A former employee’s allegations against Xcaret now collide with the company’s own public promises about animal care. The account describes guacamayas, dogs, and other species placed under stress before tourist shows, while Xcaret says mistreatment is unacceptable and its animals receive specialized attention. The question now sits in a narrower place than the usual tourism argument: what happened backstage, who checked it, and whether the company’s protocols matched daily practice.
Former Xcaret Worker Speaks Out on Animal Abuse
Paulina Chávez, a former Grupo Xcaret worker and forestry resources engineer, accused the company of keeping animals used in tourist shows under stress, confinement, and repeated exposure to lights, noise, and visitor contact. In a report published Wednesday, Chávez said guacamayas, dogs, and other species were held in small areas before performances, with some allegedly returned to the stage despite injuries or exhaustion.
Allegations focus on backstage handling
Chávez said guacamayas used in shows were kept in cages before being sent into a theater to fly. Dogs used in presentations, she said, showed signs of stress from recurring changes in their surroundings and external stimuli. Her account also included allegations about sanitation and safety, as well as the hiring of staff she described as insufficiently experienced with fauna.
Chávez alleged that one guacamaya died after getting trapped in an installation at the park. She also said animals delivered after seizures by environmental authorities remained in long-term confinement, and that some animals that tried to escape were isolated for extended periods.
Xcaret rejects mistreatment allegations
Grupo Xcaret rejected the allegations in a statement. The company said its conservation priority is to guarantee safety, welfare, and quality-of-life standards for species under its care. It called any act of animal mistreatment unacceptable, and said images circulating with the claims corresponded to an incident from last year that had been handled immediately under applicable rules.
Xcaret also said that all animals in its care receive specialized attention, constant supervision, and management in accordance with conservation and welfare protocols. On its public conservation page, the company says its team includes conservation specialists, biologists, veterinarians, ethologists, trainers, and engineers. A separate Xcaret blog post says its animal welfare approach is based on the Five Domains model, covering health, environment, behavior, nutrition, and mental state.
Protocols and daily practice now sit side by side
The allegation centers on confinement, stage conditions, and visitor contact, not the mere presence of animals in shows. Chávez’s central claim is that routine handling placed animals under avoidable stress. Xcaret’s response points in the opposite direction, toward professional supervision and established welfare rules.
That distinction is central to the story because the known record, so far, contains a public accusation and a company denial. Without an inspection file, veterinary report, or administrative resolution, the allegations remain allegations, however detailed.
Animal welfare disputes have already been active in Quintana Roo. Vallarta Daily previously covered separate animal cruelty cases in Cancún and Chetumal, involving criminal complaints after a shelter killing case and a crematorium fraud case. Those cases are unrelated to Xcaret, but they show how animal-care disputes in the state can move from public accusation to prosecutors.
Reports also noted broader criticism from organizations, including Animal Héroes, over dolphins and other species associated with Xcaret spaces. Xcaret’s official pages, meanwhile, describe conservation programs for red macaws, marine turtles, and coral, along with a professional wildlife care infrastructure. Those two narratives are now colliding in a public place visitors rarely see: backstage.
For now, the unresolved accusations are evidentiary. Chávez put specific claims on the record. Xcaret denied mistreatment and pointed to its protocols. Any next step would require documents, inspections, or testimony beyond the first public account.
