinary staff refused to complete the inspections because of an inability to handle the animals properly. In fact, it was discussed among the zoos veterinarians, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and curatorial staff that routine herd tuberculosis tests would not be carried out because the benefit of doing the tests would be outweighed by the risk of handling the deer. While desirable, these tests are not deemed to be critical, particularly as the Calgary Zoo herd has no history of tuberculosis. Opportunistic TB testing will continue whenever animals are handled for shipment or medical concerns and regular herd level tests will be conducted once the handling facility improvements are completed. Expected Completion: September 2010

Devonian Wildlife Conservation Centre (DWCC)


The DWCC was developed in the early 1980s as a place for the Calgary Zoo to breed and raise hoof stock. The breeding of hoof stock has declined in importance, with Whooping crane and Vancouver Island marmot recovery programs taking precedence. The Keepers were very knowledgeable about the natural behaviour and captive husbandry of these program species. The pride that they take in the accomplishments of the programs was very evident during the visit. The Curator on Zone 2 oversees the site and the two full time keeping staff. The staffing is such that overlap occurs generally on Tuesday and Wednesday, with Curator presence on Wednesday. DWCC is also utilized as a place to house surplus hoof stock and as an off-site place for animals from exhibits at the Zoo which are periodically flooded by the river that runs adjacent to the Zoo. Paddocks and yards were sufficiently large for the numbers of animals being held. At the time of the visit, a Grevys zebra stallion was housed at the DWCC. The yards were icy so he was being kept in a deeply bedded stall and provided with supplemental heat. There were no companion animals nearby or visual evidence of the provision of enrichment.

Action 22: A companion animal has been located through AZAs Species Survival Plan (SSP) Coordinator for the lone Grevys zebra now housed at the Devonian Wildlife Conservation Centre (DWCC). The process to obtain a permit to move the new zebra to Calgary has been started. Expected Completion: TBD (Depending on time to process permit application)

The DWCC had been carefully reviewed during the recent accreditation visit in 2008. Some deficiencies in peripheral fencing heights and in sight/wind barriers for the whooping cranes had been corrected. However, there were a number of enclosures with listing posts and downed chain link fence. In particular, downed chain link fence in pens holding elk created a potential hazard for the animals and had not yet been addressed.
Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail Page

20

Building areas were in reasonable repair, adequately vented, and rodent control was in effect. There were some other areas with minor problems that should be fixed and the quarantine area was not suitable for appropriate disinfection, but none of these deficiencies appeared to be affecting animal care or welfare. The paddocks had very little or no shade structure present. The land is wet with several areas only available for use during the winter as they are otherwise too moist. The fence in the Elk yard housing two males contained open gaps in the bottom with areas of fencing bent out.
Action 23: Animal exhibit design, including bears and large cat holding areas, mentioned as a concern in several areas of the report, will be addressed as described in Action 27. Gaps in the enclosure fence for elk at the DWCC have been fixed. Although concerns were expressed about paddock shade at the DWCC, it should be noted that animals at the DWCC have unrestricted access to roofed structures to shelter themselves from the elements. Expected Completion: Partially completed

The crane breeding area contained wooden buildings with outside access yards. The yards were covered with netting which would provide shade and visual protection. The perimeter of the breeding area was gated and protected by fence and hotwire. The individual buildings, although showing their age, were well kept and clean. Food and potable water were provided inside the buildings to which the birds had access. The yards and buildings were barren of enrichment items.
Action 24: The report cites whooping crane enrichment as one example of an enrichment program a structured set of activities providing mental and physical stimulation to animals - that could be improved. The curator responsible for this species has recently completed a review of the program and changes to enhance its effectiveness have been implemented. Expected Completion: Completed

The Vancouver Island marmots were in hibernation and not seen by the Review Team. There are outside yards available for use during periods of activity. Hibernation takes place at ambient temperature, which has worked for them to date. The concern was raised that this may lead to periods of activity during a warm spell causing loss of body condition. Staff stated that animals are weighed during hibernation to assess their body condition.

Appearance and Condition of the Buildings and Grounds


Although the team visited the site in February, the grounds were beautiful and appeared very well maintained. Plantings were lush and added to the overall naturalistic
Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail Page

21

appeal of the Zoo, especially in the Canadian Wilds section. Outdoor exhibits were attractive and the animals seemed to have ample and appropriate furniture.

Adequacy of Maintenance Program


This past year the Zoo lost nearly $1 million of annual operating support from the City of Calgary (CRIPPS funding). This has had a significant impact on the Zoos ability to keep up with on-going maintenance, especially as it pertains to aging facilities, resulting in an ever increasing deferred maintenance list. See All Animal Facilities, Exhibits, and Holding Areas above for note on deferred maintenance.

Action 25: The zoo will continue to seek additional operating and capital funding from public and private sources to offset the costs of maintaining its physical infrastructure (buildings, exhibits, etc.), whose replacement value is estimated at $300 million to $400 million. Over the past seven years, the zoo has received municipal, provincial and private funds totalling nearly $80 million that have been invested in new exhibits and facilities. These new structures have reduced the average age of the zoos physical facilities, with more than 60 per cent of the organizations buildings now being less than 10 years old. While the capital investment has enabled the zoo to improve animal exhibits, visitor attractions and service facilities, the cost of maintaining these structures continues to increase. The Zoo receives less than 20 percent of its annual operating revenues from public sources, a much lower percentage than that in many other North American zoos, particularly those in the U.S., where different funding models are used. The zoos current level of operating support, just under $7 million per year, is provided entirely by the City of Calgary. Each year, 50 percent of the zoos net income is used for infrastructure maintenance. The balance of the net income must be retained in the operating fund to support ongoing, day-to-day activities at the zoo. Like most other public institutions, the Calgary Zoo has an extensive list of deferred maintenance work that cannot be completed due to lack of resources. Between 2006 and 2008, the City of Calgary provided about $1 million per year for infrastructure improvement. The discontinuance of this funding has created major challenges for the zoo, which estimates the gap between current and recommended levels of infrastructure spending at about $3 million per year. The zoo has no control over the level of external funding available, but discussions are ongoing with the City, other public agencies and private donors in an effort to address the shortfall. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

22

Action 26: The zoo has engaged the services of an experienced architectural/planning firm to work with staff to develop a master plan that will guide the renovation and rebuilding of facilities over the next seven to 10 years. The review teams visit to Calgary predated the engagement of the master plan consultant and panel members may have been unaware of steps being taken to address this issue. Expected Completion: June 2011

Adequacy, Appropriateness, and Condition of Exhibits and Holding Areas


See All Animal Facilities, Exhibits, and Holding Areas above. In addition, some areas were in need of general housekeeping. Large accumulations of bird feces were found in several mammal holding areas (e.g. mule deer). Older facilities made mostly of wood showed signs of rotting and cannot be easily cleaned. Many back-up facilities are in very poor condition in need of renovation, (e.g. sloth bear).

Adequacy of Furniture in Exhibits


See Appearance and Condition of the Buildings and Grounds above.

Adequacy of Ventilation in Buildings and Holding Areas


The HVAC systems in place in the more complex structures appeared adequate.

Whether all Service Areas Have Sufficient Space for Safety


There are several areas that are very tight and could pose a threat to staff safety. The holding areas of the South America building are criss-crossed with wire transfer chutes across many levels. Gorilla holding has transfer chutes which pass directly over keeper service areas, forcing keepers to walk under animals that sit just overhead. The review team did not identify any deficiencies with the written transportation procedures and protocols.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

23

Other Comments / Concerns Not Covered by Terms of Reference Pattern of Incidents


After reviewing the incidents and the over-all situation at the Calgary Zoo, the Review Team believed that, while each event did have its own particular set of circumstances not directly related to other events, there was a general pattern that is of concern. Over the last three to five years, there is a documented increase in the number of events linked to fatalities. While we were not able to obtain clear morbidity and accident data, the teams sense is that there has also been an increase in these statistics. Several of the identified events, including some of the high profile media events, appear on the surface to be isolated incidents (e.g. unfortunate hanging of the Markhor goat). However, there is an underlying pattern to many of the events. In many cases, there have been clear preceding indications that there were problems (e.g. mule deer, bats, African wild dogs) and yet a timely, definitive resolving step was not taken. There is an indication of an increasing keeper error rate that is related to a combination of inadequate competency for specific areas and heavy workload or inefficiency of work delegation, and yet these problems have not been definitively addressed. There appears to be a pattern of knowing there is a problem and knowing an ultimate solution, yet taking incremental steps to try different solutions. This could be due to lack of adequate financial support to solve the issue.

Zoo Culture
The keepers and gardeners are employed by the City of Calgary and are represented by a Union which negotiates only with the City. The CEO of the Zoo does not have a seat at that table and is unable to communicate the unique requirements for managing a zoo. The Review Team believes that this is an impediment with the size of the current staff. The unusual hourly structure of the unionized staff contributes to communication issues and the ability to schedule overlap days. In addition, there is a dual culture between the two staffs which may also contribute to communication issues. The Society charged with operating the Zoo employs all other staff.

See Action 20

Widespread Lack of Confidence in DCER


In the opinion of the Review Team, the DCER is spread very thin which may contribute to the lack of confidence in the individual. Although this concern was not related by all staff, it was widespread and there was a commonality.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

24

Collection Planning
Although a collection plan exists it lacks an important component of a plan. Each species should be evaluated for appropriateness of the exhibit in which it will be housed. Social, physical, physiological, and behavioural components need to be evaluated to determine if the species is an appropriate one for this institution. In addition, the actual practice of species acquisition and housing does not correspond to the written plan. The Review Team was provided with a summary of the collection plan and discussed collection planning with the DCER. The collection planning document included a ranking of the value of different species based on the following: Display Value Education Value Management Recommendation Status IUCN Conservation Value CITES, USFWS listing Ease of Acquisition Resources to Maintain This scoring system leads to a categorization of acquire or dont acquire. Based on the document, it was projected that the target for the collection as of January 2010 was approximately twice the current collection size. There was general agreement among the staff at all levels that the collection, which is currently 20% larger than ten years ago, needs to shrink and not grow. Over all, it appears therefore that there is not, in fact, an actual collection plan and a strategy in place to manage the collection with specific goals in mind. Collection acquisitions over the last few years seem to have been largely based on opportunities (e.g. addition of four gorillas from the Bronx Zoo) or on the promotional display/commercial value (e.g. rays). The lack of coherent planning seems to be leading to bringing animals to the Zoo which the staff is not fully prepared to accept or manage. Because there are so many animals on the acquire list, there is not a clear mechanism for saying no when it is inappropriate to acquire those animals. The following examples highlight some disconnects between the collection plan and the actual situation. Even though everyone recognized that the current gorilla situation is a sustainability problem (need to be managed in two groups because of incompatibility), the species is still listed with an acquire status in the plan. The African wild dog exhibit is a significant problem and the Zoo has been unable to manage the population for a considerable period of time, yet, they too, are still listed with an acquire status. The mule deer exhibit has major handling problems and the deer are three years behind in receiving routine veterinary care because of this, yet mule deer are still listed with an acquire status.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

25

Some of these decisions to acquire animals have led directly to problems, or indirectly to keeper errors. With the lack of a clear organizational strategy for acquisitions, the display value appears to become a major driving factor. While the public attraction value is very important and visitors are required for the sustainability of the Zoo, it was not possible for the Review Team to identify how the public attraction value is balanced against the principles of conservation and education that are also primary drivers of the Zoo. The Zoo is very committed to animal welfare, particularly through its enrichment and behaviour programs. These are valuable and important programs, for which the Zoo is to be applauded. However, these programs also bring additional time and pressure on keeper staff that must be considered in collection planning. The pressures on collection planning are increased by the aging infrastructure in some areas that makes management of parts of the collection more difficult.

Action 27: The Interim Director of Animal Care has been directed to assess the zoos collection plan to establish clear criteria for the inclusion of all species and specimens in the plan, including the appropriateness of housing for all animals. Expected Completion: December 2010

Action 28: A mechanism will be developed and strictly enforced to update the collection plan at least annually and to ensure that all future animal acquisitions fall within the scope of the plan. See Appendix C for AZA guidelines for creating a collection plan. Expected Completion: December 2010

Action 29: Species and specimens that do not align with the plan or cannot be properly accommodated in Calgary will be moved to other appropriate facilities. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Action 30: Before any new species are acquired, staff expertise and appropriateness of housing will be assessed to ensure the necessary skills exist within the institution to provide an acceptable level of care and training. No acquisition will be made if the skills are not available or cannot be acquired. Expected Completion: Ongoing

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

26

Action 31: Senior animal care staff will be assigned to attend the next training program offered by the AZA or CAZA on managing an institutional collection plan. Expected Completion: TBD (Depending on AZA/CAZA training schedule)

Internal Discord
The intensive media attention and the widespread fear that someone from within the organization is trying to create change by taking internal issues outside has created a very stressful climate at the Zoo at this time. This distraction could be a causal agent of the recent lapses of concentration by staff.

Security
Several areas of the perimeter fence were in disrepair, both at the Zoo and at DWCC. It is believed that the man who was mauled by the tiger accessed the Zoo by climbing the fence at a gate located very near the tiger enclosure. Double gates in the perimeter fence appeared to be easily climbable, this was particularly true near the mule deer where the gates are not hung straight and it is possible to scale the fence easily between the gate and post. At the time of the inspection the Zoo did not meet the standard for number and type of security and safety drills being conducted. During the visit the Review Team was also made aware that visitors were discovered in the elephant enclosure after hours during a private evening event. The Review Team does not believe that adequate security measures are in place to protect the collection, particularly after hours. After the tiger incident the Zoo made the decision to keep dangerous animals in holding areas after the Zoo is closed. It was reported to the Review Team that vagrants living in the area have been observed on grounds after hours seeking shelter. It appears to the Review Team that all keeper staff has access to dangerous animal enclosure keys regardless of their level of training. The firearms team had in the past trained with the Calgary police. This has been discontinued and it does not appear that any routine alternate plan has been developed to continue firearms training.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

27

Action 32: Security staff have been instructed to conduct biweekly inspections of the facilitys perimeter fence and to report any breaches or required repairs that will be addressed as priorities. Expected Completion: Completed

Action 33: Dangerous animals (lions, tigers, snow leopards, elephants) are now kept inside locked enclosures or covered spaces at night. This was implemented following a recent security breach in which two individuals broke into the zoo and gained unauthorized entry to a restricted area near the Siberian tiger exhibit. Expected Completion: Completed

Action 34: The zoo acknowledges that its past performance in holding regular emergency drills has not been acceptable. The AZA standard is that emergency drills should be conducted at least once annually for each basic type of emergency (fire, weather/environment, injury to staff or a visitor, animal escape). Since the visit from the review team in February 2010, two animal escape drills have been conducted. Feedback from the drills has been recorded and actions identified to correct any issues related to improvement of the processes. Two other animal emergency drills, a person in an animal enclosure and a fire in an animal enclosure/building, have also been conducted. A regular schedule has been developed for these drills in 2010 and is attached as Appendix B. Expected Completion: Completed

Action 35: New communications systems will be investigated to supplement the nearly 100 security cameras and more than 140 two-way radios already in use to monitor activity in and around animal enclosures and areas of public access. The new systems are expected to include technology that will enable constant real-time monitoring of perimeter fencing and improved radio and/or telecommunications equipment for security and Animal Care staff. Expected Completion: December 2010

Action 36: The Interim Director of Animal Care has been directed to redefine the role and structure of the zoos Emergency Response Team (ERT) which responds in the case of animal escapes or other similar emergencies. In the meantime, the ERT team members have re-started their training program. Expected Completion: September 2010

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

28

Post Inspection
Since the site visit two more animal incidents have occurred which were evaluated by the Review Team. One involved the temporary egress of Malagasy hognose snakes from their exhibit. This was caused by a keeper making a poor decision, possibly compounded by a poor design for servicing the exhibit, and by the fact that there is no written protocol that, if followed, could have prevented this from occurring. The second incident involved a gorilla gaining access to the ledge of his exhibit from some ice in the moat. The keeper had not inspected the exterior exhibit before giving the animal access. These two incidents are similar to those that led to the call for an inspection and could be indicators of poor staff training, excessive work loads, poor planning, distraction, etc. As this report was being prepared, the DCER announced her resignation from the Calgary Zoo effective March 18, 2010.

Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail

Page

29