Human-Animal Interactions in Zoos: What Can Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care Tell Us about the Ethics of Interacting, and Avoiding Unintended Consequences?

Mark James Learmonth

doi:10.3390/ani10112037

Abstract

Simple SummaryThis article is an examination of human–animal interactions in zoos from an ethical perspective, their benefits to both human and animal participants, and also their potential risks and ethical dilemmas. Contact with animals can be beneficial for all parties involved, and can indeed lead to pro-conservation and respect for nature behaviours being adopted by humans after so-called “profound experiences” of connecting or interacting with animals. Yet, human–animal interactions may also increase certain individuals’ desires for inappropriate wild-animal ‘pet’ ownership, and can convey a false sense of acceptability of exploiting animals for “cheap titillation”. Three ethical frameworks that may be beneficial for ethically run zoos to incorporate when considering human–animal interactions are: Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care. Human–animal interactions in zoos may be acceptable in many circumstances, and may be beneficial to both animal and human participants; however, they must be closely monitored through welfare tracking tools. Melding Duty of Care and the two Conservation ethical frameworks would be ideal for assessing the ethical acceptability of such interactions.Human–animal interactions (HAIs) in zoos can be rewarding for both humans and animals, but can also be fraught with ethical and welfare perils. Contact with animals can be beneficial for all parties involved, and can indeed lead to pro-conservation and respect for nature behaviours being adopted by humans after so-called “profound experiences” of connecting or interacting with animals. Yet, human–animal interactions may also increase certain individuals’ desires for inappropriate wild-animal ‘pet’ ownership, and can convey a false sense of acceptability of exploiting animals for “cheap titillation”. Indeed, this has been reflected in a recent research review conducted on animal–visitor interactions in zoos from a number of different countries and global regions. These are unintended consequences that ”modern, ethical zoos” would try to minimise, or avoid completely where possible, though most zoos still offer close-contact experiences with their animals. Three ethical frameworks that may be beneficial for ethically run zoos to incorporate when considering human–animal interactions are: Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care. These three ethical frameworks are concerned with the welfare state and outcomes for individual animals, not just the population or species. Human–animal interactions in zoos may be acceptable in many circumstances and may be beneficial to both animal and human participants; however, they must be closely monitored through welfare tracking tools. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) has published guidelines for human–animal interactions that are mandatory for member institutions to adhere to, although whether these guidelines are taken as mandatory or suggestions at individual institutions is unknown. Some suggestions for relevant extensions to the guidelines are suggested herein. Melding Duty of Care and the two Conservation ethical frameworks would be ideal for assessing the ethical acceptability of such interactions as they currently occur, and for considering how they should be modified to occur (or not) into the future in zoological settings.

Highlights

Human–animal Interactions (HAIs) are common occurrences in zoological institutions, from husbandry practices to interactions with visitors [1,2].Animal–visitor Interactions (AVIs) are often a large component of zoos’ appeal to visitors, and these experiences are a large component of zoos’ operations and financial viability [1,3,4]
Most studies of zoo HAIs to date have focused on assessing AVIs, and, so far, very few studies have assessed and quantified Keeper–Animal Interactions (KAIs) or KARs [32]
“behavioural spill-over” [88] could occur after these experiences; approach and interaction behaviours would be attempted by visitors in inappropriate circumstances, especially because the interaction experienced in the zoo environment is likely to be highly rewarding emotionally and physiologically, leading to an increased motivation to engage in these types of behaviours more often [88]

Summary

Introduction

Human–animal Interactions (HAIs) are common occurrences in zoological institutions, from husbandry practices to interactions with visitors (both regulated and unregulated) [1,2]. The American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) list their mission as “helping member institutions and animals in their care thrive, through advancing animal welfare, public engagement, and the conservation of wildlife” [20]; and the Australasian Zoo and Aquarium Association (ZAA) list saving (conserving) wildlife by inspiring best practice in conservation and (animal) welfare with support from government and community as their strategic mission for member institutions [21] Both of these associations detail supporting member institutions’ financial and operational goals as key goals, as well as supporting and facilitating memorable visitor experiences, but they do not list “entertainment”. The ethics and the welfare impacts of two types of HAIs shall be discussed: Animal–visitor Interactions; and lesser scrutinised Keeper–Animal Interactions (KAIs) and Relationships (KARs)

Human–Animal Interactions

Animal–Visitor Interactions

Compassionate Conservation

Conservation Welfare

Duty of Care

WAZA Guidelines for AVIs

Keeper–Animal Interactions

Are the Benefits Worth Allowing These Interactions?

Unintended Consequences

What Do the Ethical Frameworks Say?

10. Conclusions