Animal Contact in Zoos

[Javan Rhino]

On another thread, me and fellow forumite Paix were having a little discussion that was moving off-topic, so we have decided to carry it on here and invite other people to share their opinions.

Is it good or bad to allow members of the public to have contact with animals at the zoo, and even feed them in some cases? I am on the side of it is not a bad thing providing strict rules are followed. These rules being:

1) A keeper must always be on hand incase of any unforseen incidents, and to ensure that the public are feeding the animals only the food provided. (The food should always be provided by the zoo).
2) It should only be done at certain times in the day so that the animals are not overfed. The times should be made clear around the zoo to avoid dissapointment (particularly at the animal exhibit and the zoo entrance).
3) Handwash MUST be provided and visitors MUST use this both before AND after contact with the animals. Ideally, a member of staff should strictly enforce this rule so as not to spread any diseases etc.

Paix argues however that it takes away enrichment from things like scatter-feeds etc and that it may not be a good thing if they become to used to human contact (and see humans as a source of food). I agree with this point, especially if there are plans to try and reintroduce the animals into the wild at any point. He also argues that the handwash rule would not be enforced properly. So, what do you all think? Feel free to join in with your own opinions

 

[Sun Wukong]

There is one big, important issue that is only slightly touched by the "Handwash" aspect: the danger of transmitting zoonotic diseases, and what should not be forgotten, especially in regard to primates etc., anthroponotic diseases.

This issue is often neglected by the public and the staff alike, frowned upon as "disproportionate panicmongering" etc., but the truth is that this is an increasingly important matter that should not be underestimated and that entails far-reaching limitations on animal-human contact in zoos.
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vbz.2006.0639


What I'm missing, too, is the aspect of potential physical harm caused by a too carefree animal-human contact; again, this is a mutual issue, and the "fool factor" should not be ignored (i.e. people tend to do very stupid, very unreproducible and very harmful things when in contact with animals...).

 

[Paix]

There is one big, important issue that is only slightly touched by the "Handwash" aspect: the danger of transmitting zoonotic diseases, and what should not be forgotten, especially in regard to primates etc., anthroponotic diseases.

This issue is often neglected by the public and the staff alike, frowned upon as "disproportionate panicmongering" etc., but the truth is that this is an increasingly important matter that should not be underestimated and that entails far-reaching limitations on animal-human contact in zoos.
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases - 8(1):85


What I'm missing, too, is the aspect of potential physical harm caused by a too carefree animal-human contact; again, this is a mutual issue, and the "fool factor" should not be ignored (i.e. people tend to do very stupid, very unreproducible and very harmful things when in contact with animals...).

I agree with this, but I do think it applies in particular to mammals, there are also dangers with birds, but I believe walkthrough bird enclosure, with supervision, are acceptable. Although the bird type is a factor.

 

[Javan Rhino]

There is one big, important issue that is only slightly touched by the "Handwash" aspect: the danger of transmitting zoonotic diseases, and what should not be forgotten, especially in regard to primates etc., anthroponotic diseases.

This issue is often neglected by the public and the staff alike, frowned upon as "disproportionate panicmongering" etc., but the truth is that this is an increasingly important matter that should not be underestimated and that entails far-reaching limitations on animal-human contact in zoos.
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases - 8(1):85


What I'm missing, too, is the aspect of potential physical harm caused by a too carefree animal-human contact; again, this is a mutual issue, and the "fool factor" should not be ignored (i.e. people tend to do very stupid, very unreproducible and very harmful things when in contact with animals...).

I agree with your points here, but these are the sort of things I meant with 'unforseen incidents.' As for the diseases, I don't understand all of that fully, but I understand that even washing your hands both before and after can not fully protect (it is not the only way to pass something on).

Normally, I would say that it isn't a very good idea, yet many zoos/wildlife parks pull it off without any problems to visitors or animals. This makes me believe that it can and does work if done properly. These attractions go on to raise a little extra income for the zoo (helping to pay the hefty food bills) and provides a unique and memorable experiance for a visitor. If you want some examples, I shall list some that I have seen:

Rainbow Landings @ Edinburgh Zoo
Giraffe/Elephant Feeding @ Colchester Zoo
Giraffe and Other Ungulate Feeding @ West Midlands Safari Park
Lemur feeding (can't remember where, but I have done this)

This may not count as an example since it is not some 'advertised attraction,' but at Blair Drummond Safari Park me and my girlfriend got to hold a baby tawny owl (as did a few people who were interested). This is because they were trying to get it used to people and being handled.

 

[Sun Wukong]

The transmission of zoonotic diseases is not limited to mammals. Think of psittacosis, salmonellosis, mycobacterial infections...
Neither is the danger of physical harm both by and to the animals.

"but I understand that even washing your hands both before and after can not fully protect (it is not the only way to pass something on)." You are correct.

On the first look, it appears that "many zoos/wildlife parks pull it off without any problems to visitors or animals." Zoo vets and pathologists know otherwise, with a lot not being published due to being overlooked and not taken into account.

To show you the correlation in an example: Lorikeet feeding =>
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1593264?cookieSet=1

 

[Devi]

Surely if you feed animals then eat and thus get sick it's your own fault? Not sure if I'm missing something, but if you don't wash and get sick its not the zoos fault is it?

 

[Zooplantman]

Surely if you feed animals then eat and thus get sick it's your own fault? Not sure if I'm missing something, but if you don't wash and get sick its not the zoos fault is it?

If the zoo offered you the feeding opportunity and did not supervise your washing and every moment of your interaction with the animal, you cannot be expected to know the risks and proper protocols on your own.

There is another issue that bothers me: zoos presenting animals as playthings for visitors. At a time when society views everything as a disposable commodity, encouraging such a view of animals isn't helpful, IMO. As all of "nature" is already seen as "resources" for human exploitation, I believe one role for zoos is to say to visitors, "but not wildlife."

Giraffes become less magical and majestic when a flock of them rushes at you to grab a biscuit from you... like so many ducks in the city duck pond.

Some argue that these "encounters" deeply impress visitors with the wonder of animals. I doubt that.
I'd like to see a study of visitor reactions before and after such events. And a follow up on visitor attitudes a year later.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Surely if you feed animals then eat and thus get sick it's your own fault? Not sure if I'm missing something, but if you don't wash and get sick its not the zoos fault is it?

It also depends on the disease and the national legal system. If the transmitted disease is a notifiable zoonosis that the zoo should have monitored its lifestock upon and could have prophylactically prevented (if possible), but failed to do so, then the zoo could be charged.

I agree with Zooplantman; sometimes, even such supervised animal contact could be problematic. Not only because of the conveyed attitude he already mentioned, but also in regard to some people believing that they could pet and feed the oh so "tame" zoo animal even when no supervisor is around.