Surabaya Zoo Indonesia Zoo Review

Surabaya Zoo, Indonesia – 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.

 

Zoo Review – Surabaya Zoo, Indonesia

Zoo_Review_Stamp_Unacceptable

Summary: Surabaya Zoo, Indonesia

‘Zoo of Death’ (BBC News, 2014), ‘World’s Cruellest Zoo’ (Daily Mail, 2014), ‘Indonesia’s ‘nightmare’ zoo’ (The Telegraph, 2012) – these are some of the other names by which Surabaya Zoo has come to be known as a result of the highly distressing condition of many of its animal residents, high death rate and extremely poor level of care. Currently the subject of a Change.org petition for the zoo to be closed, Surabaya Zoo scored an appalling zero on the RIGHT-tourism Zoo Review’s quality of life assessment.

Surabaya Zoo c shm.com.au

 

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:  18/20

Score: 0 Points

TripAdvisor reviews included spanned from March 2012 through to October 2014. Only one review referred to animal welfare in a positive way. One review was neutral.

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:  10/12

Score: 0.5 Points

Notes: Although there are 118 google reviews listed for Surabaya Zoo, many reviews contain no text or are written in languages other than English.

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:  10/10

Score: 0 Points

The news articles used for this section date from January 2014 to September 2014 and all mention animal welfare in an extremely negative context.

Total Score for Social Media and News Section: 0.5/10

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

A number of reviews mention thin and malnourished animals, while news article pictures demonstrate the emaciated state of some of animals at Surabaya.

Being fed an appropriate diet based on their wild diet

Score: No   0 Points

Reports of animals eating tainted meat or inappropriate materials such as plastic.

Ease of movement within living quarters

Score: No   0 Points

Severe overcrowding of animals in cages and insufficiently sized cages/enclosures frequent issues of concern for reviewers affecting range of animals including tigers, bears and pelicans.

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

Score: No   0 Points

If many of the cages/enclosures do not have space for the animals themselves, enrichment is impossible. This is evidenced by numerous pictures of animals in bare cages.

Absence of injuries or disease

Score: No   0 Points

Numerous reports of high numbers of animals dying, review reports of sick and unhealthy animals (physically and psychologically), photo evidence of animals with injuries and diseases including an elephant with sores caused by chains and a bear with severe skin condition.

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

Score: No   0 Points

Elephants chained, animals in pain from injury and disease.

Ability to express natural and social behaviours in living quarters

Score: No    0 Points

Cage and enclosure conditions do not allow expression of natural and social behaviours. Animals either overcrowded or kept alone.

Good human-animal relationship with staff

Score: No     0 Points

Animals kept in these conditions cannot in any sense reflect positive relationships between animals and zoo staff.

Absence of general fear/distress/apathy

Score: No      0 Points

Reports from reviewers and news sources of extremely unhappy, distressed animals, demonstrating highly concerning behaviour including pacing and rocking.

Ability to seek privacy/refuge from humans and other animals

Score: No     0 Points

Cage/enclosure size and condition allows minimal choices for animals, including seeking privacy or refuge.

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

While the overwhelming area of concern is the condition of the animals’ wellbeing and their living environment, there are also concerns over inappropriate animal/visitor interactions including photo ‘opportunities’ with some animals.

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

Score: No           0 Points

Couple of reviewers note a lack of security in some places – i.e. open cages or insecure enclosures.

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

Score: No        0 Points

Given the questionable security, inappropriate interactions, small cage/enclosure size, and lack of opportunity for privacy/refuge it is highly unlikely that the animals are able to escape human interaction or observation at will.

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

Score: No       0 Points

This may not be relevant for all of the animals, but the opportunity to have photos taken with animals indicates that visitors can touch and/or handle at least some animals.

The interactions are supervised by staff and in an educational context

Score: No        0 Points

This cannot possibly be true.

Total Score for Interaction with the Public:  0/10

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 Probably. (The Probably 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   1 Points

Reports that Surabaya is involved in a breeding programme for Komodo Dragons  but no indication of what the ultimate goal of the programme is.

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

Score: No        0 Points

No mention of the ultimate goal of the Komodo Dragon breeding programme.

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

Score: No        0 Points

No indication of any conservational or behavioural research. Unlikely given many basic care needs of animals not being met.

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

Score: No   0 Points

No evidence of any funds being provided to conservation or animal protection programme. Unlikely given extremely poor physical condition of zoo.

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

Score: Possibly           1 Points

No evidence of this but still possible even despite poor conditions.

Total Score for Conservation and Education:  2/10

Zoo Review Final Score for Surabaya Zoo: 2.5/50

Rating: Unacceptable – the animal welfare at this attraction appears to be of a very low standard and a great cause for 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: 7th November 2014 by C L Regan. 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