Enclosure Size Versus Animal Behaviour

[Jurek7]

Dear Dabhidh,
The topics which interest you were discussed many times over the years on this forum, to the point that some older members feel tired to explain the same to yet another newcomer. I heartily recommend reading archives of this forum, and also browsing for papers referenced on Pubmed, which has really lots of studies on animal welfare and improving it from several decades.

Are you aware, for example, that zoo animals escaping from their exhibits often return to them voluntarily, or that exhibits for many non-dangerous animals have barriers which these animals could breach, but they feel comfortable inside and don't bother?

It might be useful in future to collect some information on animal welfare in zoos as a reading for newcomers. However, so far nobody sat down to do it.

 

[Lafone]

I started this thread with an enquiry of

"Have there been any studies done on zoo or wildlife park enclosure size versus animal behaviour?"

And having spoken to friends, they assumed the same as me regarding enclosure size. So it seems a natural thing to have done. In fact I've now read that studies have shown that zoo visitors prefer larger enclosure sizes, but they still want to see the animals too. And that can be difficult if they are in the distance at the far side of an enclosure that is not accessible.

Although I agree with you when it comes to "zoo versus wild" re tigers, my understanding is that the black bear population in North America is pretty stable and they are not endangered. The figures I've seen range from 600,000 to 900,000 bears. In fact I've read in California the population has gone up substantially. So dangerous animals can exist in the wild and they do not always have to go extinct. It depends on the animal, the country and the attitude of the people I assume.

Are you happy to see black bears living in the wild in North America? Or do you think they are safer in zoos?

At no point has anyone in this thread suggested removing animals from the wild into zoos completely.

I’d simply make the same point I made before - animals should be supported in the wild and preserved in zoos and both are important in an imperfect world.

 

[Dabhidh]

There are indeed black bear, coyote and the occasional wolf in the suburbs in which I live. Many people would have them eliminated but there is a strong conservation ethos that encourages us to live with them. A zoo not far from here built a black bear exhibit specifically to help area visitors appreciate the animals and learn how to live with them..But have you pulled a switch on us? You began the thread, as you say, with "wouldn't zoo animals benefit from larger enclosures" and now you want to discuss "do predators need to be in zoos at all"
I have to question whether your interest was ever in improving animal welfare in zoos at all but that there was something else going on.

Let me try to be clearer then.

I would like more types of animals to live in the wild in Scotland, but I think that is not a realistic possibility at present. Because that is not possible, I would like zoos and parks to be as good as possible for the animals in them and I thought (as many people do) that more enclosure space will improve the life of the animals. I have no hidden agenda which you seem to be implying.

People have made the point about enrichment in enclosures and I fully accept that is very important.

I support zoos as a means of conservation to prevent extinction, but would obviously prefer if the animals were free in their own natural habitat. That's why I believe each country should set aside space for their wildlife. As a Scot that's what I believe Scotland should do. Don't expect others to do what you would not do yourself. Seems very reasonable to me.

 

[Dabhidh]

At no point has anyone in this thread suggested removing animals from the wild into zoos completely.

I’d simply make the same point I made before - animals should be supported in the wild and preserved in zoos and both are important in an imperfect world.

And I agree with your point!

 

[Dabhidh]

Dear Dabhidh,
The topics which interest you were discussed many times over the years on this forum, to the point that some older members feel tired to explain the same to yet another newcomer. I heartily recommend reading archives of this forum, and also browsing for papers referenced on Pubmed, which has really lots of studies on animal welfare and improving it from several decades.

Are you aware, for example, that zoo animals escaping from their exhibits often return to them voluntarily, or that exhibits for many non-dangerous animals have barriers which these animals could breach, but they feel comfortable inside and don't bother?

It might be useful in future to collect some information on animal welfare in zoos as a reading for newcomers. However, so far nobody sat down to do it.

Dear Jurek7

I don't read, or get involved, in forum posts that don't interest me. Maybe you should try that as it might help you feel less tired.

Your point about zoo animals escaping does not surprise me.

In a successful forum there will always be newcomers who ask questions about subjects which have been discussed before. There is no compulsion for older members to get involved in a discussion if they feel tired of it.

 

[amur leopard]

I don't read, or get involved, in forum posts that don't interest me. Maybe you should try that as it might help you feel less tired.

Your point about zoo animals escaping does not surprise me.

In a successful forum there will always be newcomers who ask questions about subjects which have been discussed before. There is no compulsion for older members to get involved in a discussion if they feel tired of it.

I think the issue here is that you posted this thread on a subject that has already been discussed a multitude of times on the site, and that @Jurek7 therefore felt the need to point this out. It's not really to do with how successful the forum is, but for future reference actually try and find out if the subject has been discussed before. In the vast majority of cases, your questions will have been answered before, particularly on such a well-trodden path as that presented in your thread.

As for your points, there have been any number of studies conducted suggesting that animals from a multitude of classes, when housed in expansive and spacious exhibits, tend to only use a small percentage of the exhibit. The only taxa that are generally accepted to need more space (relative to the typical area they are given in large, say, European zoos) are large, wide-ranging carnivores, elephants and cetaceans. And even within these groups, there exists massive variability not only between species but also between individual animals. So the truth is, most animals, when the necessity to hunt and find a mate are removed, are perfectly fine with a smaller exhibit as long as they have sufficient stimulation. Of course this varies immensely on a case by case basis and I'm sure you could find a series of studies indicating otherwise for specific taxa but that is the general consensus from the literature I've come across.

Just as a specific example, Frezard and Le Pape (2003) concluded that wolves in large enclosures spent significantly more time resting than those in small enclosures and that behavioural changes between different packs was affected far more by group makeup than enclosure size. This completely bucks the trend when it comes to wide-ranging carnivores, where several studies indicated that similar species in terms of range etc. reacted to captivity in a less positive manner. So the reality is that your question is far too vague and no straight, all-encompassing answer can be given.

 

[Dabhidh]

Hi Amur,

Hopefully zoo forums veterans will see my name against a post and ignore it. Its not down to me to know what they know and what they don't know.

I'm glad you mentioned wolves.

In the BBC series "In the Zoo" "enrichment" is given to wolves in the Highland Wildlife Park by feeding them at varied times and putting the food out in different places.

So the wolves have to "seek it out". Enrichment seemingly!

When the viewer sees this in action the wolves cover the 1 acre ground very quickly and find the food immediately.

Its obvious from the tone of the keepers voices that they have their doubts about the quality of this "enrichment".

Btw a short history of wolves in the Highland Wildlife Park. (The one I know of anyway.) Long ago (30-40 years ago I reckon) a pack of them used to live in a field. One day I went and they were gone. Instead there was a sign up by the field saying the wolves were no longer behaving like a pack and had been put down. Something had obviously gone very wrong. I never found out what.

That's an aside to show that things don't always go well - zoo science or no zoo science.

As for the "any number of studies" re enclosure size I still have my doubts. Why? Because it is far too convenient. Small enclosures mean reduced costs. The desired answer could easily drive the study.

There have been examples from the past where research has been driven by financial imperatives, e.g. the tobacco industry producing studies and reports about the lack of harm of cigarette smoking. They even used experts!

And it simply doesn't make any sense. Any animal like a big carnivore will want to explore. Well fed or not. If they are happy, they will be inquisitive. And running across 10 acres - as opposed to 1 acre - to get food means a wolf gets more exercise. And gets the benefits of that exercise. Even more "enrichment".

As for coming to "general concensus". National populations (including scientists) in the past have come to a general concensus that certain political leaders were a good idea. Only to be proved terribly wrong. Just because millions of people believe something, it doesn't make them right.

So I'll stick with my doubts.

 

[amur leopard]

In the BBC series "In the Zoo" "enrichment" is given to wolves in the Highland Wildlife Park by feeding them at varied times and putting the food out in different places.

So the wolves have to "seek it out". Enrichment seemingly!

When the viewer sees this in action the wolves cover the 1 acre ground very quickly and find the food immediately.

Its obvious from the tone of the keepers voices that they have their doubts about the quality of this "enrichment".

Btw a short history of wolves in the Highland Wildlife Park. (The one I know of anyway.) Long ago (30-40 years ago I reckon) a pack of them used to live in a field. One day I went and they were gone. Instead there was a sign up by the field saying the wolves were no longer behaving like a pack and had been put down. Something had obviously gone very wrong. I never found out what.

That's an aside to show that things don't always go well - zoo science or no zoo science.

You realise that you are citing the keepers' reactions on a TV show and a fairly irrelevant personal anecdote as proof that wolves need space over a study analysing six different wolf packs in varied enclosure sizes and types, right? I'd be more willing to value your opinion highly if you were to come up with something more than circumstantial evidence in the form of your impression of the body language of a couple of keepers, but for now I have nothing more to say on the matter of wolves except to urge you to look into the study I mentioned and others like it that come to similar conclusions.

As for your story about the HWP wolves - it does happen (and much more frequently in the wild at that) and unfortunately from time to time there are problems within a group.

As for the "any number of studies" re enclosure size I still have my doubts. Why? Because it is far too convenient. Small enclosures mean reduced costs. The desired answer could easily drive the study.

There have been examples from the past where research has been driven by financial imperatives, e.g. the tobacco industry producing studies and reports about the lack of harm of cigarette smoking. They even used experts!

You need to just slow down a bit here I think - today's atmosphere is very much one of suspicion and doubt around everything, and rightfully so at times given the state of leadership in particular, but suggesting that zoos pay off or even fund research with an implicit agreement that the data won't be damaging is ridiculous.

These are studies for independent, peer-reviewed journals with often big reputations - they wouldn't be publishing studies with questionable methods or data analysis. These studies are for the improvement of zoos, not to tell them that they are perfect. The example you give is of a ruthless and highly-lucrative drug industry manipulating studies to give favourable results in the mid-20th Century. Here we are talking about independent studies on mostly non-profit institutions for the advancement of science in the 21st Century. They are completely different matters and your comparison is moot.

And it simply doesn't make any sense. Any animal like a big carnivore will want to explore. Well fed or not. If they are happy, they will be inquisitive. And running across 10 acres - as opposed to 1 acre - to get food means a wolf gets more exercise. And gets the benefits of that exercise. Even more "enrichment".

As for coming to "general concensus". National populations (including scientists) in the past have come to a general concensus that certain political leaders were a good idea. Only to be proved terribly wrong. Just because millions of people believe something, it doesn't make them right.

You talk about expanding enclosures tenfold as if it is nothing - are you the one paying for it? It's easier said than done. Furthermore, I've literally quoted a study in the post you are replying to that says you are completely wrong in your assertion! You need to come back with concrete and reliable studies that prove your point, particularly in relation to wolves, and then your points will be taken seriously - otherwise your argument is founded on plucking random numbers out of thin air.

As for the consensus point, again, your comparison is completely off - scientists don't evaluate whether political leaders are a 'good idea', nor is this situation anything like what we are faced with here. I think you'll find the scientific consensus is very often correct, and it's frustrating that an individual such as yourself with little to no experience working with or researching wolves believes those who have are wrong. I'd urge you to re-examine why you think what you do and what evidence supports you in terms of reliable, peer-reviewed studies and come back to me.

 

[Aardwolf]

As a zoo professional, I'm slightly amused at the idea of having enough money to bribe anyone.

 

[Lafone]

Hi Amur,

Hopefully zoo forums veterans will see my name against a post and ignore it. Its not down to me to know what they know and what they don't know.

I'm glad you mentioned wolves.

In the BBC series "In the Zoo" "enrichment" is given to wolves in the Highland Wildlife Park by feeding them at varied times and putting the food out in different places.

So the wolves have to "seek it out". Enrichment seemingly!

When the viewer sees this in action the wolves cover the 1 acre ground very quickly and find the food immediately.

Its obvious from the tone of the keepers voices that they have their doubts about the quality of this "enrichment".

Btw a short history of wolves in the Highland Wildlife Park. (The one I know of anyway.) Long ago (30-40 years ago I reckon) a pack of them used to live in a field. One day I went and they were gone. Instead there was a sign up by the field saying the wolves were no longer behaving like a pack and had been put down. Something had obviously gone very wrong. I never found out what.

That's an aside to show that things don't always go well - zoo science or no zoo science.

As for the "any number of studies" re enclosure size I still have my doubts. Why? Because it is far too convenient. Small enclosures mean reduced costs. The desired answer could easily drive the study.

There have been examples from the past where research has been driven by financial imperatives, e.g. the tobacco industry producing studies and reports about the lack of harm of cigarette smoking. They even used experts!

And it simply doesn't make any sense. Any animal like a big carnivore will want to explore. Well fed or not. If they are happy, they will be inquisitive. And running across 10 acres - as opposed to 1 acre - to get food means a wolf gets more exercise. And gets the benefits of that exercise. Even more "enrichment".

As for coming to "general concensus". National populations (including scientists) in the past have come to a general concensus that certain political leaders were a good idea. Only to be proved terribly wrong. Just because millions of people believe something, it doesn't make them right.

So I'll stick with my doubts.

If your doubts rely on equating zoos with either big tobacco or political leaders then they are highly unlikely to find any foundation in fact.

Those topics are actually all unrelated and form a poor basis for dismissing years of scientific research.

In these times where science is frequently regarded as bunk and far too easily dismissed by ‘opinion’ I am very wary of any trend that seeks to equate an enthusiasm for hammers with the ability to be a brain surgeon.

By all means have your opinions but they don’t make for informed discussion and they can’t be presented or tested as fact.

 

[PossumRoach]

Are you happy to see black bears living in the wild in North America? Or do you think they are safer in zoos?

I know that this statement that I am replying is more than two days old and I feel like throwing my two cents to this statement.

First of all, one’s preference to see animals in the wild probably doesn’t change that most zoos are safer for the animals. Something about your question seems flawed.

To add up to what Zooplantman said, most blcak bears in (good or functional) American zoos are kept there because the animals in question are given to them by their respective state’s fish and wildlife authority as either orphan, with an injury that could impede its survival in the wild, or because they are too dependent on human leftovers and won’t go back to the forest where they belong. Any animal in such circumstances aren’t safe in the wild nor the suburbs. I doubt anyone would feel happy to see vulnerable animals with disadvantages to live on their own in the wild. Which is why zoos take in these animals.

Not to mention, as far as I know black bears are not bred in AZA zoos so captive bred animals don’t take up space for animals in need of help. This goes for many native animals kept in AZA zoos. Not to mention that this is (probably) the logic why the federal Fish and Wildlife Services prohibit the breeding of unreleasable native birds and sea mammals such as sea otters, manatees, and polar bears.

I would also like to mention that bear hunting is still legal in some parts of the US, so yes, many black bears are still safer in (good) zoos than in the wild.

 

[PossumRoach]

Not to mention, as far as I know black bears are not bred in AZA zoos so captive bred animals don’t take up space for animals in need of help. This goes for many native animals kept in AZA zoos. Not to mention that this is (probably) the logic why the federal Fish and Wildlife Services prohibit the breeding of unreleasable native birds and sea mammals such as sea otters, manatees, and polar bears.

Replying to myself because I cannot edit the post anymore.

I bring the non breeding because this shows that good zoos rather save up space for animals in peril rather than breed their native wildlife so visitors could coo at black bear cubs or white-tailed deer fawns. They do this because they care for the safety for many animals in the wild.

 

[Zooplantman]

In the United States black bears are not a big problem. On the other hand, about 35% of the public only believes whatever supports their existing beliefs. Every other fact is suspect or compromised or lies. When faced with facts they will fall back on "well that is your opinion." A recent White House Press Secretary referred to "alternative facts".These people cannot be reasoned with. At my age I can't be spending time trying to have a reasoned discussion with anyone who dismisses reason itself.

 

[Coelacanth18]

As for coming to "general concensus".

Just because millions of people believe something, it doesn't make them right.
So I'll stick with my doubts.

Then what is the point of this entire discussion? You ask for studies and evidence, they're provided to you, and then you doubt them because you don't trust in general consensus? What was it you were expecting from us then - unquestioning agreement? Wrong forum for that we have intense arguments over way more trivial differences in opinion than whether we trust scientific consensus or not.

 

[Dabhidh]

Then what is the point of this entire discussion? You ask for studies and evidence, they're provided to you, and then you doubt them because you don't trust in general consensus? What was it you were expecting from us then - unquestioning agreement? Wrong forum for that we have intense arguments over way more trivial differences in opinion than whether we trust scientific consensus or not.

The point of this discussion for me is that I asked a question and got an answer I didn't expect. So I questioned it. And I did read some (not all) of the links provided to support the answer, but I still questioned the results. Sometimes you just don't like what you are reading - I guess some of you think that about my posts

And people have tried to convince me I'm wrong. I'm fine with that.

I mentioned the tobacco industry and disputes about science, but I could have mentioned the sugar sector, the processed food sector, the medical sector, the fishing sector, or many other sectors. Money really does affect how people think. It is the elephant in the room for so many subjects these days.

So let me try to explain my thought process again. I "guess" (never guess!) the people who funded and produced these studies are interested in zoos and animal conservation. That's good by me.

What if the answer they came up with was that some animals (say wolves) actually needed very large spaces to be happier? And enrichment alone would not "cut the mustard" as they say here.

How would the zoo sector have dealt with this? Provide very large spaces? That's very expensive. And maybe it is not practical or possible? Not keep wolves in zoos? So no zoo conservation for wolves then?

How do you think the authors of the study would have been treated? Would they get more funding for more research that came up with another answer the zoo sector did not want to hear? Would zoos have produced other studies to prove them wrong?

The answer I was given to my question here was simply very hard for me believe. Is a cage still a cage? Is an enclosure still an enclosure? Is an exhibit still a prison? What animal would not want as much freedom and space as possible? Providing it also felt safe and secure. So the answer I was given simply led me to other questions.

That is not an unusual thing to happen.

 

[amur leopard]

Sometimes you just don't like what you are reading - I guess some of you think that about my posts

Look - if you aren't open to changing your views or at least reviewing your assumptions about this subject (of which you appear to have made many), then what do you expect from us? We aren't here to throw words at a brick wall.

I mentioned the tobacco industry and disputes about science, but I could have mentioned the sugar sector, the processed food sector, the medical sector, the fishing sector, or many other sectors. Money really does affect how people think. It is the elephant in the room for so many subjects these days.

Right, expect all those sectors are for profit. And furthermore do you even know how many studies have been undertaken proving that these sectors are rife with malpractice? So your comparison is actually useful in showing that even in such money-driven industries, a good portion (I'd probably indicate the majority actually) of studies are critical of them, thus completely nullifying what you say about zoos.

So let me try to explain my thought process again. I "guess" (never guess!) the people who funded and produced these studies are interested in zoos and animal conservation. That's good by me.

What if the answer they came up with was that some animals (say wolves) actually needed very large spaces to be happier? And enrichment alone would not "cut the mustard" as they say here.

How would the zoo sector have dealt with this? Provide very large spaces? That's very expensive. And maybe it is not practical or possible? Not keep wolves in zoos? So no zoo conservation for wolves then?

How do you think the authors of the study would have been treated? Would they get more funding for more research that came up with another answer the zoo sector did not want to hear? Would zoos have produced other studies to prove them wrong?

Oh so you mean studies like this? Or like this? Or like this? Do some research before you post something so blatantly wrong. As for your assertion that an author that writes critical studies on zoos can do no further research, Ros Clubb, one of the authors of all three of the studies linked above, has published at least 28 studies that I could find since 2000 and 20 since 2003 when he published the article that is mostly pertinent to this discussion, that on wide-ranging carnivores. So no, believe it or not, zoos do not hunt down and kill scientists criticising them, they instead take on board the criticism and use it to improve.

Is an exhibit still a prison? What animal would not want as much freedom and space as possible?

No clue what you mean by the first sentence but the second sentence I can answer. Very many scientific studies have indicated that when given massive enclosures, animals showed neither lower cortisol levels nor improved behaviour. The fact is that the wild, while it does offer lots of space in some regards, comes with lots of other, more unpleasant things: diseases, poaching, habitat loss, starvation, thirst, stress, injury, fragmentation, I can go on and on. Of course certain enclosures in zoos need to be made larger, that is not a question - everyone in this site agrees. The assertion that the more space the better when nearly all evidence indicates that too much space isn't good however, is, at least in the current scientific climate, wrong, particularly when you factor in that zoos do not have unlimited money and land and that larger enclosures are harder to regulate for keepers.

 

[Zooplantman]

What if the answer they came up with was that some animals (say wolves) actually needed very large spaces to be happier? And enrichment alone would not "cut the mustard" as they say here.

How would the zoo sector have dealt with this? Provide very large spaces? That's very expensive. And maybe it is not practical or possible? Not keep wolves in zoos? So no zoo conservation for wolves then?

That is exactly what happened concerning elephants in AZA facilities. So AZA changed the standards and zoos that wished to keep elephants were obliged to build new (or expand existing) exhibits at costs of tens of millions of USD

As to "conservation for wolves" if the public zoo could no longer house them appropriately then satellite facilities would be used. Several zoos have separate conservation centers for precisely this sort of thing.

 

[Echobeast]

How would the zoo sector have dealt with this? Provide very large spaces?

Yes.

 

[Lafone]

The point of this discussion for me is that I asked a question and got an answer I didn't expect. So I questioned it. And I did read some (not all) of the links provided to support the answer, but I still questioned the results. Sometimes you just don't like what you are reading - I guess some of you think that about my posts

And people have tried to convince me I'm wrong. I'm fine with that.

I mentioned the tobacco industry and disputes about science, but I could have mentioned the sugar sector, the processed food sector, the medical sector, the fishing sector, or many other sectors. Money really does affect how people think. It is the elephant in the room for so many subjects these days.

So let me try to explain my thought process again. I "guess" (never guess!) the people who funded and produced these studies are interested in zoos and animal conservation. That's good by me.

What if the answer they came up with was that some animals (say wolves) actually needed very large spaces to be happier? And enrichment alone would not "cut the mustard" as they say here.

How would the zoo sector have dealt with this? Provide very large spaces? That's very expensive. And maybe it is not practical or possible? Not keep wolves in zoos? So no zoo conservation for wolves then?

How do you think the authors of the study would have been treated? Would they get more funding for more research that came up with another answer the zoo sector did not want to hear? Would zoos have produced other studies to prove them wrong?

The answer I was given to my question here was simply very hard for me believe. Is a cage still a cage? Is an enclosure still an enclosure? Is an exhibit still a prison? What animal would not want as much freedom and space as possible? Providing it also felt safe and secure. So the answer I was given simply led me to other questions.

That is not an unusual thing to happen.

The trouble is there are too many what ifs in your questions - speculation is ok but then there is reality.

As others have mentioned very large spaces are just not the only answer to the well-being of all species.

I think you also run the risk of anthropomorphising the animal population - prisons are a human concept not an animal one.

 

[TinoPup]

The point of this discussion for me is that I asked a question and got an answer I didn't expect. So I questioned it. And I did read some (not all) of the links provided to support the answer, but I still questioned the results. Sometimes you just don't like what you are reading - I guess some of you think that about my posts

And people have tried to convince me I'm wrong. I'm fine with that.

I mentioned the tobacco industry and disputes about science, but I could have mentioned the sugar sector, the processed food sector, the medical sector, the fishing sector, or many other sectors. Money really does affect how people think. It is the elephant in the room for so many subjects these days.

So let me try to explain my thought process again. I "guess" (never guess!) the people who funded and produced these studies are interested in zoos and animal conservation. That's good by me.

What if the answer they came up with was that some animals (say wolves) actually needed very large spaces to be happier? And enrichment alone would not "cut the mustard" as they say here.

How would the zoo sector have dealt with this? Provide very large spaces? That's very expensive. And maybe it is not practical or possible? Not keep wolves in zoos? So no zoo conservation for wolves then?

How do you think the authors of the study would have been treated? Would they get more funding for more research that came up with another answer the zoo sector did not want to hear? Would zoos have produced other studies to prove them wrong?

The answer I was given to my question here was simply very hard for me believe. Is a cage still a cage? Is an enclosure still an enclosure? Is an exhibit still a prison? What animal would not want as much freedom and space as possible? Providing it also felt safe and secure. So the answer I was given simply led me to other questions.

That is not an unusual thing to happen.

You are wrong. You came in here with an ignorant assumption. You've shown you don't know even the most basic things about zoos or how they work, like not knowing the EAZA exists. People have put in a lot of time replying to you and giving you actual evidence, but you're blowing it all off. Who do you think is going to pay for or be interested in these studies, if not for those invested in zoos and conservation? You cannot compare zoos to industries like tobacco, which are 100% about profit. Accredited zoos - the ones we're discussing here - are almost always non-profits, and are invested in the conservation and preservation of their species. They want what is best for their animals! Animals that are not healthy and happy don't help promote any of this, either. Cost is a factor in exhibits, sure, but when is cost ever not a factor in something?