No abstract

No abstract

Fifteen species of primate were observed to assess the effects of zoo visitors on their social behavior. When visitors were present primates were less affdiative, more active, but more aggressive. These changes were particularly marked in arboreal monkeys, especially in smaller species, and were reduced by 50% by lowering the height of spectators. Detailed observations of a group of mandrills indicated that with increasing numbers of visitors the monkeys showed a linear increase in attention to visitors, in activity, and in stereotyped behavior. All of these effects are consistent with an interpretation that visitors are a source of stressful excitement rather than of enrichment.

Some human-animal relationships can be so positive that they confer emotional well-being to both partners and can thus be viewed as bonds. In this study, 130 delegates at zoo research and training events completed questionnaires in which they were asked about their professional work in the zoo and whether they believed they had established bonds with any animals. They were also asked to indicate agreement or disagreement with several statements about human-animal bonds. Results showed that many zoo professionals consider that they have established bonds with some of their animals; 103 respondents believed that they had a bond with at least one animal, and 78 of these identified that the bond was with a zoo animal. The most frequent bonds reported were with primates (n = 24) and carnivores (n = 28). Perceived benefits of these bonds to the respondents included both operational (animal easier to handle, easier to administer treatments to) and affective (sense of well-being, enjoyment at being with the animal). Identifying benefits to the animals was more difficult. Most respondents identified similar benefits for their animals as for themselves, i.e. operational (animal responded more calmly, appeared less stressed) and affective (animal appeared to enjoy contact with respondent, seemed more content). This suggests that bonding between zoo professionals and their animals could have profound consequences for the management and welfare of the animals, not to mention the job satisfaction of the people involved.

Contact with people, both familiar (e.g., caretakers) and unfamiliar (e.g., members of the public), is a significant part of the lives of nonhuman animals in zoos. The available empirical evidence shows that in many cases this contact represents a source of stress to the animals, although there is sufficient overall ambiguity in these studies to suggest that the effect of people on the animals is much more complex than this. A possible way to try to understand human-animal relationships in the zoo is to ask how the animals might perceive the humans with whom they have contact, and here this question is explored further, using a framework first published by Hediger as a starting point. Hediger suggested that zoo animals might perceive people as an enemy, as part of the inanimate environment, or as a member of the same species. He supported these categories with anecdotal evidence, which was all that was available at the time, but more empirical evidence is available now, so it is appropriate to revisit these categories. The evidence suggests that animals discriminate both conspecific and heterospecific others, rather than just viewing familiar people as members of their own species, and that additional categories (stimulating part of the environment and friendship) may be warranted. These categories are then placed in a general model that suggests how relationships of different qualities, and hence different perceptions of each other, might develop between animals and the people they are in contact with in zoos.