Page 198 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

170 9 Us and Them: Human–Animal Interactions as Learning Events

VetBooks.ir of their face could be a conditioned response, (positive or negative) behavioural reactions
towards those people, and some report that
but could also reflect underlying cognitive or
taxonomic differences. In any case there is
tion to keepers can still be seen in animal‐
scope for more research here. this individual recognition and specific reac­
keepers separated from the animals for some
years. Unfortunately, the degree of sophistica­
9.2.1 Familiar People
tion displayed by animals in their ability to
Interestingly most research which has been discriminate between familiar people, the
undertaken to study HAI in zoos has thus far examples included above, are for the most part
focussed on interactions with unfamiliar peo­ anecdotal reports. There are however a small
ple; the zoo visitor (see Section 9.4). Largely number of empirical studies which have
the impact of familiar people, comprising zoo observed how zoo animals can discriminate
keepers and other zoo professionals which between familiar people. For example, as
spend so much of their time interacting with already described, zoo animals have been
zoo animals, has been largely unstudied. These observed to distinguish between keepers that
familiar people are ubiquitous in the lives of maintain their daily needs versus those who
zoo animals, being present in all zoos and nec­ work elsewhere in the zoos (Melfi and Thomas
essary in the creation and maintenance of good 2005). These data suggest that zoo animals are
zoo animal welfare. Nevertheless, the impact able to distinguish between those zoo profes­
they have as people on the learning landscape sionals who provide daily care versus those
of zoo animals, rather than as providers of that are less frequent carers or that provide
good care, is rarely considered. different services, for example vet staff,
Familiar people in the lives of zoo animals researchers, and other uniformed staff. What
are those that interact and play a part in the is clear is that zoo animals learn to discrimi­
animals’ lives on a frequent basis. The fre­ nate between these people, indicating that
quency with which familiar people have there are likely differences in the interactions
these interactions, direct, or indirect, with occurring between the animals and these
animals can vary; but what is important in people, which impact whether a positive, neu­
the context of this book is that all these inter­ tral, or negative relationship is formed (Hosey
actions provide learning opportunities for 2008, 2013). Nature, frequency and type of
the animals. Probably the most familiar these human–zoo‐animal interactions all
people in the lives of zoo animals are their provide fruitful opportunities for learning.
keepers. Often referred to as stockpeople Familiar people in the lives of zoo animals
within agriculture, the study of stockman­ set up their animals’ environments to facili­
ship has found that interactions between tate learning opportunities. Zoo keepers
familiar people and the animals in their care provide learning opportunities through per­
can have far reaching ramifications. Positive manent or temporary enclosure design and
HAI in agricultural settings have been changes (see Chapter 5), regular husbandry
associated with improved production and tasks, the provision of environmental enrich­
welfare, measured as improved growth, ment (see Chapter 6), and of course formal
fecundity, and reduced morbidity (reviewed training programmes (the topic of this book).
by Waiblinger 2019). It is unsurprising For example, Ward and Melfi (2013) investi­
therefore that zoo professionals too can have gated the impacts of positive reinforcement
profound impacts on the animals in their training on the response rates for other non‐
care (reviewed Ward and Sherwen 2019). trained behaviours. They found that animals
There is a high level of discrimination which underwent a formal training regime,
reported in the ability of zoo animals to differ­ responded more quickly to non‐trained cues
entiate between familiar people. Recognising than their non‐trained counterparts. Authors
specific individuals is evidenced by specific suggested this finding resulted from a