Page 196 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

168 9 Us and Them: Human–Animal Interactions as Learning Events

VetBooks.ir greater contact and more repeated interac­ between people in the zoo, we can ask
whether they can learn to distinguish between
tions with familiar people, which allows a
relationship (human–animal relationship) to
within these different categories or groups of
build up. Secondly, the interactions might be familiar and unfamiliar people, as well as
direct interactions between person and ani­ people. Answering this is of theoretical inter­
mal, where an initiating behaviour and a est in terms of what it can tell us about the
response to it can be detected by an observer, discrimination and categorisation abilities of
or may be indirect, in the sense that the different animals. It is also of more applied
animal’s response is to a situation that interest, in that it may help us to understand
involves the presence of people, but where no some of the variability we see in zoo animal
observable interaction takes place. Although responses to visitors.
we have referred to these here as dichoto­ There is good empirical evidence that ani­
mies, it is important to understand that this mals learn to distinguish familiar from unfa­
is used here as an aid to understanding, and miliar people on the farm (Boivin et al. 1998;
that in reality both are the end points of a Rousing et al. 2005), in the laboratory (Davis
continuum. Thus, some people, such as vets, 2002), and in fact, in the zoo (Mitchell et al.
may be a bit more familiar than visitors, but 1991; Martin and Melfi 2016). One study of
not as familiar as keepers. Similarly, a keeper zoo animals observed that several species
undertaking routine husbandry procedures were more likely to approach familiar people
might inadvertently send direct signals to the compared to unfamiliar people, even when
animal, to which the animal will then respond. both categories of people were similarly
With these caveats, we can construct a table dressed and in the same context, i.e. cleaning
(Table 9.1) to guide our discussion. an enclosure (Martin and Melfi 2016). The
ability of agricultural animals to discriminate
between different categories of people has
9.2 Learning to Discriminate been attributed to them learning to recog­
Different Kinds of People nise the differences in peoples’ behaviour
and clothing (Munksgaard et al. 1997).
Nobody who has ever shared their home with Tanida and Nagano (1998), also considered
a companion animal would be surprised at that agricultural animals (young pigs) could
the assertion that many animals can learn to discriminate between people using visual,
distinguish different people. When we con­ auditory, and/or olfactory cues. It seems
sider whether animals learn to discriminate reasonable to consider that zoo animals,

Table 9.1 Situations involving people which might provide learning opportunities for zoo animals. Human
action towards the animal is considered to be part of the learning process, and the types of people are seen
as a variable affecting the learning process.

Types of people

Interaction Familiar Unfamiliar
Indirect Keeper observations of animals Visitors watching at exhibit
Husbandry provision including ‘stand and stare’
enrichment, cleaning and feeding
Direct Handling and catch‐ups Interactive educational
Health checks and veterinary treatment activities
Provision of training activities Keeper for a Day
Education activities