Assessing Animal Welfare in Animal-Visitor Interactions in Zoos and Other Facilities. A Pilot Study Involving Giraffes

Abstract

Simple SummaryA pilot test of a six-step protocol to evaluate animal-visitor interactions was developed on a “giraffe feeding” program in a zoo. The steps devoted to animal welfare’s assessment are presented in this paper. We observed the giraffes’ behaviour, evaluated the suitability of the area in which the interactions took place, and assessed the intensity of various hazards for animal welfare. The long-term goal of this research project is to test a protocol for the overall evaluation of the quality of animal-visitor interactions in zoos and other facilities. Giraffes could choose whether to participate or not to the feeding interactions with visitors, and did not show any behaviour that suggested they did find the interaction to be a negative experience, so their welfare level was assessed as not to be adversely affected by the interaction with the visitors.AbstractIn recent years, awareness of the controversial aspects connected with wild animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) in zoos and other facilities has increased due to cultural changes. Therefore, the need to apply transparent procedures to evaluate AVIs programs in zoos and similar facilities has also increased. This study presents results of animal welfare’s assessment of a pilot test of a protocol based on six steps that aim to explore and assess the overall value of AVIs considering the impact both on animals and visitors. In the present paper, we discuss the multifaceted approach to animal welfare assessment during animal-visitor interactions, combining quantitative behavioural observations/analysis and a welfare risk-assessment procedure, which forms the basis of the six-step protocol. Pilot testing of said approach to animal welfare assessment involved giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) in an Italian zoo. No change in behaviour, suggestive of an increased welfare risk to the animals, was found. The risk analysis reported overall low risks for welfare, whereas enclosure analysis highlighted that the enclosure was suitable for allowing interactions without jeopardising animal welfare, mainly because it allowed animals to choose whether to interact or withdraw from interactions without decreasing the space available to them.

First Insights into the Urinary Metabolome of Captive Giraffes by Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

“…In these structures, however, giraffes may be subjected to sources of stress that reverberate negatively on individual and social behaviors [3]. Causes of stress could be represented by the presence of visitors and attendants [4]. Among the efforts that have been made to reduce the stressors, some are devoted to developing protocols to evaluate their general health status that do not involve immobilization, but are based on indirect methods [3].…”

A Protocol for the Ethical Assessment of Wild Animal–Visitor Interactions (AVIP) Evaluating Animal Welfare, Education, and Conservation Outcomes

“…All visitors gave their consent for inclusion before they participated. Neither animal care license nor approval of ethical committees was therefore needed [ 14 ]. The biopark offers visitors both activities, such talks in which biologists and keepers give additional information of some target species housed in the park (e.g., penguins, Serengeti animals, and lemurs), and experiences allowing direct contact and interactions with giraffes, tortoises, and birds of prey.…”

“…A keeper accompanied the visitors to the outdoor area of the night enclosure, near the fence dividing the night from the day enclosure, while the giraffes were in the day enclosure ( Figure 1 ). (For an aerial view of the giraffes’ enclosure see also [ 14 ]).…”

“…A detailed description of the animal welfare assessment of the “giraffe feeding” interaction is given in Normando et al [ 14 ] (see also Table A1 ).…”

“…The first assessment area of the protocol consists of a multi-facetted approach to evaluate animal welfare during the interaction (for more details about steps from A to C1, see Normando et al [ 14 ] where the application of this assessment area to the AVI example of “giraffe feeding” is discussed. Some suggestions on this approach are provided in the following).…”