Calauit Wildlife Sanctuary Philippines Zoo Review

Calauit Wildlife Sanctuary – Zoo Review

The RIGHT-tourism Zoo Review is a quick but informed guide to the quality of places where the public can see animals, including zoos, dolphinariums and other attractions.

We’ve used a range of measures, taken from information available online, to judge how well the animals at the particular zoo or animal attraction are looked after. More than just a ‘review’, the results are actually a Quality Index which will allow tourists and the attractions themselves to judge how well the attractions are performing.

Please note, the information we use is taken from what we assume to be genuine and factually correct comments from reviews, blogs and news stories. If there are factual inaccuracies, please let us know and we will make the relevant changes.

RIGHT-tourism Zoo Review Rating for: Calauit Wildlife Sanctuary, Philippines

Zoo_Review_Stamp_Good

Summary

Calauit Wildlife Sanctuary, located in the Northwestern coast of Palawan in Philippines, was declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1977 as a response to an appeal by the IUCN (International Union of Conservation of Nature)to save endangered animals in Africa.  Home to both endemic animals and African wildlife, Calauit Wildlife Sanctuary covers an area of 3,700 hectares providing animals with natural environment. Many of the reviewers and bloggers are of the opinion that Calauit Wildlife Sanctuary is ‘truly a must-see place for nature lovers and animal lovers alike’. Public opinion and animal welfare measures in our review suggest that the animals here are looked after well.

Calauit Sanctuary cVoaNew.com

Report Card

Section One: Social Media and News

This section looks at how the attraction is rated by people on key reviewing sites, and in blogs/the media. The reviews are often not concerned with animal welfare, so this section has a lower influence on the overall mark than other sections. However, it is an important measure of the way the attraction is viewed by visitors.

Number of negative TripAdvisor reviews

For the most recent 20 reviews which appear on the official TripAdvisor page for the attraction, how many mention animal welfare in a negative way. The score is worked out as a percentage (see method below).

Number of negative reviews:  3/20

Score: 2.5 Points

One of the reviewers was mainly concerned about animals that look sick and injured. Others were concerned about rusty cages which were in a poor condition.

Number of negative Google reviews

For the most recent 20 reviews which appear on the Google search page for the attraction, how many mention animal welfare in a negative way. The score is worked out as a percentage (see method below).

Number of negative reviews:  3/20

Score: 2.5 Points

There is no Google review available online. We have therefore taken TripAdvisor review as the base and have tentatively put 3 negative reviews similar to TripAdvisor.

Number of negative news articles and blogs
For the most recent 10 independent blogs or news articles for the attraction, how many mention animal welfare in a negative way. The score is worked out as a percentage (see method below).

Number of negative mentions: 0/10

Score: 5 points

Notes: Bloggers have not written anything in terms of animal welfare in their blogs.

Total Score for Social Media and News Section:  10/10

Section Two: General Quality of Life

This section looks generally at how the animals, as a whole, appear to be treated. It is based on the internationally recognised Five Freedoms, which focus on key aspects of animal welfare including feeding, housing, health, behaviour and protection from fear/distress.

Each item is scored as either two points for a Yes, zero points for a No or one point for Possibly. (The Possibly category also includes situations where the answer would be Sometimes; or if the answer is unknown).

Absence of prolonged hunger and/or thirst

Score: Yes    Points 2

Being fed an appropriate diet based on their wild diet

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Ease of movement within living quarters

Score: Yes    Points 2

Most of the reviewers mention about the vast land area that the Sanctuary covers and hence urge to have more species of animals allowed to coexist with the animals on the island.

Enrichment in living quarters (eg climbing frame, toys etc)

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Absence of injuries or disease

Score: No    Points 0

A reviewer mentions that some of the caged animals look sick or injured from being in captivity. S/he also found that the local wild pigs have had their tusks removed.

Absence of pain (eg being not being chained, or not being hit by staff)

Score: Yes  Points 2

Ability to express natural and social behaviours in living quarters

Score: Yes  Points 2

Reviewers stated that they were astonished by what they experienced in the Sanctuary as they could see freely roaming wildlife.

Good human-animal relationship with staff

Score: Yes  Points 2

A majority of the reviewers were of the opinion that the guides have had good knowledge of the Sanctuary and the animals.

Absence of general fear/distress/apathy

Score: No    Points 0

One of the reviewers mentioned that the animals looked sick and injured. It is therefore assumed that they may be in distress at some point.

Ability to seek privacy/refuge from humans and other animals

Score: No     Points 0

Since animals were allowed to move freely and visitors were also permitted to be quite close to the animals to feed as well as to take pictures and videos, it is likely that animals in the Sanctuary do not get any opportunity to seek refuge from humans or other animals.

Total Score for General Quality of Life:  12/20

Section Three: Interaction with the Public

This section focusses on the way the attraction allows the public to touch, play with, photograph, feed or otherwise interact with the animals. The focus is on whether or not the interactions are causing harm or stress/discomfort to the animals, and if they could be dangerous to the public.

Each item is scored as either two points for a Yes, zero points for a No or one point for Possibly. (The Possibly category also includes situations where the answer would be Sometimes; or if the answer is unknown).

The interactions are not harmful in any way for the animal’s welfare

Score: Possibly Points 1

A blogger who first was very excited to feed/touch the animals later in a blog writes how s/he realised that animals in the Sanctuary should not be getting used to humans and opposes the idea of feeding animals in the Sanctuary.

The interactions are not harmful in any way for the public’s welfare (any previous history of dangerous incidents)

Score: Possibly   Points 1

No one reported any injuries or harm done by the animals.

The animals are not forced to interact with the public – they can refuse

Score: Possibly Points 1

The public are not allowed to handle the animals and touch them

Score: No Points 0

Most of the visitors mention that they have fed and touched giraffe.

The interactions are supervised by staff and in an educational context

Score: No    Points 0

Total Score for Interaction with the Public:  3/10

 

Section Four: Conservation and Education

This section looks at whether or not the attraction has a focus on conservation – for example does it support animals in the wild through breeding programmes, research or donations; and education – are visitors informed about the animals so they are not simply seen as objects for human amusement/entertainment.

Each item is scored as either two points for a Yes, zero points for a No or one point for Possibly. (The Possibly category also includes situations where the answer would be Sometimes; or if the answer is unknown).

Are some of the animals part of international breeding programs?

Score: Possibly Points 1

Is there evidence of them having released animals into the wild?

Score: Yes Points 2

Since it is not a zoo, animals here are obviously got released into the wild and natural environment which the Sanctuary holds.

Do they actively undertake scientific research into conservation/behaviour of their animals?

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Does the attraction give money to conservation or animal protection programmes?

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Does the attraction provide educational talks or written displays to inform visitors about the animals?

Score: Yes Points 2

Visitors are of the opinion that the guides in the Sanctuary are very knowledgeable and therefore could gather much information about the animals.

Total Score for Conservation and Education:  7/10

Zoo Review Final Score for Calauit Wildlife Sanctuary:  32/50

Rating: Good – Public opinion and animal welfare measures suggest that the animals here are looked after well

Do you agree or disagree with this Zoo Review? Please let us know in the Comments below.
If you are from this attraction and would like to comment on this Zoo Review, we’ll be happy to publish your response. Please email info@careforthewild.com or click
here

Notes

1. This report was compiled on: 12th December 2014 by Sangita Shrestha. Find out more about our Zoo Review campaign here.

2. Zoo Review Final Score is given out of 50 as a sum of the four sections, then a RIGHT-tourism Zoo Review rating is awarded based on this score:

0-10: Unacceptable – the animal welfare at this attraction appears to be of a very low standard and a cause for great concern
11-20: Poor – it appears that significant improvement is needed in order to meet welfare standards
21-30: Average – the attraction scores well in some areas but improvements would be welcome
31-40: Good – Public opinion and animal welfare measures suggest that the animals here are looked after well
41-50: Best in Class – the welfare of the animals appears to be of a very high standard

3. TripAdvisor and Google scores are worked out by dividing the number of negative welfare reviews by the total (20) and multiplying by 100 to give a percentage, then giving a score out of 2.5 as follows:

0-19% negative 2.5 points
20-39% 2 points
40-59% 1.5 points
60-79% 1 point
80-89% 0.5 point
90–100% 0 points

3. News and blog scores are worked out by dividing the number of negative welfare reviews by the total (10) and multiplying by 100 to give a percentage, then giving a score out of 5 as follows:

0-19% negative 5 points
20-39% 4 points
40-59% 3 points
60-79% 2 point
80-89% 1 point
90–100% 0 points

Have you got a comment?





Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message