Page 303 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

11.4 Choice and Control 275

VetBooks.ir There are many studies where similar types they exert ‘control’ in their environment by
taking part (e.g. Bloomsmith et al. 1998,
of changes to housing and husbandry have
been associated with measurable benefits to
to take part in the training programme, we
zoo animal welfare, and authors have attrib- 2003). If indeed animals did have the choice
uted, in part, the success of the intervention agree it would deliver control to the animal
with the reasoning that it conveys a degree of over its environment. For this to be true we
‘control’ to the animal within its environment would expect that participation in training
(e.g. Carlstead and Shepherdson 2000; would not affect other aspects of housing
Fernandez et al. 2009). Whether the mecha- and husbandry. Where this scenario becomes
nism for the success of these interventions is blurred, starts with the definition of training
that they bestow control is arguably difficult versus learning: ‘Learning can be broadly
to empirically identify. What is clear, is that defined as a change in behaviour resulting
these studies do offer some choices from practice or experience; when practice
to animals. or experience is dictated by humans, the pro-
Some years ago, Broom (1991) warned that cess is called training’ (Mellen and Ellis
the choices animals made, might not neces- 1996). In a situation where humans dictate
sarily equate to good welfare. Broom’s (1991) what is learned, there seems limited oppor-
examples where a diet could be chosen and tunity for animal choice. The irrationality of
expression of self‐injurious behaviour per- the scenario being voluntary, is expounded
formed, both of which might be choices, but when we consider that there is an expecta-
that both would reduce health and also wel- tion when a training programme is initiated,
fare. The provision of choice alone it seems, that the acquisition of prescribed behaviours
does not necessarily result to elevated animal is required, rather than hoped for. It seems
welfare. Furthermore, qualities of the items unreasonable and untenable to believe that
being offered to be chosen between, are zoo professionals will be provided with the
fundamental to whether they might convey resources to train a behaviour, just in case
welfare benefits; a choice of two options, nei- the animal wants to cooperate and join in. To
ther of which are appealing or appropriate, be clear, there are circumstances where
does not do justice to the concept of provid- ‘training’ goals are loose and different types
ing choice (Fraser and Matthews 1997). We of behaviours might be reinforced (e.g. ani-
add this preamble, because in many ways, mals being rewarded for ‘inventing’ behav-
efforts made to improve the welfare of zoo iours). However, part of our scepticism about
animals have become ubiquitous in their the voluntary nature of the animals’ partici-
assertion that they are providing choice and pation in training, results from observation
control within the zoo environment but that of what happens if the animal chooses not to
this detail has almost become perfunctory. engage. From experience, there might be sit-
And how does all this relate to zoo animal uations where different animals are chosen
learning and training? for training, so indeed voluntary participa-
It is often suggested that training pro- tion is possible, but in the majority of situa-
grammes enhance zoo animal welfare by tions that we are aware of, the training
offering them choice and control within their programme would be altered to ‘set‐up the
environment (Westlund 2014). An often animal for success’.
quoted benefit of positive reinforcement We acknowledge that training zoo animals
training, is that animals ‘voluntarily’ take can lead to positive welfare outcomes (see
part or that they ‘cooperate’ with the training Figure 11.3). There is no malice intended by
programme; both of these processes would drawing attention to the lack of choice or con-
give us cause to believe, and certainly many trol in most training programmes, or that the
trainers do, that the participating animals terminology used belies that humans are dic-
therefore have a ‘choice’ to be involved and tating and directing what the animal is