Page 195 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

167

VetBooks.ir

9

Us and Them

Human–Animal Interactions as Learning Events
Geoff Hosey and Vicky A. Melfi

9.1 Introduction was the assumption that the animals were
learning novel responses to people within the
Until the mid‐1980s there were no systematic zoo environment.
studies of how zoo animals responded to peo­ Forty years on and zoo housing and hus­
ple, and anecdotal reports often concentrated bandry have changed dramatically; so, we
on the negative interactions that visitors initi­ hope, has visitor behaviour. Few empirical
ated, such as teasing, poking with sticks, feed­ studies survey general zoo visitor behaviour
ing inappropriate objects, and sometimes directed towards animals systematically.
even worse (Stemmler‐Morath 1968; Hediger Instead, studies are generally biassed towards
1970); or the inventive ways that animals used quantifying and ameliorating ‘bad visitor
visitors as a source of stimulation (Morris behaviour’ (e.g. Kemp et al. submitted, Parker
1964). It was assumed that animals in zoos et al. 2018). As such we know some zoo visi­
risked becoming ‘mal‐imprinted’ through tors behave negatively towards animals, but
processes such as hand‐rearing, leading to what the nature, frequency, duration, and
animals who considered themselves to be valence of these behaviours are, viewed
human (Morris 1964); and that provided visi­ within the zoo visitor population, and
tors kept to areas behind barriers within nor­ whether they have changed is also unknown.
mal zoo opening hours, the animals would The underlying belief that contact with
disregard or ignore them (Snyder 1975). people in a human‐dominated environment
These views should be seen within the con­ provides a context for captive animals to
text of the times: enclosures were small and learn new responses is still a valid one, and
barren by modern standards, and in many the growth of systematic studies on zoo ani­
cases the public were allowed closer contact mals allows us to examine this in greater
with the animals than is permissible now (see detail than was previously possible. A good
Section 9.4); many more animals were hand‐ starting point is to recognise two dichoto­
reared then (Morris 1964); and the prevailing mies within the arena of human–animal
Tinbergian–Lorenzian theoretical frame­ interactions (HAI) in zoos: firstly, that the
work for explaining animal behaviour was responses animals learn to familiar people
more dominated by drive‐instinct concepts (particularly keepers) are likely to be different
than is modern behavioural biology. from those they learn to unfamiliar people
Nevertheless, underlying these observations (such as visitors), especially since they have

Zoo Animal Learning and Training, First Edition. Edited by Vicky A. Melfi, Nicole R. Dorey, and Samantha J. Ward.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.