Visitors excite primates in zoos

Chamove, Arnold S.; Hosey, Geoff; Schaetzel, Peter

doi:10.1002/zoo.1430070407

Cited by 193 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they provided the first demonstrations that species differences in welfare are nonrandom. Chamove and colleagues investigated how visitors affect zoo primates [30]. Across 12 species, they found that human proximity caused increases in activity.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method

Mason¹

2010

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

356

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method

Mason¹

2010

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

356

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While visitors can hypothetically be a negative, neutral, or positive influence on zoo animals (Hosey, 2000), the most common behavioural changes reported are generally interpreted as negative in terms of animal welfare. These include decreased social behaviour (Chamove et al, 1988, Glatston et al, 1984, Mallapur et al, 2005, Wood, 1998, increased abnormal behaviour (Blaney and Wells, 2004, Chamove et al, 1988, Mallapur and Chellam, 2002, Mallapur et al, 2005, Skyner et al, 2004, Wells, 2005 and increased aggression (Blaney and Wells, 2004, Chamove et al,1 988, Glatston et al, 1984, Kuhar, 2008, Mitchell et al, 1991, Wells, 2005. More recently, physiological changes indicative of decreased welfare have been reported in relationship to visitor-related variables in spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyii rufiventris; Davis et al, 2005) and black rhinoceros (Dicornis bicornis; Carlstead and Brown, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the presence or absence of visitors, the number of visitors appears to have a measureable effect on the behaviour of captive primate species (Birke, 2002, Chamove et al, 1988, Cooke and Schillaci, 2007, Fa, 1989, Glatston, 1984, Hosey and Druck, 1987, Kuhar, 2008, Mitchell et al, 1991, Skyner et al, 2004, Todd et al, 2006, Wells, 2005, Wood, 1998 and this variable is the most frequently reported in the literature. It is less clear whether there is a visitor density effect on other mammals commonly housed in zoos, due in part to the relatively few visitor effect studies carried out on non-primates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The visitor effect in petting zoo-housed animals: Aversive or enriching?

Farrand

Hosey

Buchanan‐Smith

2014

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies were carried out on the effect of visitors on mixed-breed goats, llama, and Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs housed in a petting zoo display within a safari park. In the first study we investigated the effect of the presence and density of visitors on the animals' behaviour and in the second, the effect of animal grooming by the visitors. We hypothesised that the animals' behaviour would be negatively affected by presence of visitors compared to periods of their absence, but this hypothesis was not fully supported by the data. Goat and llama behaviour was unaffected by the presence of the public, while the pigs showed decreased inactivity and social behaviour, both affiliative and aggressive, when visitors were present.All three study species exhibited increased levels of non-aggressive interaction with the public when visitor density was higher but the level of avoidance or aggression towards visitors was not dependent on density. The goats were less often in physical contact with other goats and less likely to be within proximity of a non-conspecific when visitor numbers were high, whereas the pigs showed decreased feeding, a behaviour that constituted a majority of their activity budget. Species differences were observed in the proportion of samples the study groups interacted in a non-aggressive manner with visitors, goats being most likely and llama the least likely to engage in this behaviour. In the second study visitors were provided with a grooming tool and asked to groom the animals, but no significant behavioural change was observed in either goats or pigs as a result. Visitors groomed goats, but not pigs, more than they interacted with them in non-grooming interactions, and goats, but not pigs, responded less to grooming as visitor density increased.Although significant behavioural changes in all three study species were associated with either visitor presence or density, the low levels of avoidance of visitors, visitor-directed aggression, or animaldirected aggression, suggest the welfare of the study animals was not profoundly impacted by visitorrelated stimuli. Furthermore, there was no evidence that grooming by the public was enriching for the animals. The species differences reported here do suggest, however, that Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs and 3 llama are more sensitive to visitor pressure than goats and particular attention to their welfare may be necessary when they are housed in petting zoo displays.

show abstract

“…Hosey argued that if the latter was true then captive animals housed in accommodation that was both exposed to, and away from, visitors would not show significant differences in behaviour. The literature shows that this prediction is clearly not true (Glaston, et al 1984;Mitchell et al, 1991;Chamove et al, 1988). In other words, evidence seems to imply that it is the audience that causes changes in animal behaviour and not vice versa, although Hosey suggested that there is probably an element of both forces to some degree (with the visitor effect dominating).…”

Section: Visitors and Their Effectsmentioning

confidence: 93%