Furred and feathered friends: How attached are zookeepers to the animals in their care?

Abstract

Keeper-animal relationships (KARs) appear to be important in zoos, since they can enhance the well-being of both the animals and the keepers, can make animal husbandry easier, but conversely might risk inappropriate habituation of animals and possible risks to the safety of keepers. It is, therefore, important to know more about the variables involved in relationship formation. Here we use a modified version of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS) to measure the strength of KARs between keepers and animals in their care, both in the zoo and in the home. LAPS questionnaires were completed by 187 keepers in 19 different collections across three countries. LAPS scores for attachment to zoo animals (ZA) were significantly lower than for pet animals (PA). There was no significant difference in ZA scores between different taxa, but there were significant taxon differences between PA scores. There were significant differences in both ZA and PA scores between different collections. Female respondents scored more highly than males for both ZA and PA. Multiple regression revealed that location, gender, and time spent with animals were significant predictors for ZA, while only gender and taxon were significant predictors for PA. It was concluded that PA scores were comparable with those for the general public, and reflected strong attachment of keepers to their pets, while ZA scores, although also reflecting attachment, were influenced by differences in institutional culture.

Members of the Pod: Do Marine Mammal Trainers Perceive a Bond with the Animals They Care For?

“…Previous research on perceived bonds with animals has been largely restricted to companion animals, with few zoo-based studies; those that have been conducted in a zoo context have studied zookeepers generally [17,18]. Evidence of HABs occurring in a zoo context started with anecdotal accounts of keepers having special relationships with some animals [19].…”

“…Evidence of HABs occurring in a zoo context started with anecdotal accounts of keepers having special relationships with some animals [19]. However, recent studies now give empirical evidence of the benefits of positive keeper-animal relationships [5,18,20]. Quantitative studies of the occurrence of HABs in the zoo are few [17,18,20], with most such studies using adapted companion animal-human bond questionnaires to gather keeper perceptions of their bonds with the animals they work with.…”

“…However, recent studies now give empirical evidence of the benefits of positive keeper-animal relationships [5,18,20]. Quantitative studies of the occurrence of HABs in the zoo are few [17,18,20], with most such studies using adapted companion animal-human bond questionnaires to gather keeper perceptions of their bonds with the animals they work with. The Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale, LAPS, [21] is a validated questionnaire which has been used to measure the strength of perceived attachment between companion animals and their owners, hence assessing the perceived HAB.…”

Five ways to wellbeing at the zoo: improving human health and connection to nature

“…2023.1258667 Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org attachments are considered a positive human-animal interaction that is important for both good animal welfare and positive human wellbeing (Walsh, 2009). Melfi et al (2022) found that zookeepers did form such attachments to animal in their care, although not as strongly as with their own companion (pet) animals. This research identified that female zookeepers were significantly more attached to zoo animals than male zookeepers and thus there is the potential for all zookeepers but especially females to connect with the animals in their care.…”

Exploration of cultural norms and behavioural beliefs about zoo animal behaviour, welfare, ethics and husbandry practices in a sample of the international zoo community

“…Whilst large‐scale surveys of zoo staff have provided insight into specific controversial practices, for example, population management euthanasia (Powell & Ardaiolo, 2016) and live‐feeding in aquaria (Keller, 2017), more general data across a variety of animal welfare or ethical issues is lacking. Additionally, the published data is often focused on countries in the Anglosphere (English‐speaking nations that share cultural, ancestral, and historical ties to the United Kingdom) (Peters, 2021), such as zoo staff in the United States, Australasia, and the United Kingdom (Marshall et al, 2019; Melfi et al, 2021; Powell & Ardaiolo, 2016; Powell et al, 2018; Riggio et al, 2020). There are increasing international connections across the global zoo community as animals are managed at the population level to promote success in conservation (Asa et al, 2011; Schulte‐Hostedde & Mastromonaco, 2015; Traylor‐Holzer et al, 2019).…”