Page 307 - Zoo Animal Learning and Training

11.5 What Behaviours Should Be Trained? 279

VetBooks.ir compromise welfare. As with the example programmes which aim to support veterinary
injections or other invasive tests, will lead to
above about narration, whether trained
behaviours are within the animals’ natural
2014). It is successfully argued that this short
repertoire might affect how we interpret some pain (Otaki et al. 2015; Reamer et al.
them, and potentially might impact on edu- lived painful event which occurs by perform-
cation messaging (see Chapter 10), but ing a trained behaviour, constitutes a better
doesn’t necessarily impact the animals’ wel- welfare outcome than the alternative, which
fare. It is important to remember that not all might require removing the animal from its
trained behaviours support an animal’s social group, sedation, handling, and moving.
behavioural ecology, survival skills, or enable However it is important to always remember,
an animal to thrive in the wild. Instead, just because we can train an animal to per-
trained behaviour might still have merit if form a behaviour, it might not always be in
they improve the animal’s life whilst in cap- the animal’s best interest. As outlined in
tivity, facilitate operations or achieve zoo Section 11.4, participation in a training pro-
missions. Three main clauses need to be sat- gramme doesn’t suggest that the animal is
isfied when we consider the impact of trained cooperative, doesn’t experience pain, doesn’t
behaviours on animal welfare: the behaviours ‘care’ that it is injured, or can’t experience dis-
need to be within the animals physical ability, tress. Instead, when training programmes
so that it doesn’t cause strain or injury; like- include behaviours, which are likely to cause
wise the behaviour needs to be within the pain, injury, and distress, the situation has
psychological aptitude of the animal, so that likely been set up appropriately to ensure the
attempts to achieve the behaviour don’t lead animal participates. Or as we have seen in
to frustration (McGreevy and Boakes 2011); practice, the training programme parameters
and the behaviour should not lead to pain, are frequently changed if an animal becomes
injury, and distress. There might be excep- non‐compliant, so that engagement is
tional circumstances to these clauses, but achieved. We would venture, that if a training
when a trained behaviour contravenes any programme has to be modified frequently to
one of these, a discussion should take place out compete an animal which ‘chooses’ not to
to consider why compromising the animal’s take part, the behaviours being sought are
welfare by expression of a trained behaviour likely causing pain, injury, or distress.
is necessary.
11.5.3 Using Training to Modify
11.5.2 Pain, Injury, and Distress Daily Behavioural Expression
It seems unlikely that in a profession where In some instances, we choose to train ani-
we work tirelessly to improve welfare, we mals to perform behaviours which we feel
would consider training an animal to perform benefit the animal’s welfare, mostly because
a behaviour which might lead to pain, injury, we prefer the look of the trained behaviour
or distress. Some training programmes, the compared to what the animal might be
prerogative of which was to improve welfare, inclined to do by choice. We might choose to
do so by reducing welfare to some degree as train an animal to move around its enclosure
animals may experience pain, injury, and dis- and thus be more physically active, because
tress performing behaviours that we hope will we consider physically fit animals will have
lead to a positive outcome. Akin to a spoonful better welfare (Bloomsmith et al. 2003;
of sugar, in some instances it is hoped that Veeder et al. 2009). Operant conditioning
the performance of these behaviours, will was included within husbandry in this
support veterinary care, which will have a fashion by Markowitz and his colleagues
long‐term benefit over the short‐term wel- and termed environmental engineering
fare insult caused. For example, training (e.g. Forthman‐Quick 1984; Markowitz and