Kuala Lumpur Bird Park Zoo Review

Kuala Lumpur Bird Park, Malaysia  – 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: Kuala Lumpur Bird Park, Malaysia

Zoo_Review_Stamp_Average

Summary

 

Kuala Lumpur Bird Park, home to more than 3,000 birds of approximately 200 species of local and foreign birds, is also considered the largest walk-in free-flight aviary in the world. Reviews from Google and Trip Advisor as well as blogs on the Kuala Lumpur Bird Park suggest that the park is generally considered good since most of the visitors have positive experiences of the park.

However, it is not far from criticism as the park also has received negative reviews from a few of the visitors who are completely against what they see as the ill treatment of the birds inside the park and suggest others avoid visiting this park. Our review shows that the Kuala Lumpur Bird Park is doing well in some areas but some improvements would be welcome.

Kuala Lumpurbird park, cAttractions in Malaysia

 

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:  1/20

Score: 2.5 Points

Out of 20 reviews, only one reviewer was concerned about the welfare of the birds. The rest of the 19 reviewers mainly mentioned how much fun they and their family members had in the bird park. They said that the park is a great place for a family day out. Some even considered the park as a ‘must visit’ place. The reviewer who had a negative experience in the park was mainly concerned about the condition of the birds as she felt the birds looked unhealthy and dirty. S/he mentioned that there were two dead birds being eaten by the other birds which the reviewer considered a ‘most pathetic scene’ to witness inside the park.

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:  2/20

Score: 2.5 Points

Out of 20 reviews, there were total of 2 negative reviews. One of the reviewers wrote how badly the birds are kept in the park and how they suffer due to lack of enough space. The reviewer also mentioned that the birds are badly treated for photo shoots. One of the incidents he/she was critical of was the staff hitting an owl on its face for the photo. The reviewer also pointed out the fact that the birds have their wings cut and these birds are unnecessarily touched by the visitors. The rest of the reviewers have not written much about the park apart from giving it star ratings. A total of 6 rated 5 stars, 5 reviewers rated it with 4 stars and the rest rated either with 3 or 2 stars.

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 point

Out of the 10 blogs reviewed, none of the bloggers have negative comments about the park. The bloggers mainly share their ‘magical’ experiences inside the park where they could interact with number of well-tamed birds. They also mention that the extensive greenery, both natural and man-made, has provided the ideal habitat for the birds inside the park. One of the bloggers said that s/he was delighted to see educational performances by the birds such as a macaw picking up empty cans and bottles left by the keeper on-stage and dumping them in a nearby trash can.

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:   No Points 0

One of the reviewers said that the birds suffer inside the cage as they do not have enough space.

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

Score:  Yes Points 2

Absence of injuries or disease

Score:  No Points 0

One of the reviewers mention about the badly treated birds e.g. wings of the birds cut down.

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

Score: No Points 0

An example of a staff hitting the owl for photo shoot shows that there is potential for the birds to be in pain.

Ability to express natural and social behaviours in living quarters

Score: Yes Points 2

Good human-animal relationship with staff

Score:  No Points 0

The incident of the owl hit by the staff for the photo is an indication that the human-animal relationship with the staff needs to be improved.

Absence of general fear/distress/apathy

Score: No Points 0

There are mentions of birds looking unhealthy.

Ability to seek privacy/refuge from humans and other animals

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Total Score for General Quality of Life:  8/20

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

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

Score: Possibly   Points 1

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

Score:  No Points 0

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

Score: No Points 0

The interactions are supervised by staff and in an educational context

Score: No Points 0

Most of the interactions seem to be unsupervised since the visitors are freely allowed to touch, feed and interact with the birds.

Total Score for Interaction with the Public:  2/10

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: Possibly   Points 1

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

Total Score for Conservation and Education:  6/10

 

 

Zoo Review Final Score for Kuala Lumpur Bird Park: 26/50

Rating: Average – the attraction scores well in some areas but improvements would be welcome

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: 13th November 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 of 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

  1. 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

  1. 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





Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message