Eagle Heights Wildlife Park faces closure threat

[RowanGreen]

Is that Bigcatman from the article? *G*

The question is "are they managing their Cheetah correctly and within the guidlines as set down by law and that of BIAZA as well as all the other fat of Acts and guidelines?"

In short... NO, they are not.

That might be your question, but mine is still 'is the welfare of the cheetah's good, and are the public protected?'

It's generally a good idea to abide by the law (obviously...), and the BIAZA guidlines are probably good advice too... but they are not law. Any law/guidline maker is not infalible, and so any law/guidline should be open to question, and change if appropriate. Hence, sorry, but 'BIAZA says so' isn't enough for me.

Given that the "mechanical lure for Cheetah" was devised at Glasgow and registered and that other devices have now came on and even bettered it, but study's have shown that such lures have a overall non effect on Cheetah. William's et al. (1996) designed a pulley system that carried a dead rabit through a zoo-housed cheetah's enclosure (similar to that done at Glasgow). Synder, 1997; made the distiction that such automated devices only allows the animal to "choose" how often it hunts and not when and by own nature. It was also noted by Law et al, 1997 (Glasgow) that big cats have been observed going back to the chase well after the prey has been caught, the reason was to expend excess testosterone and other hormones that had built up during that bout of hunt or part of chase of excitement. The whole ethos of lures and automated lures are very complex and with any pretator that gives chase to such then more studies are needed to justify such systems.

So basically according to Synder a zip line is not as good as a real hunt? No argument there, but that doesn't mean it's not better than sitting around in a dull enclosure the whole time. Also, since when do wild cheetah choose when and 'by own nature' to hunt? Natural prey isn't that obliging. I'm sure they hunt when something pops up, pretty much as they will with a zipline. As for Law saying the cats continue to be excited for a while after the artificial 'hunt', is that a problem? More studies needed? Fine, you'll need ziplines to carry out the studies before they are 'justified'.

Cheetah are more passified by humans than many other larger species of cats, as mentioned by Douglas, 1992. "Until fairly recently, Cheetah was used as a hunting animal by humans. The blindfold would be removed once the intended quarry - usually a gazelle or hare - had been sighted by the handler." Just because Cheetah come acroos as more passive, better natured than their bigger or even smaller cousins, do not make the mistake that they are indeed friendly or can be made to be "tame" bu humans...they cannot and also defies good animal welfare and conservation values. One way to see it is: you may have a pitbull or akita and it is as playful and friendly to you and your pals as you would expect. But when nature for unknown forces or reasons strike, that dog then becomes a powerful and frightening beast and will rip you apart. So does that mean the Cheetah is as friendly or domesticated as a dog? Sorry No....

So, yes cheetah are safer to be in close contact with than other big cats, and even a dog can be very dangerous. Are you arguing against me? I'd say that totally fits in with my view that it's up to the individual where they draw the line, as long as bystanders are protected. And you haven't answered my question as to whether any keepers have ever been killed by cheetah?

Sadly E.H. failed on all accounts to follow or even comply with good animal welfare practices, let alone safe handling and management of such an animal.

I've not seen evidence of bad welfare. It appears in this case the public were totally safe.

Given that the staff were supossed to be trained and had did a risk assessement, then what on earth was that member of staff doing when he ran from doing the Birds of Prey Display, then onto doing the Cheetah display with dead chicks in his pocket? Why was proper Health & Safety Protocalls not followed? What, Why, How and Where and by Whom...many many questions and sadly no answers.

Won't argue with you on that one. Though it seemed they went in with the cheetah with food as a matter of course, and it also appears that the cheetah grabbed on around the lower leg (from the photo on the article), not the pocket area. Meat in the pocket might well have been a factor though.

The Cheetah are NOT Studbook registered and have no rightful place in or on any breeding programme.

Is that relavant to the current question? And you sound just like breeders of persian cats etc who believe only 'the best' according to 'guidlines' should be bred from... hence why persian cats now have such flat faces many can't eat easily and have lifelong eye and breathing problems and various congenital problems.

In general (maybe not in this particular case) there should surely be some means by which the gene pool can be expanded by allowing none-studbook animals into the studbook. In the case of cheetah, where the gene pool of wild cheetah is so small to start, there shouldn't be any questions about subspecies: surely any healthy cheetah should be acceptable? If these aren't healthy, then that's a different matter. But as I understand it they are unlikely to breed in a situation where they have a lot of exposure to the public anyway.

The Cheetah are not even covered by E.H.'s on Zoo Licence or even have a DWA Licence in place for them. The Park has been given numerous conditions to met and have so fair failed to meet them. And from this new and daft debacle, the LA will most likely issue an Inforcement Notice on the park with view for closure. And that sadly is their own fault.... E.H. should have staid as a Bird of Prey Centre in the first place.

Sadly, you might be right on that. As I understand it the main problem is the perimeter fence. Shame they can't fix it, but then I also don't see a massive perimeter fence when I go down to London Zoo, and they have lions and tigers!

 

[bigcat speciali]

Is that Bigcatman from the article? *G*



That might be your question, but mine is still 'is the welfare of the cheetah's good, and are the public protected?'

It's generally a good idea to abide by the law (obviously...), and the BIAZA guidlines are probably good advice too... but they are not law. Any law/guidline maker is not infalible, and so any law/guidline should be open to question, and change if appropriate. Hence, sorry, but 'BIAZA says so' isn't enough for me.

The rules, regulations, guidelines and even that of law are there for a reason and though some rules may be bent and sometimes broken, in hindsight they are all there for a dam good reason. Indeed, to debate such rules etc are accepted and given due forum and just because you dont agree with what the rules or "BIAZA" say or advise or adhere to, does not mean they are wrong! Does that mean you will break rules, go above the law or behave like some maverick just to get the result that pleases you, or do you involve the collective and engage in the whole spectrum, having a open and wider view on it?



So basically according to Synder a zip line is not as good as a real hunt? No argument there, but that doesn't mean it's not better than sitting around in a dull enclosure the whole time. Also, since when do wild cheetah choose when and 'by own nature' to hunt? Natural prey isn't that obliging. I'm sure they hunt when something pops up, pretty much as they will with a zipline. As for Law saying the cats continue to be excited for a while after the artificial 'hunt', is that a problem? More studies needed? Fine, you'll need ziplines to carry out the studies before they are 'justified'.

No, thats rather negative. Automated lures have there purpose albiet very limited, more as a gimick and adverse publicity tool than a real measure of enrichment. However, there is some, but little purpose in that it does give enrichment but to such a small window that the overall purpose is then lost to the gain of publicity and show.



So, yes cheetah are safer to be in close contact with than other big cats, and even a dog can be very dangerous. Are you arguing against me? I'd say that totally fits in with my view that it's up to the individual where they draw the line, as long as bystanders are protected. And you haven't answered my question as to whether any keepers have ever been killed by cheetah?

No, again you miss the saliant points. To enter and engage with any animal especially that of a dangerous animal, class 1 etc, is daft. Why should you have to engage with such an animal (apart from normal husbandry and vet issues) and disrupt the whole ethos of animal welfare and conservation? To feed the ego of the human, to say: hey look at me, iam in with the cheetah. Sorry but I dont get that nor do I understand the mentallity of the person doing it. As for keepers being killed?.....I do know of two incidents: (1) Female owner of wildlife sanctuary in Florida who was fatally injured by two of her Cheetahs that she was playing with. (2) 37 year old female kiiled when she entered into the enclosure and also cage of a Cheetah at Olmen Zoo, Belgium.




I've not seen evidence of bad welfare. It appears in this case the public were totally safe.

Safe, unsafe...welfare? Unless your there hard to say, even so, the Park has been warned numerous occassions about welfare and proceedures, as well as maintenance, with other zoo licence issues.



Won't argue with you on that one. Though it seemed they went in with the cheetah with food as a matter of course, and it also appears that the cheetah grabbed on around the lower leg (from the photo on the article), not the pocket area. Meat in the pocket might well have been a factor though.

Utter daft and not safe practice (would you go in with blood covered beef starpped to your body when working with croc's or sharks as an example?), If there was an insisted by the owner that a risk assessment was done prior to this incident, then I find it unprofessional and highly dangerous of all involved. Shoddy and so lacking...


Is that relavant to the current question? And you sound just like breeders of persian cats etc who believe only 'the best' according to 'guidlines' should be bred from... hence why persian cats now have such flat faces many can't eat easily and have lifelong eye and breathing problems and various congenital problems.

NO...sorry, don't beed Persian cats...meow! But I have lots and lots of experience within big cats and other carnivores.

In general (maybe not in this particular case) there should surely be some means by which the gene pool can be expanded by allowing none-studbook animals into the studbook. In the case of cheetah, where the gene pool of wild cheetah is so small to start, there shouldn't be any questions about subspecies: surely any healthy cheetah should be acceptable? If these aren't healthy, then that's a different matter. But as I understand it they are unlikely to breed in a situation where they have a lot of exposure to the public anyway.

Nonsense. Good genes are essential for the survival of this or any species. Health is not the same as fitness, the same as having the right genes as to having bits of those genes. There is a huge issue on captive bred cheetah due to the gentetic defects that are of issue, from spinal to leg deformities and so on. So why would you take a Cheetah with such risky genes and re-introduce back into the native stock? why destroy those pure genes at the sake of some daft ego or nonsense of a few unexperienced or lacking individuals?



Sadly, you might be right on that. As I understand it the main problem is the perimeter fence. Shame they can't fix it, but then I also don't see a massive perimeter fence when I go down to London Zoo, and they have lions and tigers!

Its a whole mess of other issues, not just "perimeter" fences, even so, sadly this debacle has shown what a sad and publicity grabbing place this is and has no place in the UK let alone in the world of good zoos and zoo keeping.

 

[Steve Robinson]

This seems to be very personal to you bigcat speciali. So personal that you have even changed your "Location" on your details on this forum from Argyle to UK. It would appear that you and Bigcatman from the News Shopper Comments are, indeed, one and the same.

As I said earlier, I know absolutely nothing about this place or it's owner. But I do think that it is completely contrary to the principle of British justice and fair play for someone to put the boot in as vehemently as you have without identifying yourself so that any other motives that you may have can be assessed.

It seems that RowanGreen has not seen Eagle Heights either but, in direct contrast to yours, his comments about it have been very balanced and well considered.

 

[bigcat speciali]

This seems to be very personal to you bigcat speciali. So personal that you have even changed your "Location" on your details on this forum from Argyle to UK. It would appear that you and Bigcatman from the News Shopper Comments are, indeed, one and the same.

No...not personal but just saying my bit. As for changing my location or details: what business is that of yours?
No...sorry but you have got your assumptions wrong. Strange is it not that there are no "News Shopper Comments" listed nor given.
I find your overall assumption to be negative and highly arrogant, let alone presumptious and offensive. Just because details are changed does not make me to be whoever you say or imply, so please kindly refrain from your crasss remarks please!

As I said earlier, I know absolutely nothing about this place or it's owner. But I do think that it is completely contrary to the principle of British justice and fair play for someone to put the boot in as vehemently as you have without identifying yourself so that any other motives that you may have can be assessed.

No...not personal but just saying my bit. As for changing my location or details: what business is that of yours?
No...sorry but you have got your assumptions wrong. Strange is it not that there are no "News Shopper Comments" listed nor given.
I find your overall assumption to be negative and highly arrogant, let alone presumptious and offensive. Just because details are changed does not make me to be whoever you say or imply, so please kindly refrain from your crasss remarks please! (many others on this forum site also do not identify themselves. So does that also make them enemy number one or bigcatman or whoever, even the bogyman!). Sorry but your remarks are indeed very childish and crass, in some ways, condesending and arogant.

It seems that RowanGreen has not seen Eagle Heights either but, in direct contrast to yours, his comments about it have been very balanced and well considered.

RowanGreen's comments are welcomed, good debate is always welcomed. However, there are numerous issues that have been addressed and seen to play or give better reply. Also his questions were answered especially that of persons who have died from captive cheetah, to that of the automated lure. So just because you feel that you need to put your oar in and muddy the waters, or that you feel that my replies were not in keeping with your own or own thoughts...fine, you do that. As I said, your presumptive and negative input is not welcomed here, so please refrain from such.

 

[bigcat speciali]

As posted by Zoo News Digest's Peter Dickinson:

"Back in 1968 I had a single male Cheetah amongst my charges. I felt sorry for him on his own and would often sit with him during my lunch hour. I got to know him well and his special hatred of a particular Grey Squirrel who used to taunt him. I knew if he had been irked only minutes before. Money was tight, less than ten quid a week for a basic 48 hours. Usually worked more than that and there was never any overtime pay (A year or two later I was working 100 hours a week for just a little over double the wage). I digress.... money was tight but I bought the Cheetah a football. He loved it. I am no fan or player but it was fun to kick about and have him chase it. One day I was spotted my the director. Wheels turned.

A week later the director turned up with the head keeper, two photographers and a famous football player (who it was escapes me). There was going to be a photography session within the enclosure. The squirrel had only recently passed by. The Cheetah was irked, I advised against it. What did I know? A green keeper, not worth listening too. So we all went into the enclosure.

Wham! Bang! Wallop! Everyone was injured in a trice. It was I who risked life and limb to allow the others to exit. Somehow I had the inside of my mouth lacerated...never figured out how. The others had bites and scratches and torn clothes. I was in a position to say 'I told you so' but I didn't.

No doubt most would agree that the Cheetah is probably the easiest of 'big cats' but it is far from safe. Read the first link today. No big cat is safe. They are always an accident waiting to happen. Using Tigers and Lions is actually stupid."

It is indeed agreeable and quite correct too from what Peter mentions; stupid and dam dangerous. There is NO place for nonsense such as E.H. or other parks especially those that have and let the public feed their big cats, or go upto the fence and physically feed or even pet them, let alone have persons taking pictures up close and in contact with such big cats...Heaven forbid! and more than just an accident waiting to happen, it's courting danger with a capital "D". Sorry but I just don't get the mentality behind such nonsense or daft carry-on's!

 

[bigcat speciali]

Keeper at wildlife park says cheetah is not dangerous- just hormonal

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/91...just_hormonal/

A GAME keeper who was mauled by a cheetah at a wildlife park in Eynsford says the cat is not dangerous - just “hormonal”.

News Shopper reported last week that Jonny Ames and Luke Foreman were attacked by the animal at Eagle Heights and only escaped after it was sprayed in the face with a fire extinguisher.

Both men were left with scratches to their legs and arms but were not seriously hurt.

It happened during a demonstration in front of around 50 visitors, including concerned parent Michael Cooper who believed the men were “lucky to escape with their lives.”

But Jonny, who raised one-year-old Zena from a cub, says a visit from the park’s vet confirmed the cat is not a danger.

The 25-year-old, who escaped with teeth marks to his arm, said: “It’s the first time she’s shown real aggression.

“But it was just harmless play - she’s growing into maturity so she’s the equivalent of a teenager.

“She’s just hormonal.

“She was testing us, but she didn’t get away with it.”

Jonny says both he and Luke were fine after the incident.

He added: “All we have to be careful about is that the wounds don’t get infected, and we’re taking antibiotics as a precaution.

”We’re not anxious about back inside the enclosure.

”We just hope the incident doesn’t overshadow the work we do in educating people about cheetahs.”

Eagle Heights raises money for the Cheetah Conservation Fund through the demonstrations it puts on for visitors.

Eagle Heights houses 130 birds of prey, a camel, a caimen, two meerkats and three cheetahs.

Zoo license

In April this year, Sevenoaks District Council told park staff they would need an upgraded zoo licence to take account of the cheetahs and the camel - both listed as 'category one' animals.

Council bosses said a stronger and higher perimeter fence was needed.

The council issued the current zoo licence in 2006 before many of the category one animals, such as the camel and cheetahs, were added to the collection.

The Zoo Licensing Act categorises zoo animals into three risk levels on the basis of their likely ferocity and ability to cause harm.

Category one is the highest risk.

Mr Ames is currently appealing against the decision but has said he may have to move the wildlife park somewhere else if he can't afford to build a new fence.

..........

To insist that a Cheetah is not dangerous and the reason for this latest incident was just hormonal, it's just harmless play. This is pure folly...
The second, third and fourth comment within the Kent news paper have valid points and say it correct. The staff must have seen that this Cheetah was hormonal or acting in such a way that it would have been seen or as the comments say, been observed. It comes over from the staff that they knew about this and failed to act or failed to show a reasonableness to make safe the risks and to senure that the animal, the public and that of the staff were not or never in any danger. It would be interesting to see what the HSE have to say as well as how this plays with the Parks current appeal for their Zoo Licence and Dangerous Wild Animals Licence, which is clearly now in doubt.

 

[Clouded Leopard]

In the wild, cheetahs are not dangerous to humans. When you approach them on foot, they will only give you one look and run off. Although they are timid and retiring, they can, however, be unpredictable and aggressive in captivity. There have been several reports in the press of cheetahs in captivity, including 'tame' cheetahs, attacking small children. Some may even attack adults. I once made the mistake of turning my back on a captive Cheetah, at which it suddenly charged me from behind. When I turned to confront it, it stopped dead in its tracks right in front of me and darted off.

 

[bigcat speciali]

In the wild, cheetahs are not dangerous to humans. When you approach them on foot, they will only give you one look and run off. Although they are timid and retiring, they can, however, be unpredictable and aggressive in captivity. There have been several reports in the press of cheetahs in captivity, including 'tame' cheetahs, attacking small children. Some may even attack adults. I once made the mistake of turning my back on a captive Cheetah, at which it suddenly charged me from behind. When I turned to confront it, it stopped dead in its tracks right in front of me and darted off.

As Peter Dickinson of News News Digest said and well put it:

"No doubt most would agree that the Cheetah is probably the easiest of 'big cats' but it is far from safe. Read the first link today. No big cat is safe. They are always an accident waiting to happen. Using Tigers and Lions is actually stupid."

Having worked with Cheetah, like many here, they can be approachable and give the air of easyness about them. However, the Cheetah, with non-retractible claws, fastest land animal, have teeth and can show aggression especially while being hormonal which is the normal. The animal itself can do some major damage to numerous beasts. It is said that the claws can rip through some types of wood, let alone flesh, let alone attack large game. So overall, common sense must preval here...no big cat or even small cat is safe and given any situation, the animal will always take up a stance as to protect and survive...

 

[RowanGreen]

Sorry for lack of reply, I've been incredibly busy. Might get round to it yet...

 

[bigcat speciali]

It was highly interesting to read the story and see the pictures of the Leopard attack that took place in a village near Siliguri in West Bengal, India; this being in the national press for the past few days.

The leopard is indeed one feline that is not to messed around with as is that of the jaguar, that I can say with much gusto and have many a scar and story to share for it. And though this leopard died and seems such a shame as it transpires the lack of environment, food and the encrochement of humans was a major crux in this story.

However, imagine the reverse and that this was the Cheetah from E.H. and the attack or show of aggression that was shown, which the press picked up on. Just imagine for one minute...play Devil's Advocate here: Imagine that the Cheetah had indeed inflicted much terror and damage, as well as hurt. The implications would be greater than E.H. could ever deal with and would have been the killer blow for the park. It would also bring into the public demain of poor keepering, bad practices, dangerous animals and so on, and this would be of such harm to other good zoos that it could be like a dominoe affect and esculate into all zoos being hampered with even greater red-tape....
The HSE have not been informed from what I have been informed, which sounds daft as this being classed under such guidelines of the HSE would have to be reported, let alone the Local Authority having serious doubts of the running of the Park. Given that (a) the staff had dead chicks in their trouser pockets after sprinting from one display to the next, (b) the Cheetah was "hormonal". Then the staff and owner should never have even contemplated such daft display's in the first place. It comes across as very odd and poor practice that the staff would even enter an exhibit where a carnivore could smell or seek out food on the staff and, that the animal in question was hormonal which in turn should never have been put in front of the public, let alone complete such a display.
Now, given that the owner is appealing against Sevenoaks Council with regards to their Zoo Licence and the lack of the Cheetah even being covered by correct and legal paperwork. The park cannot justify the issue of breeding given that the Cheetah are NOT Studbook registered or classed as healthy for genepool use. And given that E.H. have been so in the press for all the wrong reasons..... The likelyhood of closure is seen if the Park cannot comply with the regulations being sought by Sevenoaks Council, now even moreso, given all this daft nonsense of the Cheetah.
Thus; It would be in the best interest for E.H. to revert back to being a Bird of Prey Cntre which the owner is better known for. Its a shame how none of their staff have been at an ABWAK meeting or that E.H. is a member of BIAZA etc.... Overall, the actions and continued nonsense that E.H. gives and ensues with its Cheetah is not seen as best practice, has no place in good zoo keeping practices, and shows itself to be more interested in getting the quick buck and making themselves look good for their own over-inflated ego, and this serves no real good for the animal in question, if anything it belittles the animal and all of us keepers and good zoos.

 

[kiang]

Again another threat of closure;

Owners at Eagle Heights wildlife park in Eynsford pinning hopes on Crystal Palace FC mascot Kayla the eagle to soar them to safety