Sriracha Tiger Zoo Thailand Zoo Review

Sriracha Tiger Zoo, Thailand – 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: Sriracha Tiger Zoo, Thailand

Zoo_Review_Stamp_Unacceptable

Summary

Sriracha Tiger Zoo primarily houses tigers, elephants and crocodiles and hosts daily animal shows for visitor’s entertainment. The Zoo Review score is perhaps higher than it could have been, due to good reviews on TripAdvisor and Google. It is obvious that many people enjoy interacting with the animals and watching them perform. Some reviews claim not to see evidence of mistreatment or cruelty.

However, focussing purely on animal welfare criteria, Sriracha Tiger Zoo seems to deserve an Unacceptable rating, as the conditions of the animals, in particular the tigers, is of extreme concern.

In summary, tourists searching online for reviews of the Sriracha Tiger Zoo will be greeted with many positive reviews; however a greater number speak of the unsanitary conditions the animals live in, the rough handling of tiger cubs and the evident fear and intimidation of tigers during the shows. These conditions and the treatment of the animals are of huge concern to animal welfare experts and wildlife charities.

 Picture from Pattayatourcenter.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:  11/20

Score: 1.5 Point

Out of the first 20 reviews, 11 mention concerns about animal welfare. These were primarily focused on the small concrete cages the animals were kept in, poor conditions of the animals (particularly the tigers), tiger cubs being manhandled roughly and the obvious fear tigers showed towards their trainers during shows. Others expressed concerns about customers abusing the animals, such as shooting at them during the shoot-n-feed attraction. There were a handful of reviews from people expressing their opinion on value for money and their enjoyment for the elephant and tiger shows, without being concerned about the conditions.

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: 4/9

Score: 1.5 Points

Only 9 reviews were in English. 4 mentioned concerns about animal welfare. These also focused on the small concrete cages, the rough handling of the animals, including the tiger cubs, customers abusing the animals and the malnourished and unhealthy condition of the animals. Concern was expressed that both the tigers and the crocodiles seemed drugged during their interactions. The other reviews focused on the range of interesting shows, without concern for the animal’s conditions/welfare.

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:  6/10

Score: 2 points

Out of the first 10 independent news stories and blogs to mention the attraction, 6 mention concerns about animal welfare. Many express concerns reported previously including small concrete cages and fear of trainers with whips/ irons sticks. One mentioned the outbreak of bird flu after tigers were fed raw chicken, which killed at least 23 tigers. There were also reported rumours that the tigers were being traded on the Chinese market as traditional medicine. The other reviews focused on the popular photos of a mother tiger looking after baby piglets, without concern for the animal’s conditions/welfare.

Total Score for Social Media and News Section:  5/10

 

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: No   0 Points

One attraction is shoot-n-feed. Visitors have to shoot a target above the tiger enclosure in order to release a small amount of meat. Report of 25 tigers fighting over a small piece of meat and appearing malnourished.

Being fed an appropriate diet based on their wild diet

Score: No   0 Points

Report of feeding fish and tiger cubs with milk.

Ease of movement within living quarters

Score: No   0 Points

Reports of small and overcrowded cages. Many animals are also chained within their enclosure, e.g. the deer.

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

Score: No   0 Points

Reports suggest enclosures are concrete and empty.

Absence of injuries or disease

Score: No   0 Points

Reports of tigers with welts, possibly from being shot during the shoot-n-feed attraction.

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

Score: No   0 Points

Note

Ability to express natural and social behaviours in living quarters

Score: No   0 Points

Note

Good human-animal relationship with staff

Score: No   0 Points

Note

Absence of general fear/distress/apathy

Score: No   0 Points

Note

Ability to seek privacy/refuge from humans and other animals

Score: No   0 Points

Note

Total Score for General Quality of Life:  0/20

 

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: No   0 Points

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

Score: Possibly   1 Point

No recorded incidents but the public interact daily with tigers and elephants so there is potential for harm. The crocodile show also includes performers putting their heads inside a crocodile’s mouth.

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

Score: No   0 Points

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

Score: No   0 Points

The interactions are supervised by staff and in an educational context

Score: No   0 Points

Total Score for Interaction with the Public:  1/10

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: No   0 Points

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

Score: No   0 Points

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

Score: No   0 Points

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

Score: No   0 Points

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

Score: No   0 Points

Total Score for Conservation and Education:  0/10

 

Zoo Review Final Score for Sriracha Tiger Zoo, Thailand:  6/50

Rating: Unacceptable – the animal welfare at this attraction appears to be of a very low standard and a cause of great concern

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 20th November 2014. 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

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

 

Do you have a Comment?