The ‘Guzoo Animal farm’ Controversy

A couple of months ago I stumbled on a collection of photographs posted to a Facebook group aiming to shut down a private 'road side' zoo in Calgary, Alberta called Guzoo Animal Farm. The images of the 'zoo', taken by Nic Burgress, were what I considered to be some of the worst conditions I've see with captive animals in North America.

I opted to ignore the cause figuring that it was one of those awful situations that you just couldn't do anything about except get depressed over. However recently, through another Facebook group that consisted of people who wish to defend their rights to own exotic species (a cause which is important to me as well), I learned that this zoo was actually closing. Before even realizing this was the same facility I viewed earlier, I almost became sympathetic to the situation, figuring the owner was a victim of anti-zoo animal rights groups, a very real problem. That was until I realized that this zoo was the same facility where dirty cages, little or no enrichment, animals with open sores and rotting carcasses in enclosures were common enough to be photographed by visitors. Why was this place allowed to stay open in the first place, was my first thought.

The conditions of Guzoo appeared to be an exaggeration of what one may picture as a worst case scenario involving captive animals. The zoo's owner doesn’t appear to be making an effort to offer an appealing or even safe environment to the incarcerated animals or the zoo's visitors. One can attempt to make an argument that the zoo's decrepit look wouldn't register to an animal, yet it is a questionable example of how the owners of Guzoo aren’t doing much for the visitors that provide the zoos' income.

Any facility that exhibits animals to the public should be required to set a healthy and ethical representation to the public on exotic animal care. Perhaps the only real benefit to children physically interacting with animals is to teach them how to respect animal species other than humans. However, visitors to Guzoo, including young children, were encouraged to interact with young and adult exotic animals, including tigers, bears, and primates like macaques that are known to transmit disease. This practice is dangerous to both species participating, and it is a poor message to promote to visitors. No animal should be promoted as a teddy bear prop waiting to be handled while being contained in small caging; this approach is anti-education. While respectable zoos struggle to preserve public faith that the wild animals' welfare in their care aren’t being jeopardized, irresponsible and very unprofessional animal exhibitions like Guzoo continue to carelessly carry out practices like this. There are obvious dangers to children. One cage, even labeled "This animal bites" was declared OK for children to enter. Domestic animals were also allowed to roam the area, and some exotic animals frequently were allowed to escape, roaming the area like a farmer’s barn cat.

The zoo reportedly has a history of offenses, along with documented cases of animals with physical ailments that were not treated. Some animals were forced to spend harsh Alberta winters with frozen water bowls and shabby shelters as evidenced by photographs. The same water bowls were riddled with algae and debris during the warmer months, which is an indication that they were not changed in a timely fashion. Guzoo has some reptiles, domesticated animals, and other small animals that are being kept in what appears to be squalid conditions.

The state of this zoo could have been somewhat forgiven if the animals were provided some form of enrichment, although with as little thought and attention paid toward more important matters, how can one reasonably expect this zoo to provide this much needed element to animal wellness? It is obvious the owner has little knowledge about animals, does not wish to consider recommendations from experts, or simply isn't the kind of person who views animals' needs as essential. Even as early as 2004, a televised expose titled "Cruel Cages” on Canada’s W5 station revealed the situation to the rest of the public. "Are you running the worst zoo in Canada?" the reporter asks the owner of the zoo. He replied "judged by whom?”

"No I’m not the worst zoo in all of Canada. If these animals weren’t in good health, proper nutrition and cared for and adequate housing, they wouldn’t reproduce." -Lynn Gustafson

As someone who has not visited the zoo, is very pro-zoo, and is pro-responsible captive animal care, I’ve been ‘questioned’ how I can cast judgments based on photographs and possible ‘animal rights’ groups propaganda. I believe it takes some easy to obtain knowledge, and largely common sense, to come to the conclusion that the decision to close this facility is valid and fair.

I’m not very familiar with how things work in Canada, but in New York, from what I’ve seen on shows like Animal Precinct on Animal Planet goes along this line; unless an animal is suffering on a high level or is in such ill health that it might not live much longer, usually a citation is left if the owner isn’t available to speak with. The officers make an attempt to reason with the owner, improve conditions, and may remove some animals if the owner is overwhelmed. This takes into account animal welfare and the rights of the owner. While I am all for our rights to possess animals, no one has the ‘right’ to not provide adequate care for the animal(s). No one has the ‘right’ to run a zoo if they are under qualified. All animals should be entitled to the Five Freedoms.

An animal has a right to a clean water source at all times, regardless of their nature. If ungulates lack the ability to decipher what is the best source of water and opt to drink from the gutter than their designated watering area, the gutter should be shielded from them. I have been offered the excuse from an animal owner that their animals drink from improper water sources. Also, many animal species will use the bathroom in their water or get debris in it. Again, the owner should deal with this problem, either by providing a watering apparatus that they can’t tip over or get debris in, or frequently change the water.

Another excuse I’ve heard is that the presence of algae in a water dish is not problematic, and animals have non-clean water sources in the wild. The presence of algae is an indication that the water has not been changed in a long time; given that the organisms had sufficient time to grow. A small bowl of water is NOT comparable to a large, natural body of water that animals drink from just because they are the same color. Furthermore, something being natural does not make it ideal. In exchange for freedom, an animal is entitled to the comforts of clean water and avoidance of other natural stressors such as predation and starvation, in my opinion.

Along with providing unsuitable environments that look distressing, violations of responsible zoo management, and public safety violations, Guzoo also sells animals, which is another tell tale sign of disinterest to responsible practice. Even domesticated dogs and cats, some which are intentionally bred, are displayed with exotic animals and are put up for sale among the unattractive setting. The ‘Cruel Cages’ documentary reveals that the owner sells tigers for about $500 (in the year 2000). He makes minimal effort to hide any of these questionable practices. Honesty appears to be the only positive trait of Guzoo’s owner.

There are, surprisingly, many Facebook groups in favor of the zoo. Reading the comments along with the pictures of what these individuals believe is adequate animal care, exclaiming that the public has just been duped by animal rights extremists, reveals just how some of the public is uneducated about animal care and how important it is that GOOD zoos exist to inform them. Another aspect of the aforementioned ‘five freedoms’ is mental stimulation or environmental enrichment for psychological well being. Many of the comments from supporters of the zoo believe that an animal that is not underweight and immobile on the ground from poor health is a content animal, but that is simply not true. Animals have brains just like people. Even if not nearly as complex as a human, animals still have requirements that can be fulfilled to keep them content in captivity. Guzoo appears to be in a very muddy area with many of the enclosures being poorly lit. Although an animal isn’t as intelligent as a human, I wouldn’t put it past some animals to become unhappy with the wet conditions and lack of objects to see beyond a chain link fence. Some primates are also housed alone, their only interaction occurring during very unsafe encounters with visitors. An animal can look fine physically, but mental suffering is very real to them. One can only imagine what it would be like to live without this essential requirement to their well being for years.

This iguana is being severely mistreated. A green iguana is arboreal, and this enclosure is suitable for only a terrestrial animal. The only climbing opportunities for this lizard are some low lying moose antlers. There is no UVB/UVA lightning. An iguana may enjoy exposure to this light, but it is also imperative for the animal to synthesize calcium properly. The ‘yummy salad’ appears to consist of only iceberg lettuce. At best, it may be swiss chard for the most innocent until proven guilty mindset. A bowl full of that is still not adequate (iceberg lettuce is completely nutrition-less, and chard is high in oxalates), and if this iguana continues to live this way, she will suffer and contract metabolic bone disease. Common sense upon listening to the owner of Guzoo’s attitude and viewing the conditions of the other animals is telling, and it wouldn’t be likely that staying informed on nutrition and other ‘little things’ would be a priority at this facility. I have never seen a ‘green iguana’ with so little green. She is obviously displaying stress colors and that is further supported by her hiding under the ‘decoration’ antlers. Unfortunately, she will not be among the animals that have been ordered off the premises.

Lynn Gustafson, Guzoo’s owner, is fighting to keep every animal in Guzoo after having his license revoked. Although the ‘exotic’ animals, such as the tigers and bears have been ordered to go to new homes, he vowed to re-open the zoo with his domestic animals such as the goats and reptiles that do not qualify under that label. He then stirred more attention in the news when he announced he was considering an offer from a taxidermist for one of his lions; an obvious scare tactic to antagonize the ‘animal rights activists’ for closing the zoo. I have seen people sympathize with this as there are many animals that will need to be re-homed, however he has publicly turned down offers to help find the homes. Now, his latest attempt to legally keep his zoo is to try and grant it a religious society status. Complaints against his zoo have existed in the past, so I wonder why he is dedicated to reversing this court order, yet did not try to make improvements in the past to prevent this from occurring at all. Gustafson makes little attempt to deny many of the allegations against him, which is even more concerning. The prevailing excuse appears to be that the zoo is not government funded and supported like the larger zoos. Yet when did it become someone’s right to own a zoo even if they are not financially able to? Certainly the opportunity exists to have as many animals (and as little high maintenance, expensive, exotic species) as budget, experience, and ability allows. As of June 22, 2011, Gustafson is using the extra time granted from a 60 day permit to hire a lawyer to stand up against Alberta Agriculture’s requirement that the animals be inspected for infectious disease before they leave the property to be sold to other facilities. It could be slightly positive news that new homes are being 'specified' for a few animals, although these other facilities may be similar situations (offers from reputable sanctuaries have been turned down) but why should health even be an issue if the animals were receiving up to date vet care in the first place? The answer is that there are probably no vet records to begin with. Again, this should be basic care for even domesticated pet animals, and essential for a public facility/exhibitor.

For anyone who views this as an attack on a business, Gustafson had opportunities to try and improve the zoo, but either didn’t think it was necessary or didn’t care. The 2000 W5 Cruel Cages Documentary contains typical sensationalistic journalism, but photos and videos of this facility, along with Gustafson's overall demeanor and ability to counter any claims but choosing to shrug them off and not take them seriously, support the conclusion that the animals' welfare are not of any respectable priority. People with this mindset should not own animals and even more importantly, should not run zoos and exhibit this example to the public. The W5 documentary shows that the owner had no fear that anyone would shut him down in the past. He is practicing poor business ethics, and this also happens to involve living, feeling animals. Blame and responsibility need to be handed his way, not on so-called ‘Animal Rights’ groups. Along with the misinformed public who cannot distinguish a very poor situation from a well-maintained and professionally operated animal care facility, a disturbing trend is also evolving among people who carry out ethically questionable practices with captive animals (zoos, circuses, 'sanctuaries' and cub displays) and their devotion to protecting their rights while ignoring animal welfare violations.