Page 202 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

174 9 Us and Them: Human–Animal Interactions as Learning Events

VetBooks.ir habituation. In wild‐living populations the to attract attention; directing urine and
faeces at visitors; and behaviours such as
costs to the animals include increased risk of
disease transmission from people, and gener­
In the 1960s the chimpanzees at Chester Zoo
alisation of the habituation by the animals to soliciting touch, and then biting the toucher.
other people, rendering them vulnerable to apparently became proficient at throwing
hunting or other human threats (Goldsmith clods of earth at people (Morris and Morris
2005; Williamson and Feistner 2011). It is 1966). It is tempting to believe that these
also unclear how habituation impacts on apparent efforts to enliven a boring life in
other aspects of the animals’ welfare. Faecal unstimulating enclosures are no longer seen
cortisol levels in wild‐living capuchins in modern zoo enclosures, but we actually
(Cebus capucinus) (Jack et al. 2008) and have no idea if that is the case; in fact, throw­
gorillas (Shutt et al. 2014) are more elevated ing faeces at visitors increased in a male
in habituated than non‐ or less‐habituated hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas) in a
groups, implying that the process of habitua­ Brazilian zoo after transfer from a small tra­
tion causes some stress to the animals. ditional cage to a larger more naturalistic
enclosure (Bortolini and Bicca‐Marques
2011). Additionally a chimpanzee at Furuvik
9.3.2 Learning to Use Visitors Zoo reportedly stored stones as future mis­
as a Source of Stimulation
siles to throw at visitors (Osvath 2009).
Amongst the studies of how animals in zoos There are rather more benign ways in which
respond to members of the public, a small zoo animals learn to interact with visitors.
number show results which can be inter­ One is to solicit food. At Mexico City Zoo, Fa
preted as implying that the animals obtain (1989) found a significant positive correlation
some kind of stimulation from their interac­ between the time that captive green monkeys
tions with visitors. There are also anecdotal (Cercopithecus sabaeus) spent feeding on sup­
accounts of animals inventing ways of inter­ plemental food thrown in by visitors and the
acting with visitors, sometimes to the visi­ number of visitors. Chimpanzees at Chester
tors’ detriment. All of these suggest that Zoo interact with visitors, and sequences of
human contact can in some circumstances interactions can develop between them, in
be enriching for these animals. In principle which begging for food is common, and which
there is no reason why HAI could not be an sometimes culminate in the chimps being
enrichment for captive animals (Hosey 2008; offered food (Cook and Hosey 1995). Begging
Claxton 2011), and some studies show that for food is well known in bears, where the
increased interactions with familiar people behaviour appears to be linked to the display
can be viewed this way (e.g. Baker 2004; of stereotypies (Van Keulen‐Kromhout 1978;
Carrasco et al. 2009). To what extent the Montaudouin and Le Pape 2004).
responses to the public can be regarded as None of these behaviours would be
enrichment is a moot point, given that these regarded as enrichment in terms of our mod­
observations are not usually part of a planned ern understanding of the term, and yet the
enrichment programme, and interpretation fact that the animals have learned to do these
of the behavioural change is often a post hoc things suggests that there is something
explanation rather than a predicted change. rewarding about performing them. To that
Fifty years ago Desmond Morris gave extent they can be viewed as conditioned
examples of animals at London Zoo incorpo­ responses, although it has also been sug­
rating zoo visitors into their activities, and gested, at least in the case of food begging by
interpreted these as efforts by the animals to primates, that they may be referential, inas­
add stimulation to an otherwise boring life in much as they indicate an understanding by
the zoo (Morris 1964). These included bang­ the animal of how they influence the behav­
ing and stamping on the ground, apparently iours of others (Gómez 2005). Nevertheless,