Jake S Veasey

Animal welfare is a growing public concern that has the potential to undermine the social license of zoos and aquariums. The lack of consensus on how animal welfare is defined across such a diverse sector combined with and a widespread belief that commercial priorities such as entertaining visitors conflicts with animal welfare, hinders efforts to effectively address this fundamental issue for the sector. Data derived from an audit of habitats across a major North American wildlife attraction revealed that holistic animal welfare assessments undertaken by animal carers embracing three principal constructs of animal welfare, correlated strongly with visitor perceptions of animal happiness. Visitor assessments of animal happiness also correlated with animal carer assessments of social, behavioural and locomotor opportunities and inversely with the prevalence of stereotypic behaviours, supporting the proposition that folk conceptions of animal welfare are more accurate than may have previously been considered to be the case. However, the holistic animal welfare assessment inversely correlated with assessments of a habitat's capacity to safeguard welfare as determined by the facility's veterinary staff, supporting the proposition that tensions exist between physical and psychological components of captive animal welfare provisioning. This further underlines the importance of clarity on how animal welfare is conceived when developing institutional animal welfare strategies. Finally, the data also showed that both holistic animal welfare assessments and visitor perceptions of animal happiness strongly correlated with the level of enjoyment experienced by visitors, challenging the belief that animal welfare competes with the commercial priorities of zoos and aquariums. The audit supports the case that maintaining high animal welfare is a commercial imperative as well as a moral obligation for zoos and aquariums and underlines the necessity to utilize conceptions of animal welfare that acknowledge the centrality of the affective states of animals in maintaining those standards.

The welfare status of elephants under human care has been a contentious issue for two decades or more in numerous western countries. Much effort has gone into assessing the welfare of captive elephants at individual and population levels with little consensus having been achieved in relation to both the welfare requirements of captive elephants, or their absolute welfare status. A methodology capable of identifying the psychological priorities of elephants would greatly assist in both managing and assessing captive elephant welfare. Here, a Delphi-based Animal Welfare Priority Identification System© (APWIS©) is trialled to evaluate the reliability of the methodology and to determine the welfare significance of individual behaviours and cognitive processes for Asian elephants (Elaphus maximus). APWIS© examines the motivational characteristics, evolutionary significance and established welfare impacts of individual behaviours and cognitive processes of each species being assessed. The...

Despite the diversity of animal welfare definitions, most recognise the centrality of the feelings of animals which are currently impossible to measure directly. As a result, animal welfare assessment is heavily reliant upon the indirect measurement of factors that either affect what animals feel, or are effected by how they feel. Physiological and health orientated measures have emerged as popular metrics for assessing welfare because they are quantifiable, can effect and be affected by how animals feel and have merits regardless of their relationship to the feelings of animals. However, their popularity in animal welfare assessment has led to them having a disproportionate influence on animal management to the detriment of animal welfare in numerous instances. Here, the case is made that a tension exists between management that prioritizes aspects of care reflecting popular animal welfare metrics such as those relating to physical health, and management that emphasizes psychologic...

13 Managing Captive Mammals in Mixed-Species Communities Jake Veasey and Gabriele Hammer INTRODUCTION The first step in ... have shown considerable in-terspecific play between juvenile primates (Freeman and Al-cock) carnivores (Curry-Lindahl) and ...

The welfare of elephants is an enormous challenge for zoos in terms of animalnhusbandry, financial cost and public perception. This chapterrs aim is not to discussnwhether elephants should be held in captivity: resolving this issue would involve soundndata on the costs and benefits of keeping them in zoos, and reconciling the diverse ethicalnbeliefs of different people. Instead, we review how animal welfare is assessednscientifically; discuss what is known...

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. ...

For many species, zoo environments provide unprecedented opportunities to protect the physical health of animals evidenced by enhanced longevity for numerous taxa in captivity. However, the potential benefits to physical health that captivity can bring to wild animals frequently comes at the expense of their psychological wellbeing; the more control and oversight humans have over animals and their environment, the better placed they are to protect their physical well- being, but the less free animals are to experience species appropriate psychological opportunities. A mechanism capable of identifying the relative welfare significance of behaviours and cognitive process would allow zoo designers and managers to focus resources where they will have the great- est impact on welfare and to more effectively balance the psychological and physical needs of man- aged animals necessary to deliver peak welfare. This is likely to be one of the most fertile fields for advancing zoo animal welfare in the coming years. Here a novel methodology is outlined that has been developed to identify behavioural and cognitive priorities that should form the foundation of both habitat design principles, as well as subsequent management strategies.

The ecology of large, wide-ranging carnivores appears to make them vulnerable to conservation challenges in the wild and welfare challenges in captivity. This poses an ethical dilemma for the zoo community and supports the case that there is a need to reconsider prevailing management paradigms for these species in captivity. Whilst the welfare challenges wide ranging carnivores face have been attributed to reduced ranging opportunities associated with the decreased size of captive habitats, attempts to augment wild carnivore welfare in captivity typically focus on behaviours linked to hunting. Thus far, this has yet to result in the systematic elimination of signs of compromised welfare amongst captive carnivores. Here an assessment is carried out to identify the likely welfare priorities for Amur tigers, which, as one of the widest ranging terrestrial carnivores, serves as an excellent exemplar for species experiencing extreme compression of their ranging opportunities in captivity...

Animal welfare is a growing public concern that has the potential to undermine the social license of zoos and aquariums. The lack of consensus on how animal welfare is defined across such a diverse sector combined with and a widespread belief that commercial priorities such as entertaining visitors conflicts with animal welfare,

To assess zoo elephants' welfare using objective population-level indices, we sought data from zoos and other protected populations (potential ''benchmarks'') on variables affected by poor well-being. Such data were available on fecundity, potential fertility, stillbirths, infant mortality, adult survivorship, and stereotypic behavior. Most of these can also be affected by factors unrelated to well-being; therefore, for each, we analyzed the potential role of these other factors. Population-level comparisons generally indicate poor reproduction, and poor infant and adult survivorship in zoos compared with benchmark populations (with some differences between zoo regions and over time). Stereotypic behavior also occurs in c. 60% of zoo elephants; as the population-level welfare index least open to alternative interpretations, this represents the strongest evidence that well-being is/has been widely compromised. Poor well-being is a parsimonious explanation for...

The costs of reproduction can be defined as the trade-off between present and future reproduction, where current reproduction may diminish future reproductive success of the parent and/or of the parent's offspring. One potential cost of reproduction in birds may be a reduction in the ability of the female to escape from predators due to a reduction in maximal flight velocity. Such a reduction in flight performance may come about in laying females as a result of an increase in mass over the laying period, and a reduction in flight muscle condition. The result of such a reduction in the flight velocity of wild birds would be to increase the susceptibility of those birds to capture by predators once attacked. To investigate the potential of egg production to affect flight velocity and consequently predation risk, the individual effects of body mass and muscle condition needed to be determined. Contrary to theoretical studies which have indicated that body mass might significantly a...

The ecology of large, wide-ranging carnivores appears to make them vulnerable to conservation challenges in the wild and welfare challenges in captivity. This poses an ethical dilemma for the zoo community and supports the case that there is a need to reconsider prevailing management paradigms for these species in captivity. Whilst the welfare challenges wide ranging carnivores face have been attributed to reduced ranging opportunities associated with the decreased size of captive habitats, attempts to augment wild carnivore welfare in captivity typically focus on behaviours linked to hunting. Thus far, this has yet to result in the systematic elimination of signs of compromised welfare amongst captive carnivores. Here an assessment is carried out to identify the likely welfare priorities for Amur tigers, which, as one of the widest ranging terrestrial carnivores, serves as an excellent exemplar for species experiencing extreme compression of their ranging opportunities in captivity. These priorities are then used to consider novel strategies to address the welfare challenges associated with existing management paradigms, and in particular, attempt to overcome the issue of restricted space. The insights generated here have wider implications for other species experiencing substantive habitat compression in captivity. It is proposed here that the impact of habitat compression on captive carnivore welfare may not be a consequence of the reduction in habitat size per se, but rather the reduction in cognitive opportunities that likely covary with size, and that this should inform strategies to augment welfare.

Simple Summary: The welfare of elephants in captivity is of significant public interest and the cause of considerable debate amongst the scientific, legislative, zoo and animal welfare advocacy communities. A tool capable of identifying what elephants need to experience to have good welfare would not only help bring clarity to this debate, it could also direct elephant welfare policy and management to more effectively optimise welfare and provide a valuable reference tool by which elephant welfare could be assessed. To that end, a systematic process is trialed to identify the welfare priorities for Asian elephants. These pilot assessments demonstrate the importance of providing species-appropriate feeding, social and mental opportunities to protect elephant welfare and suggest that the current priorities established in husbandry guidelines do not accurately reflect the psychological needs of elephants; in particular, they appear to underestimate the importance of behaviours and mental processes associated with acquiring food. Abstract: The welfare status of elephants under human care has been a contentious issue for two decades or more in numerous western countries. Much effort has gone into assessing the welfare of captive elephants at individual and population levels with little consensus having been achieved in relation to both the welfare requirements of captive elephants, or their absolute welfare status. A methodology capable of identifying the psychological priorities of elephants would greatly assist in both managing and assessing captive elephant welfare. Here, a Delphi-based Animal Welfare Priority Identification System © (APWIS ©) is trialled to evaluate the reliability of the methodology and to determine the welfare significance of individual behaviours and cognitive processes for Asian elephants (Elaphus maximus). APWIS © examines the motivational characteristics, evolutionary significance and established welfare impacts of individual behaviours and cognitive processes of each species being assessed. The assessment carried out here indicates appetitive behaviours essential for survival in the wild, together species-specific social and cognitive opportunities are likely to be important to the welfare of Asian elephant in captivity. The output of this assessment, for the first time, provides comprehensive species-specific psychological/welfare priorities for Asian elephants that should be used to inform husbandry guidelines, habitat design and management strategies and can also provide a valuable reference tool for Asian elephant welfare assessment. The effective application of these insights could lead to substantive improvements in captive Asian elephant welfare.

For many species, zoo environments provide unprecedented opportunities to protect the physical health of animals evidenced by enhanced longevity for numerous taxa in captivity. However, the potential benefits to physical health that captivity can bring to wild animals frequently comes at the expense of their psychological wellbeing; the more control and oversight humans have over animals and their environment, the better placed they are to protect their physical well- being, but the less free animals are to experience species appropriate psychological opportunities. A mechanism capable of identifying the relative welfare significance of behaviours and cognitive process would allow zoo designers and managers to focus resources where they will have the great- est impact on welfare and to more effectively balance the psychological and physical needs of man- aged animals necessary to deliver peak welfare. This is likely to be one of the most fertile fields for advancing zoo animal welfare in the coming years. Here a novel methodology is outlined that has been developed to identify behavioural and cognitive priorities that should form the foundation of both habitat design principles, as well as subsequent management strategies.

Its now 25 years since EAZA released Issue #1 of its quarterly magazine and I was delighted to be asked to provide an editorial reflecting on what the next 25 years for zoo animal welfare might look like. I've always felt that conservation was the mandate of zoos and animal welfare was our license to operate, and in the article I try and make the case that zoos will never fulfil their conservation potential unless they more effectively address concerns relating to animal welfare, and to do that, zoos need to consider a different approach to welfare than that which prevails over much of our community. In the article I encourage zoos to consider a different approach to achieving what I call 'peak welfare'; currently the desire for zoos to demonstrate their commitment to welfare has led many to focus on what can be measured and therefore demonstrated, rather than what really matters to the animals in our care. And so, I make the case we need to focus on the meaningful rather than the measurable and be mindful that prioritising the more tangible aspects of welfare and animal care, such as those relating to physical wellbeing, can frequently occur at the expense of an animal's psychological wellbeing; the very essence of of what animal welfare is. I also encourage zoos to consider a concept I've called 'species welfare' which encourages us to consider the welfare of populations now and into the future, an approach embracing both welfare and conservation as integrated disciplines. I believe this better reflects the future role of zoos as guardians of both biodiversity and wellbeing, as opposed to considering welfare and conservation as two separate and potentially competing disciplines with distinct interest groups as is currently the case. The 100th issue of Zooquaria can be found in the link below. *Please note there was an autocorrected typographic error in publishing where stereotypies was changed to stereotypes.

Despite the diversity of animal welfare definitions, most recognise the centrality of the feelings of animals which are currently impossible to measure directly. As a result, animal welfare assessment is heavily reliant upon the indirect measurement of factors that either affect what animals feel, or are effected by how they feel. Physiological and health orientated measures have emerged as popular metrics for assessing welfare because they are quantifiable, can effect and be affected by how animals feel and have merits regardless of their relationship to the feelings of animals. However, their popularity in animal welfare assessment has led to them having a disproportionate influence on animal management to the detriment of animal welfare in numerous instances. Here, the case is made that a tension exists between management that prioritizes aspects of care reflecting popular animal welfare metrics such as those relating to physical health, and management that emphasizes psychological wellbeing. By reexamining the relative merits of physical and psychological priorities in animal management, an alternate animal welfare paradigm emerges less tied to traditional welfare metrics. This paradigm theorizes about the possibility for an optimal animal welfare state to exist where managed animal populations provided essential psychological outlets but protected from key physical stressors routinely experienced in the wild, might experience higher levels of welfare than wild populations would routinely experience. The proposition that optimal animal welfare could theoretically be achieved in well managed and well designed captive environments challenges a widely held ethical perspective that captivity is inherently bad for animal welfare.

Animal Welfare 1996, 5: 139-153 To assess the validity of using wild behavioural data as a welfare indicator for zoo animals, the time budgets of 19 captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), from four zoos were compared with the time budgets of wild giraffe from Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. Differences were shown to exist between the behaviour of wild and captive giraffe. However, only the duration of lying differed significantly across zoos. Correlations demonstrated that both enclosure size and feed restriction affected the locomotor activity of giraffe. An attempt to quantify observer influence upon the behaviour of wild giraffe was made. Different methods of observation were shown to significantly affect the time budget established. The extent to which wild giraffe behaviour can be used as a welfare indicator for captive conspecifics is discussed, as are the problems inherent in such a study. The difficulties in constructing an alternative welfare measure using prevalence to veterinary problems, are briefly considered. Methods by which captive giraffe welfare can be improved are discussed, particularly concerning the provision of browse to allow more natural feeding patterns to be established.

Animal Welfare 1996, 5: 13-24 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-peiformance of some wild-type behaviours does not necessarily compromise animal welfare, unless welfare is defined as being compromised by such non-peiformance. The flexibility of wild animal behaviour and the fact that animals free to peiform the complete range of wild behaviours can suffer, must also put into the question the validity of such compansons. Technical criticisms also anse 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-peiformance of wild behaviours results in impoverished welfare.

The welfare of elephants is an enormous challenge for zoos in terms of animal husbandry, financial cost and public perception. This chapter's aim is not to discuss whether elephants should be held in captivity: resolving this issue would involve sound data on the costs and benefits of keeping them in zoos, and reconciling the diverse ethical beliefs of different people. Instead, we review how animal welfare is assessed scientifically; discuss what is known about these various techniques for elephants; survey the evidence concerning population-level welfare of elephants in zoos; summarize the possible causes of reduced welfare amongst captive elephants; review the (disturbingly sparse) information that has been collated to test some of these ideas; and discuss what future work is needed to objectively evaluate the psychological welfare of zoo elephants.