Page 304 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

276 11 Welfare Implications of Zoo Animal Training

VetBooks.ir benevolent dictatorship; whereby as zoo pro-
fessionals we hold absolute power over the
actions and opportunities afforded to the
animals in our care, but hopefully choose to
use this power to support their needs so that
they can attain good welfare. For example,
shaping a behaviour is a method of training
an animal to perform a desirable end‐goal
behaviour, which would otherwise be diffi-
cult, by presenting it as small changes of a
previously learned and thus accepted behav-
iour. As good trainers we offer choices to the
animal which will enable us to teach the ani-
Figure 11.3 A trained dolphin having a catheter
fitted. Source: Katharina Herrmann. mals the behaviours we need them to learn.
We might undertake preference tests prior to
training, to ensure that the reinforcers used
expected to do; versus providing animals with are highly prized resources; whether this is a
free choice to take part in their own behav- food item, activity, or access to social interac-
ioural journey. We would argue that training, tion (e.g. Clay et al. 2009). Highly prized
as it is often implemented, removes choice resources might be withheld and only availa-
and control from the lives of captive animals, ble during training sessions. Social relation-
but this does not detract from the benefits ships might be used to increase motivation
which it can achieve through promotion of and engagement, whether that represent
animal welfare, facilitating husbandry, and human–animal interactions or peers, and
achieving the zoo’s mission (as referred to use the animal’s motivation to be in proxim-
above). What we hope to highlight, is that ity with that key person or conspecific to set
though good training programmes are not them up to succeed. The animal’s environ-
physically forcing animals to cooperate, ani- ment might be modified so that it becomes a
mal participation is gained in such a way that less desirable place to be, so the alternative
despite what the training terminology would training option is favoured. Taking part in
suggest, animals’ are seldom free to opt out. In the training programme might be facilitated
fairness, choice and control within our own with physical barriers, which make it hard for
lives isn’t all it seems, in fact less choice can the animal to not comply or withdraw once
yield greater satisfaction (Iyengar and Lepper training has begun. How we set animals up to
2000). Many of us might feel we have made succeed is, to a large extent, limited by our
many choices in our lives which lead us to own imagination, knowledge of the species
buying a certain car, living in a certain neigh- biology and the particular individual animal.
bourhood, indulging in a specific lifestyle; but Setting an animal up to succeed isn’t mali-
even those ‘alternative’ lifestyle choices have cious, far from it; instead the goal is to make
been crafted and marketed to us via the participation in the training programme
emerging field of neuroeconomics (Hansen appear favourable and in managing the ani-
and Christensen 2007; Hodgson 2003). With mals’ perception to positively engage with
people viewing thousands of brand place- the training programme, we are removing
ments and other adverts daily, ubiquitous choice at a fundamental level; especially if
marketing in our world is akin to trainers in the training we feel is necessary might lead to
the lives of zoo animals; if we believe we have pain, injury, or distress.
choice, maybe they do in the zoo too. Learning can be viewed as a series of asso-
Instead of being voluntary we would ven- ciations, which when repeated often can
ture that zoo animal training is a form of cause changes in brain morphology