Charges made by former employees about the lack of safety at Hogle Zoo reinforce the need for zoo administrators to address the issue with openness and candor. So does the way the zoo handled another incident two years ago.
Three former employees say the zoo's clumsy response following an attack in August of 1997 may have helped contribute to the latest incident, a chimpanzee attack on two employees. Zoo administrators never implemented the recommendations made in a secret internal report of the '97 incident, they said.Of course, the public has no way of knowing the zoo is safe if records remain hidden. The need for openness should be obvious. A good share of the facility's budget comes from taxpayers, and the public has a right to know what is going on. Openness -- even if that means an admission of mistakes -- enhances credibility and builds confidence.
By not going public with a report on the Aug. 7, 1997 incident, where a 450-pound gorilla injured former zoo primate supervisor Bob Pratt, zoo administrators needlessly put themselves in a difficult position. Not only did they not make the report available to the public but administrators also refused to allow the news media to interview Pratt after the attack.
Pratt and two other former workers claim that, had Hogle Zoo installed safety devices and implemented other measures that were recommended in a report, the recent chimpanzee attack probably could have been averted.
In a story Sunday, the Deseret News outlined what some of those recommendations were. They included additional mechanisms or barriers in the Great Apes Building; a partition to prevent movement of an animal between handrails; and a security gate in the basement with an automatic closing device.
Zoo Executive Director Craig Dinsmore disputed the allegations of the former workers saying the zoo did make "mostly procedural changes" after the gorilla incident, but he didn't elaborate on what those were.
As Dinsmore aptly notes, regardless of how many safety features are added, human error can still put people at risk.
But even accounting for human error, the chances for tragedy can be significantly reduced with proper safety features and training.
The chances for misunderstanding can also be significantly reduced by not hiding reports and recommendations from the public. That type of human error by zoo administrators ought to be avoided from now on.