Page 197 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

9.2 Learning to Discriminate Different Kinds of People 169

VetBooks.ir whether as a population or some species/ as a consequence, the rate of behaviours
directed to people of all categories dropped
individuals within this group, also learn to
discriminate between different categories of
Wild‐living animals have also been seen to
people using these same cues. Learning from once training had been initiated.
previous experience of being handled has discriminate between different people, for
also been found to aid agricultural animals in example magpies (Pica pica), recognise
discriminating between different people (de people who have accessed their nests on pre­
Passillé et al. 1996; Munksgaard et al. 1997; vious occasions, and direct aggressive
Csatádi et al. 2007). Unlike agricultural set­ responses at them, which they do not do to
tings, where direct handling or least physical people who have not accessed their nest (Lee
contact occurs frequently between animals et al. 2011). Male golden‐bellied mangabeys
and familiar people, zoo housing and hus­ (Cercocebus chrysogaster) at Sacramento Zoo
bandry is often set up to avoid and/or limit threatened adult male visitors particularly,
direct handling and physical contact between but rarely threatened infants, senior men,
zoo keepers and animals; though there are and women, whereas female mangabeys
exceptions, e.g. when hand‐rearing. This threatened women twice as often as they
means that for zoo animals, handling doesn’t threatened men (Mitchell et al. 1992).
represent a good source for learning about These could, of course, be species‐specific
humans as it is infrequent. The same reason­ responses triggered by recognition by the
ing could be used to argue that due to the animals that their human targets were an
infrequent nature of handling and physical equivalent age and sex group to themselves;
contact in zoos, that if and when it does but could also be based on previous experi­
occur, it might represent a significant learn­ ence with people in those categories, since
ing opportunity. It is likely zoo animals also the study also found that men and boys har­
learn to discriminate between different assed the male mangabeys more than the
categories of people by other types of inter­ females. The mangabeys appeared to be
actions which they share with them. For responding to particular categories of peo­
example learning may occur from indirect ple, where category discrimination could be
human interactions towards the animals via based on a number of visual and behavioural
participation and the outcome of husbandry cues, but the magpies in the earlier example
activities that different people provide. For were discriminating between individuals
example, Melfi and Thomas (2005) observed who apparently differed only in facial fea­
that zoo‐housed colobus monkeys (Colobus tures. Agricultural animals are also able to
guereza) were able to discriminate, and distinguish people according to their facial
behaved differently towards, three categories features (pigs: Koba and Tanida 2001; cows:
of people they observed in front of their Rybarczyk et al. 2001; horses: Stone 2010).
enclosures; keepers who looked after their Intriguingly, wild American crows (Corvus
daily care, keepers/zoo staff in the same uni­ brachyrhynchos) scold and mob people wear­
form who didn’t look after their daily care, ing a mask portraying a ‘dangerous’ face
and zoo visitors (those people not in uni­ regardless of age, sex, size, or appearance of
form!). Interestingly this study observed that those people, but not people wearing a neu­
after the initiation of a training programme tral mask (Marzluff et al. 2010). Scary masks
to facilitate health checks, the rate of behav­ (a vampire face) were shown by Sinnot et al.
iours directed towards people of all catego­ (2012) to a variety of zoo animals (primates,
ries declined significantly. The authors carnivores, hoofstock, and birds) and com­
suggested that the colobus monkeys had pared to a non‐scary mask (a Bill Clinton
learnt that directing behaviour towards peo­ mask), an aversive response to just the scary
ple was more productive during the training mask was found only in the primates. So dis­
session, rather than outside of this time and crimination of people based on the scariness