Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:40:45.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Comparing the Behaviour of Zoo Housed Animals with Wild Conspecifics as a Welfare Indicator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J S Veasey ,
N K Waran  and
R J Young
J S Veasey
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
N K Waran
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
R J Young*
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, The King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Animals Department, Edinburgh Zoo, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 6TS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that animals suffer if they cannot perform behaviours seen in wild conspecifics. Although comparisons with the behaviour of wild conspecifics are a popular method of assessing the welfare of captive animals, their validity has not been fully assessed. Homeostatic models of motivation suggest that many behaviours are stimulus driven rather than internally generated. Thus, it is possible that the non-performance of some wild-type behaviours does not necessarily compromise animal welfare, unless welfare is defined as being compromised by such non-performance. The flexibility of wild animal behaviour and the fact that animals free to perform the complete range of wild behaviours can suffer, must also put into the question the validity of such comparisons. Technical criticisms also arise when one considers the difficulty of constructing accurate and unbiased time budgets for wild animals. It is possible that the expressions of wild-type behaviours correlate with enhanced welfare, rather than cause enhanced welfare. Thus, if the consequences of behaviour are more important than the expression of behaviour itself, environmental enrichment does not necessarily need to rely upon the performance of wild-type behaviours for the improvement of animal welfare. Therefore, although behavioural comparisons with wild animals can be considered as potentially useful indicators of behavioural differences, they cannot always be relied upon to give an objective assessment of animal welfare. To make an assessment of welfare, behavioural comparisons with wild animals should be used in conjunction with other techniques to demonstrate that the consequences of non-performance of wild behaviours results in impoverished welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourbehavioural needscaptivemotivationwild
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 13 - 24
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abegglen, J J 1974 Ethologische Ueberlegungen zur industriellen Nutzteirhaltung. Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde 116: 501–505Google Scholar
Anonymous 1992 FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record 131: 357Google Scholar
Archer, J 1979 Animals Under Stress. Studies in Biology 108. Edward Arnold: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J L and Hemsworth, P H 1990 The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 177–187Google Scholar
Baxter, M S 1983 Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayne, K, Dexter, S, Mainzer, H, McCully, C, Campbell, G and Yamada, F 1992 The use of artificial turf as a foraging substrate for individually housed rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Animal Welfare 1: 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, B 1980 Veterinary Aspects of Feline Behavior. Mosly: St Louis, USAGoogle Scholar
Carter, T C (ed) 1967 Environmental Control in Poultry Production. Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Chamove, A S 1989 Environmental enrichment: a review. Animal Technology 40: 155–175Google Scholar
Chamove, A S and Anderson, J R 1989 Examining environmental enrichment. In: Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Well-being of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 183–202. E F Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, USAGoogle Scholar
Chamove, A S and Moodie, E M 1990 Are alarming events good for captive monkeys? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T H, Albon, S D, Gibson, R M and Guiness, F E 1979 The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Animal Behaviour 27: 211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, G M 1985 The Development and Significance of Abnormal Stereotyped Behaviours in Tethered Sows. PhD Thesis, University of Wageningen, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, J 1987 An Introduction to the Large Mammals of Southern Africa. Natal branch of Wildlife Society of South Africa: Natal, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Davies, N B 1992 Dunnock Behaviour and Social Evolution. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Mench, J A 1993 Behaviour as an indicator of welfare in various systems. In: Savory, C J and Hughes, B O (eds) Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 69–80. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Estes, R D 1991 The Behavioural Guide to African Mammals. The University of California Press: California, USAGoogle Scholar
Ewbank, R 1985 The behavioural needs of farm and laboratory animals. In: Marsh, N and Heywood, S (eds) Animal Experimentation Improvements and Alternatives (Proceedings of Symposium) pp 31–35. FRAME: Nottingham, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F and Broom, D M 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare. Baillere Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Futuyama, D J 1986 Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, USAGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R D, Montgomery, S S J and Montgomery, W I 1992 Population biology of Heligmosoides polygyrus (Nematoda) in the wood mouse. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grewal, B V 1981 Self-wrist biting in Arashiyama-B troop of Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata fuscata). Primates 22: 277–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidiger, H 1969 Man and Animal in the Zoo. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Herbers, J M 1981 Time resources and laziness in animals. Oecologica 49: 252–262CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, M, Hancocks, D and Calip, T 1978 Behavioural engineering in the zoo: a critique. International Zoo News 25/26: 155–157Google Scholar
Isbell, L A and Young, T P 1993 Human presence reduces predation in a free ranging vervet monkey population in Kenya. Animal Behaviour 45: 1233–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P 1992 Endangered Species: Tigers. Chartwell Books: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P and Toates, F M 1993 Who needs ‘behavioural needs’? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 161–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyhausen, P 1979 Cat Behavior. Garland Inc: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Lindburg, D G 1988 Improving the feeding of captive felines through application of field data. Zoo Biology 7: 211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, K 1950 The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Symposium of the Society of Experimental Biology 4: 221–268Google Scholar
Manser, C 1992 Tell-tale signs of a stressful life. New Scientist 134(1818): 32–35Google Scholar
Markowitz, H 1975 In defense of unnatural acts between consenting animals. In: Proceedings of the 51st Annual American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) Conference, Calgary, Canada pp 103–106. Hills-Riviana: Topeka, USAGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H 1982 Behavioral Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H and LaForse, S 1987 Artificial prey as behavioural enrichment devices for felines. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H, Schmidt, M J and Moody, A 1978 Behavioural engineering and animal health in the zoo. International Zoo Yearbook 18: 190–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, G 1979 Zur Käfighaltung von Legehennen. Eine Stellungnahme aus der Sicht der Verhaltenswissenschaft. In: Teutsch, G M, von Loeper, E, Martin, G and Müller, J (eds) Intensivhaltung von Nutztieren aus ethischer, rechtlicher und ethologischer Sicht pp 101–122. Birkäuser: Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypies: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milinski, M and Heller, R 1978 The influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Nature 275: 642–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, C 1989 Portraits in the Wild: Animal Behaviour in East Africa. Elm Tree Books: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Owen-Smith, R N 1988 Megaherbivores, the Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, S and Takagaki, I 1991 Tongue-playing in captive giraffe. Presented at The 22nd International Ethological Conference, 22-29 August. Otani University, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
Schaller, G B 1972 The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Shepherdson, D 1989a Improving animals lives in captivity through environmental enrichment. In: Close, B S, Dolins, F and Mason, G (eds) Animal Use in Education, Euroniche Conference Proceedings pp 91–102. Humane Education Centre: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Shepherdson, D 1989b Environmental enrichment. Ratel 16: 4–9Google Scholar
Skinner, J D and Smithers, R H N 1990 The Mammals of the Southern African Sub Region. The University of Pretoria: Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Snyder, R 1977 Putting the wild back into the zoo. International Zoo News 144: 11–18Google Scholar
Stolba, A and Wood-Gush, D G M 1984 The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales de Recherches Veterinaires 2: 287–298Google Scholar
Suhonen, J 1993 Risk of predation and foraging sites of individuals in mixed-species tit flocks. Animal Behaviour 45: 1193–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W H 1965 The assessment of pain and distress of animals in intensive livestock husbandry systems. In: Brambell F W R (chaired) Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems pp 71–79. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W H 1967 Discussion to Part II. In: Carter, T C (ed) Environmental Control in Poultry Production pp 125–134. Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Veasey, J S 1993 An Investigation into the Behaviour of Captive Tigers (Panthera tigris), and the Effect of the Enclosure Upon Their Behaviour. BSc Thesis, University of London, UKGoogle Scholar
Weiss, J M 1972 Psychological factors in stress and disease. Scientific American 226(6): 104–113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F 1989 Animal boredom: do animals miss what they have never known? In: Close B S, Dolins F and Mason G (eds) Animal Use in Education, Euroniche Conference Proceedings pp 67–87. Humane Education Centre: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Young, R J 1993 Factors Affecting Foraging Motivation in the Domestic Pig. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar