Update on concerns about Tayto Park

DBB

Some may remember a thread here some months back in which concerns were raised about the welfare of the animals at Tayto Park. The thread got heated, which is why I'm not going to resurrect it. However, I think it's important for people to know that those who voiced concerns, myself included, were quite right to have such concerns... It turns out that the officials had concerns too at around the same time, which you can read about in this link.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tayto-park-banned-from-bringing-in-new-animals-to-zoo-for-five-months-29138398.html

syklops

When I read the thread title, I was expecting a little more insight than an Irish Independent article.

DBB

syklops wrote: »

When I read the thread title, I was expecting a little more insight than an Irish Independent article.

What a strange thing to say. Do you doubt the veracity of the report that there were genuine issues regarding animal welfare?

Knine

DBB wrote: »

What a strange thing to say. Do you doubt the veracity of the report that there were genuine issues regarding animal welfare?

Thanks for sharing the article. It means I will spend my money elsewhere when looking to take the kids on a day out.

syklops

DBB wrote: »

What a strange thing to say. Do you doubt the veracity of the report that there were genuine issues regarding animal welfare?

Do I doubt the veracity? Way to put words in my mouth.

The independent is a rag. It is slightly better than the Sun or the now defunct News of the World.

With a thread title of "Update on..." I was hoping for a little more than an article from a rag basically saying, "there were concerns raised, the concerns were addressed, and now, everything is grand". Insightful news or what?!?

DBB

syklops wrote: »

Do I doubt the veracity? Way to put words in my mouth.

The independent is a rag. It is slightly better than the Sun or the now defunct News of the World.

With a thread title of "Update on..." I was hoping for a little more than an article from a rag basically saying, "there were concerns raised, the concerns were addressed, and now, everything is grand". Insightful news or what?!?

I don't know if you contributed to the thread in which this was initially raised? If you didn't, then you are taking my op completely out of context. If you did, then I'm not sure what you're talking about, because you seem to have completely missed the point of the op.
A rag it may be, that's your opinion, but it seems to me that this particular article lacks the usual sensationalism usually associated with the red tops. Seems to me, from the way it's written, to be a pretty straightforward report on the facts. Facts which clarify and vindicate a lot of the concerns raised in the initial thread seven months ago.

Edited to add: I see you didn't contribute to the original thread, which leads me to believe you've taken my op completely out of context

syklops

DBB wrote: »

I don't know if you contributed to the thread in which this was initially raised? If you didn't, then you are taking my op completely out of context. If you did, then I'm not sure what you're talking about, because you seem to have completely missed the point of the op.
A rag it may be, that's your opinion, but it seems to me that this particular article lacks the usual sensationalism usually associated with the red tops. Seems to me, from the way it's written, to be a pretty straightforward report on the facts. Facts which clarify and vindicate a lot of the concerns raised in the initial thread seven months ago.

Edited to add: I see you didn't contribute to the original thread, which leads me to believe you've taken my op completely out of context

I have not taken your words out of context. My comment was simply to say that when I read the word update in the thread title, I was expecting something more substantial than that article. Perhaps you had visited the park yourself, and seen that conditions had improved, or, maybe you had a connection which could give some sort of insight. Instead, it is a very bland article from the independent, which contains very little actual news.

Speaking of context, you then took my initial comment and tried to turn it into a suggestion that I doubted the facts behind the original claims, which is frankly, ludicrous.

I am sorry if I offended you by my comment.

loveisdivine

Thanks for the update DBB. I did contribute to the original thread and contacted Tayto park via Facebook and such, voicing my concerns.

I find this new information very worrying. I wonder if anymore could be done about it? I'm terrible with coming up with ideas! I will voice my concerns on facebook again though, spread the word.

I am most specifically concerned that they are housing endangered Amur leopards. An endangered species needs the very best level of care available, something certainly not possible at Tayto park.

anniehoo

Thanks for that DBB. I wasn't aware a ban had been imposed on them, but it's interesting it's made the news now that the ban has been lifted. Would be interested to see what the T & Cs of their license is.

Skylops an "update" is just that, an added bit of info to a previous topic. Like myself,im sure many people weren't aware a ban had been imposed on them so it's good to see some measurements were made to improve the situation. It's still far from ideal by the sounds of it though.

loveisdivine

Personally I dont think a crispt manufacturer has any business trying to run a zoo. They are doing it purely for money. To try and attract more visitors.
People will fall for it too. You only need look at the comments on that article (one in particular) to see all people are bothered about is seeing "nice animals in nice surroundings"! People are more concerned with their precious kids getting to see a tiger or leopard in real life, than they are about the animal itself.
Tayto know this, thats why its taken a ban on adding new animals to make them take a little action.

BostonB

Thanks for the update. I didn't know about it.


Typical tabloid journalism though....it highlights the old news as "news" and puts the current information in small print at the end....

"Tayto Park banned from bringing in new animals to zoo for five months"

" letter from the Department of the Arts and Heritage – sent to Mr Coyle on March 11 – that gave the zoo permission to bring in new animals."

However thats entirely separate to the issue at hand. Perhaps this off topic stuff could be split to a separate topic about the indo. So that all the people who want to complain about the indo, can have their attention drawn the animal story.

DBB

I deleted my post, in the interests of staying on topic. Arguing about the Indo is sidetracking the point of the thread.

dogluver

I havent been to Tayto but have had friends who have gone and said they really enjoyed themselves and found the animals in excellent condition.

Any newspaper article as regards animals issues needs to be handled sensitively, and write these stories on the back of a weak storyline and try and sensationalise it. I wouldnt read that much into it unless there is confirmed proof either through the form of some kind of live footage. All zoos, Dublin included have some issues too. I personally dont like them and wouldnt visit one anyway.

DBB

dogluver wrote: »

I havent been to Tayto but have had friends who have gone and said they really enjoyed themselves and found the animals in excellent condition.

Any newspaper article as regards animals issues needs to be handled sensitively, and write these stories on the back of a weak storyline and try and sensationalise it. I wouldnt read that much into it unless there is confirmed proof either through the form of some kind of live footage. All zoos, Dublin included have some issues too. I personally dont
like them and wouldnt visit one anyway.

I have to confess that I'm somewhat mystified as to any allegations of this story being sensationalised. Indeed, given the newspaper, it seems to me to be a rather restrained, fact-based article. I doubt if they would misreport an official investigation made by the NPWS, I just can't see the sensationalism in this case. I can't help but think that anyone who's bringing the newspaper into this is missing the whole point of my op.
That aside, once again the article needs to be taken in the context that it completely supports the concerns raised here on this forum, at exactly the same time the investigation happened. So, we had several posters here, and the NPWS reporting the same concerns, about the same place, at the same time. That's what this thread is about, not about the Indo, not about a "storyline", it's about one set of opinions which were voiced here, matching the professional opinion of the NPWS as reported in this article. I posted the article to show those concerned posters that they were, as it turns out, correct in having those concerns.
With all due respect, most people I know wouldn't be all that familiar with signs of welfare breaches other than the glaringly obvious ones. Farmers can spot some of them, and as it happens, I am a qualified animal welfare auditor. I was so concerned with what I saw when I visited Tayto Park that I had to put pen to paper: my OH is a farmer and he too saw some things which concerned him re the domesticated stock. The concerns I raised were brushed off by Tayto Park, but the thing is, at least some of the concerns I identified are mentioned in the Indo article. Coincidence? Unlikely.
So, leaving the newspaper to one side, there is more evidence behind this story than just a newspaper article. Like I said in my op, it shows that the concerns raised were not raised by me, or other boards users, alone. The article simply confirms that.
Again, if you didn't see the original thread from months ago, perhaps it is hard to contextualise the significance of my op.

SillyMangoX

I know this is slightly off topic but what ever happened to the white lions they imported from South Africa? Supposedly they were bought from someone who breeds them for trophy hunting

anniehoo

The article is the opposite of "sensationalist" if you ask me and rather downplays the fact that to get to the stage of warranting an actual ban it's actually very serious.

DBB wrote: »

. Like I said in my op, it shows that the concerns raised were not raised by me, or other boards users, alone.

+1

boomerang

I read the story in the Indo today and my heart sank. I'm very glad the NPWS are monitoring, but I have to say, an annual inspection is hardly enough, is it? But then I would imagine NPWS run on a shoe-string.

mymo

I do hope these inspections are unannounced visits (as is the norm in many sectors) and for the sake of the animals that standards are kept high.

I personally wouldn't visit and am appalled that they have endangered species in a theme park.
I'm not keen on zoo's but if run well they can be a tool to educate about the issues out there regards animals, and more should be made about loss of environment and hazards human cause to these creatures (and not just the pretty ones)

Whispered

mymo wrote: »

I do hope these inspections are unannounced visits (as is the norm in many sectors) and for the sake of the animals that standards are kept high.

I personally wouldn't visit and am appalled that they have endangered species in a theme park.
I'm not keen on zoo's but if run well they can be a tool to educate about the issues out there regards animals, and more should be made about loss of environment and hazards human cause to these creatures (and not just the pretty ones)

We were in Devon a few years ago and due to a late flight home we spent the morning at Dartmore Zoo. I had to google the name there and it's actually the zoo on which the film "we bought a zoo" is based!

Anyway, it was fantastic, very educational with a big emphasis on conservation.

Another zoo I really enjoyed was the one in Fuengirola in southern spain. We were driving back from Manilva and decided to stop for a few hours. We were delighted we did. If I was ever in Spain again I'd make an effort to go back. They even do night time visits. http://www.bioparcfuengirola.es/en

Baltrux

Just to clarify it says he was banned from getting any more animals which would suggest that the ones that were there there already were properly cared for otherwise they would have been closed down straight away! As the ban has been lifted this would suggest that they have complied with all the actions required!

Kloecor

No Zoo is good enough for animals. No zoo's/circuses etc. should even exist. Like the article says, it's day-to-day stuff for zoo's worldwide. Simple as!

carav10

Kloecor wrote: »

No zoo's/circuses etc. should even exist.

What a statement.... Whatever about circuses, many animals would be extinct nowadays if it wasn't for the breeding programmes that many zoos partake in and very successfully.

DBB

Baltrux wrote: »

Just to clarify it says he was banned from getting any more animals which would suggest that the ones that were there there already were properly cared for otherwise they would have been closed down straight away!

No, it clearly says in the article that there were issues with the welfare of the existing animals, which is one of the reasons they were banned from getting any more. It would make little sense to ban them from keeping any more animals if there were no issues with the ones they had!

**Vai**

carav10 wrote: »

What a statement.... Whatever about circuses, many animals would be extinct nowadays if it wasn't for the breeding programmes that many zoos partake in and very successfully.

Definitely. There are bad examples of course but alot of zoos do great work, including Dublin zoo. I didnt even know circuses had animals anymore. Shows you how long its been since I bothered going to one.

Vel

I'm not being smart here, stupid maybe, but do these animals that are bred in captivity that would otherwise be extinct then get released at some stage or do they spend their lives in zoos?

are you serious

Vel wrote: »

I'm not being smart here, stupid maybe, but do these animals that are bred in captivity that would otherwise be extinct then get released at some stage or do they spend their lives in zoos?

On any programmes I have ever watched on these breeds they are kept in the zoo's or sanctuary's because they have never been thought to hunt or any of the other skills they would need in the wild, so they are never released.

They are kept in the sanctuary/Zoo and if they are used for breeding then their young are sent to other parts of the world to prevent inbreeding in what is left of the breed.

loveisdivine

Finally a bit of good news in this saga! Well, the end result is good news.

Tayto Park hit with animal ban after concerns raised about "overweight" and "aggressive" wildlife

Article here - http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/tayto-park-ordered-not-add-3048446

mosi

Vel wrote: »

I'm not being smart here, stupid maybe, but do these animals that are bred in captivity that would otherwise be extinct then get released at some stage or do they spend their lives in zoos?

It happens but seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I don't know the extent to which it happens but gorillas and rhinos from The Aspinall Foundation's Port Lympne Wild Animal Park in the UK have been released.

http://www.aspinallfoundation.org/conservation/conservation/overseas-conservation-work/other-projects

ABajaninCork

Whispered wrote: »

We were in Devon a few years ago and due to a late flight home we spent the morning at Dartmore Zoo. I had to google the name there and it's actually the zoo on which the film "we bought a zoo" is based!

Anyway, it was fantastic, very educational with a big emphasis on conservation.

Another zoo I really enjoyed was the one in Fuengirola in southern spain. We were driving back from Manilva and decided to stop for a few hours. We were delighted we did. If I was ever in Spain again I'd make an effort to go back. They even do night time visits. http://www.bioparcfuengirola.es/en

Slightly OT, but if you're in the UK next time, head over to Howletts Zoo. http://www.aspinallfoundation.org/howlettshttp://. They have a famous collection of apes and are known for their efforts in conservation.