correlated report and action plan _final

8/3/2019 Correlated Report and Action Plan _Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/correlated-report-and-action-plan-final 1/30

FINDINGS & ACTION PLANZOO MANAGEMENT ACTS QUICKLY ON REVIEW FINDINGS

This document delivers a seamless version of the Review findings and theZoo Management’s correlated Action Plan.

It provides a quick and concise awareness of the Review Team’s findingsand what the Zoo Management is doing about them .

In December 2009, Dr. Clément Lanthier, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCalgary Zoo, called for a review of animal care following a number of incidents involvinganimal mortality. These incidents gave Dr. Lanthier cause for concern and brought intoquestion the zoo’s policies, practices and procedures regarding animal care.

The review highlighted many strengths of the Calgary Zoo, emphasizing that “animalwelfare is a top priority,” that our staff are “very dedicated to the animals” and that thezoo “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 hissenior management team have listened to the findings of the Review Team and aretaking immediate and definitive actions to correct the problems.

Since receiving the review on June 9, 2010, Dr. Lanthier and the senior managementteam 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 toall our stakeholders. In the spirit of maintaining total transparency, we will publishquarterly status reports on our website relating to delivery of our action plan.

Implementation of the action plan will also be monitored carefully by the CalgaryZoo’s Board of Trustees. Copies of the report have been provided to all Boardmembers and the Board has directed management to provide updates on itsprogress in implementing the plan at every regular Board meeting.



Calgary Zoo Special Review ~ Background Detail Page 1

Joint CAZA / AZASpecial Review:

Background Detail

Calgary ZooFebruary 2010

CONFIDENTIAL




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 twoaccrediting 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 betaken. 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 languagecontained 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 CalgaryClint 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 someinstances. 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 tohave followed specified procedures. For example, the Review Team entered tiger holdingand 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 atiger in a holding pen where there clearly was no tiger. When we pointed it out we weretold 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 wereout 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 wellcared for and appeared to be in good body condition. Although a few animals




demonstrated signs of confinement stress for the most part the animals appeared well-adapted.

Confinement of some animals during the winter holding period may have beencreating some problems. In particular, it was reported that the guinea fowl were kept inan over-crowded area which could have contributed to the Capillaria. The area wasobserved 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 expertisewhich appears to have been inadequate (see below). The Zoo has since increased itsexpertise in the aquatics area.

Action 1:The Interim Director of Animal Care, curators, veterinarians and zookeepers will reviewand update all policies and procedures related to animal handling, husbandry and theuse of program animals. Once this review is completed, all sections of the zoo willreceive a quarterly reminder of the relevant protocols and compliance will be monitoredregularly.

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. Theseprotocols will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Each time there is anupdate, an appropriate training session will be held with area managers and keepersand a formal sign off obtained to ensure the new procedures have been communicatedand are understood correctly.

Expected Completion: Ongoing

Action 3: A review of procedures and protocol will become a standard agenda item at everyregular meeting of the Animal Management Committee. All discussions/concerns and

suggestions regarding the processes and protocols will be documented for appropriateand timely follow-up.





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 initialreport (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 anumber of workers regarding their understanding of their ability to submit a writtenconcern 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 comfortablein providing comments to their curator but some staff also feel that the process dead endswith 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 concernsaddressed.

Action 4: A stronger animal welfare review process, including a reorganization of the zoo’s AnimalWelfare Committee, has been implemented. The committee now meets monthly, ratherthan sporadically as in the past, and includes an independent advisor from a majorWestern Canadian university. The committee will seek input from staff on animal welfareconcerns and will review and approve all proposed animal acquisitions. Minutes ofcommittee meetings will be circulated to the senior management team. Terms ofReference of the Animal Welfare Committee are attached as Appendix A.


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 dataand 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 AZAand 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 ratethan zoos with longer lived animals (e.g. primates, hoofstock, carnivores living greater than 20 years). Zoos with many mixed species exhibits will realize more interspecificinteractions possibly leading to morbidity and mortality in the best planned and managed scenarios. Zoos with many active breeding programs will experience higher neonatalmortality rates due to inexperienced parents and challenges intrinsic to pediatricsurvival. 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 bythe Zoo. In discussions with Zoo staff, it was apparent that while the data was collected,




it was not formally summarized and reviewed. Rather, there appeared to be a relianceon impressions of over-all trends, rather than a critical analysis of the data available todetermine internal trends.

The following graphs illustrate some key trends, based on both the Zoo’sinterpretation of the data provided and the review team’s 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 ReviewTeam was provided with over-all mortality data from 2000-2009, but more detailed datawas 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 thePallas 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 increasein 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, inwhich 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 includeinvertebrate deaths, but the trend is the same when invertebrates are included). It wasnoted 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.




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 suggestsover-all good husbandry and veterinary care (as described above and noted below). Thestability 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 in2008 in accidental deaths presumably reflects the death of over 40 rays in a singleincident (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 isof concern. The review team was not able to determine a clear reason for this. Somesubmissions were too autolyzed for a diagnosis (why the delay in submission?) and manyof the undiagnosed animals were bats (see below for further discussion). The largeincrease in unknown causes does mean that care needs to be taken in interpreting theother categories of deaths.




The Review Team attempted to further explore the apparent increase in deathsand 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 adetailed breakdown of morbidity over previous years (there is no standard requiring thistype 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 tosay 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 morbiditycould 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 humanerror. The graph below shows the trend in deaths or incidents over the last five years. Inthis presentation, incidents with multiple deaths due to a single cause were counted asone (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 rangefrom weeks to decades. They range in size from animals that weigh several grams tothose that weigh tons. Each day our animal care staff undertakes over 10,000 tasks tocare 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 asveterinary care and external transportation. In 2009, 214 animals died at the CalgaryZoo and we celebrated 202 births. Of the animals that died, five were attributable tohuman 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




other similar institutions. The Review Team examined the case history of all the traumarelated deaths. Based on the descriptions provided, the team identified deaths whichoccurred during human handling and those situations where recurring aggression in thesame exhibit preceded a trauma related death. For the purposes of this analysis, thelatter 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 errorswill 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 since2004 of higher than expected mortality listed below:

SPECIES # of Deaths Comments

Seba’s Bats 25 in 2009 These are new arrival bats presenting with mal-adaptation to the same piano wire bat exhibit contributing to mortality of Pallas bats described below. The Seba’s bats present with wing fracturesin this exhibit.

Seba’s bats in the wild experience a 53 percent mortality rate in the first two years; and 22percent 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.




Pallas Bats 35 in 2008 These bats exhibited mal-adaptive syndrome in35 in 2007 the piano wire exhibit related to environmental9 in 2006 (temperature/humidity) challenges causing a fatal26 in 2005 negative energy balance.40 in 2004

Cow Nose Rays 45 in 2008 These rays all died about the same time due tolack of oxygenation in the exhibit designed by acontractor. 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 thedeaths of the above animals were exhibit related (lack of ideal temperature, humidity(Pallas bats), oxygenation (cow nose rays) or exhibit size & materials (piano wirecausing Seba’s 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 deathsincluding 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 beingstepped 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 dueto keepers not following established protocols, it is not common practice to manage thesespecies 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 muledeer. While the handlers may not have committed any specific errors, these deathsoccurred during handling and so are attributable to human intervention. The deathswere 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 deathshad 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 hasnot been enacted. Although the Zoo has taken steps to alter the exhibit, thoseincremental steps have not yet been effective. Specifically, there is another capturesystem 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 makingadjustments to the present system, which seems only to cause more problems. Theveterinary staff informed the Review Team that they have “refused” to provide somebasic, routine health care, and some reproductive programs have been disrupted becauseof 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




risk it. The veterinary staff believes it is potentially more dangerous for the animals toreceive preventative care than it is to live without it.

The intraspecific and interspecific aggression deaths cross many different speciesand appear mostly to be related to neonatal mortality and incompatibility, especially inmixed 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 dogexhibit. Intraspecies aggression was noted and a number of varying responses weretried, 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 injuryto one dog. The animals are now scheduled for relocation to another Zoo. Potentialreasons for inconsistent responses to identified problems are discussed later in thisreport.

YEAR Intraspecific & Interspecific Self-Induced / Environmental Aggression

2005 17 cases 10 cases2006 24 cases 12 cases2007 18 cases 13 cases

YEAR Intraspecific & Interspecific Self-Induced / Environmental Aggression

2008 11 cases 10 cases2009 20 cases 13 cases

One should not conclude that all aggression between animals or trauma onexhibit 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, humanerror and human intervention related deaths, particularly over the last 5 years. Theover-represented cases of mortality in the Seba’s bats, Pallas bats and cow nose rays; therepeated cases of mule deer injuries and fatalities related to restraint & capture; theongoing (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 someexhibit designs that were not promptly resolved. There are some indications that attempts to provide enhanced visitor experiences at the cost of careful exhibit planningwithin the Zoo’s 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




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

Action 5:The zoo will compare its animal mortality rate with benchmark data for other institutionswith similar collections and age groups of species. Benchmark data is not currentlyavailable from either the AZA or CAZA, but the Calgary Zoo will work with bothorganizations in an effort to gather this information. When available, the report will beprovided to the Animal Management Committee.


Action 6:Twice a year, veterinarians will formally review and analyze morbidity and mortalitywithin the animal collection. Veterinary staff will be instructed to reprioritize their currentactivities and, where necessary, to discontinue some of their off-site field work to ensuresufficient 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 zoo’s Animal Health Centre teamin March 2010. The mortality and morbidity report will be submitted to the AnimalManagement Committee for review and discussion. The Animal ManagementCommittee consists of senior members of the Animal Care staff, including the Director,and is responsible for reviewing and discussing animal management concerns andfuture plans for the animal collection.


Action 7:Sebas bats and Pallas bats, two of the species identified in the report as having highmortality rates, will no longer be part of the Calgary Zoo’s collection. Sebas bats will berelocated by the end of June and efforts are now being made to find a new location forthe Pallas bats. The zoo is taking this step in direct response to the concerns expressedin the review panel’s report. It should be noted, however, that published scientificresearch indicates that mortality rates for Sebas bats among the zoo’s collection areconsistent with mortality rates of that species in the wild and Jamaican fruit bats incaptivity. 1,2

Expected Completion: As soon as possible

1 Cloutier and Thomas 1992, “Carollia perspicillata: Mammalian Species”, No. 417, pp. 1-9, 3 figs. 2 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 .




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


Action 9:Feather-tailed gliders will be relocated from the zoo’s collection as soon as suitablealternative accommodation can be found. The report described several incidents wherethese small animals had been injured or killed in their exhibits.


Action 10:Four, of the zoo’s collection of six African wild dogs, have been moved to another zooand 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-siteveterinary 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 researchduties at the University of Calgary. The veterinary team at Calgary Zoo is supported bythree veterinary technicians and two animal hospital keepers, but administrative/ secretarial support is lacking. A capital campaign is currently underway to expand theanimal 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).




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 RecordsThe 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 hospitalvehicle transports animals and supplies between the hospital and the Zoo campus. Thenecropsy room is undergoing a $400K funded upgrade this year.

Adequacy of the Extent of Veterinary Services Provided theCollection

Keepers indicated that the veterinarians have a daily presence on the Zoo campusand perform scheduled rounds. The veterinarians have an excellent working relationshipbased on mutual trust and respect. The lead veterinarians interact directly with thecurators 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. Theinstitution must have the necessary resources to support and provide for the professional




care and management of species, so that the physical and social needs of both specimensand species are met. The Institutional Collection Plan must include justification of eachspecies based upon criteria such as husbandry requirements, husbandry expertise and veterinary issues and concerns. Although the written Institutional Collection Planoutlines 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 reactivethan 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 Seba’s bats, Pallas bats and cow nose rays (e.g., it is possible that thecow nose rays incident could have been avoided with more inclusion of veterinary staff inexhibit planning. (See “Collection Planning” below)

Animal Care Staffing Levels, Training, and Experience

There are many long-term, experienced keepers at the Calgary Zoo. Most animalcare 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 responsibilitiesand authorities regardless of where they currently are in the “training” program. Allkeepers 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 byeducation staff. Protocols were in place and practiced by education staff considering

feeding schedule, temperature extremes, and handling frequency. All of the educationanimals were beautifully housed in spacious, naturalistic enclosures in one area whichdoubled 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 ½ hour days on a 4 dayweek, 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 perceptionof being very short staffed. Keepers’ opinions of this system vary widely.

Communications, overlap days, and regular on-the-job training are challenged bythese systems. As a result, communications are poor, keepers do not always receive the




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 mentalconcentration required for a safe work environment. It should be noted that the animalcare staff does not share this opinion. The team also noted that the same routines and thesame work tasks occur whether it is completed in a 9 ½ 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 moresenior staff before assuming responsibilities to work alone. Keepers are passed throughthe complex levels described above but can be assigned to work in any area bythemselves at any of these levels, including working with dangerous animals as alabourer. 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 theapprenticeship program which takes several years to go through. Several junior keepersexpressed 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 zooimmediately 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 beentrained with the animals in this system as it is relatively new.

Most of the animals looked well cared for and there was some behaviouralenrichment. 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 trainingmethodologies 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 keeperson this throughout the Zoo.

Action 11: A staff succession plan will be put into place in Animal Care that will include re-trainingand, where necessary, external hiring to obtain required skills not available internally.This plan will include personal development programs for key staff members in thebranch.





Action 12: A new departmental structure was implemented in May that clarifies the Animal Carebranch’s mandate and the responsibilities of each manager. Lines of supervision—andcommunication—have been redefined in this new structure, which more closely followsan industry model. This will allow curators to better manage the animal collection andgive responsibility for staff supervision to area managers. Having supervisors frequentlyon 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 havereassigned various keeper tasks to distribute workloads more evenly across the AnimalCare branch.

Expected Completion: Started - Ongoing

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


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 andmatched to the zoo’s needs. A training plan for each individual will be determined yearlyat evaluation time. On-the-job training will also be documented.


Action 16: The zoo’s existing zookeeper apprenticeship program will be re-examined. Otherpossible approaches considered for zookeeper training include the completion of theCAZA keeper training program, or equivalency, as a new requirement and/or therecruitment 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 bestmeets the zoo’s current and future requirements.





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 bothlevels, 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. Inshort, the keepers do not believe that management is capable of solving the problems,and management doesn’t listen to or trust solutions offered by keepers.

The Review Team identified a number of communications challenges among thestaff 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 thedeficiencies 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 achallenge and should be a priority for improvement each and every year. This can becomplicated in organizations with longstanding very flat organizational structures suchas the Calgary Zoo. Too much supervisory, reporting, and communicating responsibilityat any level will dilute a manager’s ability to excel in this area. It can also becomplicated 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-levelsupervisors and coordinators. The team identified several areas of concern whichkeepers 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 stillbelieve 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 thecommunications struggles. Each area is managed very differently.

The Review Team found that there is widespread respect for the CEO and he iswell-liked and supported by the majority of staff and by the Board of Trustees.




Action 17: The zoo is currently recruiting for a new Director of Animal Care, Conservation andResearch. A key qualification being sought in the successful candidate is a strong abilityto communicate effectively with colleagues and staff. Recruitment has also begun for anew curator and area managers and, again, excellent communications skills will beessential criteria for candidates for these positions.


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


Action 19: Efforts will be made to recruit, where and when appropriate, experienced keepers fromother institutions. The zoo’s existing approach of training and promoting from within has,in some cases, limited the organization’s ability to benefit from new industry knowledge.Acquiring relevant knowledge of and experience with evolving industry standards is animportant step toward increasing the zoo’s overall level of animal care expertise.


Action 20:The zoo has requested urgent discussions with the City of Calgary to assess andredefine the working relationship between the City and the zoo. While the zoo is ownedby the City of Calgary, it is operated by the Calgary Zoological Society in accordancewith an operating agreement negotiated between the two parties. The zoo’s workforceconsists of two segments—employees who work for the Calgary Zoological Society andthose who are employees of the City of Calgary assigned to the zoo. The structurecreates a number of challenges related to issues identified in the CAZA/AZA report. Thezoo 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 thatmore closely reflects the needs of operating the zoo.





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 noroutine, 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 theexpectation of having the system up and running this year.

There is a great deal of capital being expended on new projects but the ReviewTeam 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 muchmore 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 workshard to maintain them to standards. The bear and big cat holding areas are marginallyadequate now and should become a priority for upgrade in the near future. The muledeer restraint system is problematic, dangerous and should be replaced ASAP. The

Australian, Nocturnal, and South American buildings are outdated. Animals are beingmanaged in spaces that were designed for other purposes; and service areas arecramped, challenging to clean and maintain, and difficult to navigate. The floor surfacein 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 wirebat 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 isresponsible 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.




Action 21:Handling areas for mule deer and white tail deer will be reconfigured and new equipmentinstalled to permit the completion of herd veterinary inspections as recommended byfederal and provincial regulations. The report states that zoo veterinary staff “refused” tocomplete the inspections because of an inability to handle the animals properly. In fact, itwas discussed among the zoo’s veterinarians, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)and curatorial staff that routine herd tuberculosis tests would not be carried out becausethe benefit of doing the tests would be outweighed by the risk of handling the deer. Whiledesirable, these tests are not deemed to be critical, particularly as the Calgary Zoo herdhas no history of tuberculosis. Opportunistic TB testing will continue whenever animalsare handled for shipment or medical concerns and regular herd level tests will beconducted 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, withWhooping crane and Vancouver Island marmot recovery programs taking precedence.The Keepers were very knowledgeable about the natural behaviour and captivehusbandry 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 siteand the two full time keeping staff. The staffing is such that overlap occurs generally onTuesday 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 Grevy’s 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 AZA’s Species Survival Plan (SSP)Coordinator for the lone Grevy’s zebra now housed at the Devonian WildlifeConservation Centre (DWCC). The process to obtain a permit to move the new zebra toCalgary has been started.

Expected Completion: TBD (Depending on time to process permit application)

The DWCC had been carefully reviewed during the recent accreditation visit in2008. Some deficiencies in peripheral fencing heights and in sight/wind barriers for thewhooping cranes had been corrected. However, there were a number of enclosures withlisting posts and downed chain link fence. In particular, downed chain link fence in pensholding elk created a potential hazard for the animals and had not yet been addressed.




Building areas were in reasonable repair, adequately vented, and rodent control was ineffect. There were some other areas with minor problems that should be fixed and thequarantine area was not suitable for appropriate disinfection, but none of thesedeficiencies appeared to be affecting animal care or welfare.

The paddocks had very little or no shade structure present. The land is wet withseveral 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 withareas of fencing bent out.

Action 23:Animal exhibit design, including bears and large cat holding areas, mentioned as aconcern in several areas of the report, will be addressed as described in Action 27. Gapsin the enclosure fence for elk at the DWCC have been fixed. Although concerns wereexpressed about paddock shade at the DWCC, it should be noted that animals at theDWCC have unrestricted access to roofed structures to shelter themselves from theelements.

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. Theindividual 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 - thatcould be improved. The curator responsible for this species has recently completed areview of the program and changes to enhance its effectiveness have beenimplemented.


The Vancouver Island marmots were in hibernation and not seen by the ReviewTeam. There are outside yards available for use during periods of activity. Hibernationtakes place at ambient temperature, which has worked for them to date. The concern wasraised 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 bodycondition.

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




appeal of the Zoo, especially in the Canadian Wilds section. Outdoor exhibits wereattractive 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 Zoo’s abilityto 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 ondeferred maintenance.

Action 25:The zoo will continue to seek additional operating and capital funding from public andprivate 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 fundstotalling nearly $80 million that have been invested in new exhibits and facilities. Thesenew structures have reduced the average age of the zoo’s physical facilities, with morethan 60 per cent of the organization’s buildings now being less than 10 years old. Whilethe capital investment has enabled the zoo to improve animal exhibits, visitor attractionsand service facilities, the cost of maintaining these structures continues to increase.

The Zoo receives less than 20 percent of its annual operating revenues from publicsources, 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 zoo’s currentlevel of operating support, just under $7 million per year, is provided entirely by the City

of Calgary.Each year, 50 percent of the zoo’s net income is used for infrastructure maintenance.The balance of the net income must be retained in the operating fund to supportongoing, day-to-day activities at the zoo. Like most other public institutions, the CalgaryZoo has an extensive list of deferred maintenance work that cannot be completed due tolack of resources.

Between 2006 and 2008, the City of Calgary provided about $1 million per year forinfrastructure improvement. The discontinuance of this funding has created majorchallenges for the zoo, which estimates the gap between current and recommendedlevels of infrastructure spending at about $3 million per year. The zoo has no controlover 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.





Action 26:The zoo has engaged the services of an experienced architectural/planning firm to workwith staff to develop a master plan that will guide the renovation and rebuilding offacilities over the next seven to 10 years. The review team’s visit to Calgary predated theengagement of the master plan consultant and panel members may have been unawareof 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 feceswere found in several mammal holding areas (e.g. mule deer). Older facilities mademostly 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.




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 team’s 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 isan 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 appearsto 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 thecurrent staff. The unusual hourly structure of the unionized staff contributes tocommunication issues and the ability to schedule overlap days. In addition, there is adual 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.




Collection Planning

Although a collection plan exists it lacks an important component of a plan. Eachspecies should be evaluated for appropriateness of the exhibit in which it will be housed.Social, physical, physiological, and behavioural components need to be evaluated todetermine 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 RecommendationStatus IUCN Conservation ValueCITES, USFWS listing

Ease of Acquisition Resources to Maintain

This scoring system leads to a categorization of “acquire” or “don’t acquire”. Based on the document, it was projected that the target for the collection as of January2010 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 withspecific goals in mind.

Collection acquisitions over the last few years seem to have been largely based onopportunities (e.g. addition of four gorillas from the Bronx Zoo) or on the promotionaldisplay/commercial value (e.g. rays). The lack of coherent planning seems to be leadingto 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 planand 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 managethe 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 arethree years behind in receiving routine veterinary care because of this, yet mule deer arestill listed with an “acquire” status.




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 valueappears to become a major driving factor. While the public attraction value is veryimportant 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 Zoois to be applauded. However, these programs also bring additional time and pressure onkeeper staff that must be considered in collection planning.

The pressures on collection planning are increased by the aging infrastructure insome 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 zoo’s collectionplan to establish clear criteria for the inclusion of all species and specimens in the plan,including the appropriateness of housing for all animals.


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


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


Action 30:Before any new species are acquired, staff expertise and appropriateness of housing willbe assessed to ensure the necessary skills exist within the institution to provide anacceptable level of care and training. No acquisition will be made if the skills are notavailable or cannot be acquired.





Action 31:Senior animal care staff will be assigned to attend the next training program offered bythe 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 withinthe organization is trying to create change by taking internal issues outside has created avery 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 byclimbing 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 muledeer where the gates are not hung straight and it is possible to scale the fence easilybetween 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 wasalso 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 placeto protect the collection, particularly after hours. After the tiger incident the Zoo madethe decision to keep dangerous animals in holding areas after the Zoo is closed. It wasreported to the Review Team that vagrants living in the area have been observed ongrounds after hours seeking shelter.

It appears to the Review Team that all keeper staff has access to dangerousanimal enclosure keys regardless of their level of training.

The firearms team had in the past trained with the Calgary police. This has beendiscontinued and it does not appear that any routine alternate plan has been developed tocontinue firearms training.




Action 32:Security staff have been instructed to conduct biweekly inspections of the facility’sperimeter fence and to report any breaches or required repairs that will be addressed aspriorities.


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


Action 34:The zoo acknowledges that its past performance in holding regular emergency drills hasnot been acceptable. The AZA standard is that emergency drills should be conducted atleast once annually for each basic type of emergency (fire, weather/environment, injuryto staff or a visitor, animal escape). Since the visit from the review team in February2010, two animal escape drills have been conducted. Feedback from the drills has beenrecorded and actions identified to correct any issues related to improvement of theprocesses. Two other animal emergency drills, a person in an animal enclosure and afire in an animal enclosure/building, have also been conducted. A regular schedule hasbeen developed for these drills in 2010 and is attached as Appendix B.


Action 35:New communications systems will be investigated to supplement the nearly 100 securitycameras and more than 140 two-way radios already in use to monitor activity in andaround animal enclosures and areas of public access. The new systems are expected toinclude technology that will enable constant real-time monitoring of perimeter fencingand improved radio and/or telecommunications equipment for security and Animal Carestaff.


Action 36:The Interim Director of Animal Care has been directed to redefine the role and structureof the zoo’s Emergency Response Team (ERT) which responds in the case of animalescapes or other similar emergencies. In the meantime, the ERT team members havere-started their training program.

Expected Completion: September 2010



Post Inspection

Since the site visit two more animal incidents have occurred which wereevaluated by the Review Team. One involved the temporary egress of Malagasy hognosesnakes from their exhibit. This was caused by a keeper making a poor decision, possiblycompounded by a poor design for servicing the exhibit, and by the fact that there is nowritten 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 beforegiving 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 theCalgary Zoo effective March 18, 2010.

correlated report and action plan _final

Documents