should small children feed animals in zoos?

P

Pertinax

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
Following the recent 'E Coli' scare in the UK , where several 'Petting Farms'(the Americanised term now being used by the UK Press) have temporarily closed due to children having contracted bacterial infections believed to be from contact with animals, what do ZooChatters think about this?

I mentioned elsewhere that feeding of hoofstock at the West Midlands Safari Park is allowed(even encouraged with pelleted food supplied) and antelope like Eland and Nilgai approach to be fed by hand from cars. Saliva (and there's plenty of it) from these animals can easily be transferred if a small child feeds then sucks its fingers shortly afterward and there are no handwashing facilities in a situation like this.

I think this could create a potentially dangerous situation.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be suprised if Longleat ceased it's deer feeding after this. After closing the Monkey Jungle for the whole season due to Simian Herpes, I wouldn't think they'd want anymore disease scares.
 
It is, like so many similar issues, a case of rampant paranoia and media scaremongering. Children have to be allowed to take educated risks, or they will never have any FUN.

A world without any risk at all would be a dull place. If it starts getting to dozens of children a year getting seriously ill, then maybe I'll accept there's a problem. Until then, let's go on allowing people to take some personal reponsibility and work out for themselves if they are happy with the risk levels.

I would add that I have a suspicion these children are more susceptible to E. coli infection than they would otherwise be because they've probably been kept away from dirt all their lives by parents understandably terrified by media reports of 'killer viruses' and 'lethal bacteria'.

I'm going to stop now, as I'm starting to sound like a letter to the Daily Mail. But I think stopping children from having reasonable contact with animals is ridiculous.


EDIT: I know I said I was going to stop, but I just wanted to add that I understand entirely why the farms affected have shut themselves down for now. Unfortunately, as the modern world cannot understand risk it also cannot understand that something can happen without it being someone's fault - and there'd be nothing worse for a place like White Post than being blamed (as they would be) for a child's illness. Such a shame.
 
Last edited:
Blackduiker

On my last couple of visits to the Los Angeles Zoo's Children's Zoo, Ive noticed that they have discontinued entrance to the contact petting area. Seems they have other "educational" programs planned for the future. Years ago, they discontinued the contact area due to a tuberculosis outbreak.
 
It's annoying, Bristol zoo don't let you handle reptiles anymore because of the salmonella risk whilst I have 3 living in my bedroom and I'm fine!
It's because the swine flu panic is over so the media need other things to make people worry about ;)
 
At Lincoln Park Zoo, we use to have a strict policy of no touching for children under the age of 6, pregnant women and the elderly. Now, it's left up to the parent or individual. We offer a squirt of hand sanitizer. We don't allow children who are eating or sticking their hands in their mouth to touch and we remind everyone to wash their hands before eating.
 
I'm with Maguari on this one...

The media will sensationalize anything they can get their grubby mitts on if they think it'll boost their ratings. The degree of the actual problem being reported is usually far weaker than it is made to appear.

Yes, there is a risk with ANY animal contact. Mammals, birds, reptiles, whatever. No, it is not unreasonable. Yes, disease transfer can be completely prevented by taking simple and easy-to-remember precautions. The liquid hand sanitizer mentioned by another poster is one of the best possible tools to prevent such problems, second only to actual soap-and-water washing with antibacterial soap.

Another good point: Without exposure to various diseases, we would have no immunity at all. Think "Boy in the Bubble" syndrome.

If feeding or other animal interaction is permitted at a given place, by all means let it happen! Both parents and kids should know enough to take common-sense precautions afterwards.

I'm far more worried about 'Nature Deficit Disorder' than I would be about any sort of disease risk.

Happy travels.
 
I think young children should be able to feed animals, but yes the germ is quite clear.
Perhaps it children could feed the animals through cups or with antibacterial gloves?
 
zoogeek said:
At Lincoln Park Zoo, we use to have a strict policy of no touching for children under the age of 6, pregnant women and the elderly. Now, it's left up to the parent or individual. We offer a squirt of hand sanitizer. We don't allow children who are eating or sticking their hands in their mouth to touch and we remind everyone to wash their hands before eating.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I would run things. Let people know there's a (very slight) risk, provide disinfectant if people are concerned and then let them make their own mind up. Very admirable.

And in truth, that's how most British places have been operating up until this latest controversy (and, I suspect, how they will continue to once something else has taken the media attention away).
 
I agree with Maguary's first post. Children raised in overly clean environments are prone to infections and reducing their contact with microbers and merms will just make it worse. One zoo I went to my kids 2,5,7 fed Kangaroos, 4 species of deer, Emus, Ostriches, wallabies and cammels. It would have been a much less exciting day for them if they did not feed any.
 
These kinds of things are what sucks the life out of childhood and our children. They're also a continuation of our social need for "blame" to be laid, it's absolutely tragic.

We don't particularly have any petting instances here, aside from the reptile talk at 3pm where a snake may be touched while a trained educational staff member holds it. Alcohol gel is insisted upon after this, as in people are made aware that it must be used and anyone unhappy with that can simply not have their children touch a snake.

I guess I'd be in trouble for letting Sam, a 9 year old terminally ill boy and his younger brothers come with me into the Radiated tortoise paddock to feed carrot sticks to and pet these majestic animals, which do respond to touch. It was one of the few things I showed them that afternoon that really brought this child out of his shell with an unforgettable smile on his face, it brought tears to his parents eyes and gave his whole family a wonderful day. Afterwards I helped him use alcohol gel on his hands and instructed them all on how to do the same.
That I should have been too afraid to do that in this day and age for fear of blame is a sad testament to the society we inhabit now :(
 
I am secretly wishing the title of this thread was "Should small children BE fed TO animals in zoos"
 
Many children nowadays grow up in a restricted environment, watching TV all day and going no further outdoors than the garden. I've been lucky enough to grow up next to a wood where I grew up building dens, climbing trees and watching wildlife without adult supervision, but you hear so many things about how this was staple 'back in the day'. Last year, I found some badger hairs in there, and is this was some of the first evidence of these animals in there, I brought them back to the house. Whilst it gained interest from my family, if another child did the same thing they'd probably be recieved by a shriek then a very thorough hand washing.
In urban zoos like London and Bristol, you'll often find young children more awe-struck by the animals than in rural ones, as to them, even a sheep or pig in the farm section can be as impressive as any lion or gorilla. Now I know this sounds cliche, but zoos are one of the few ways people can gaze into the amazing world of wildlife and nature without waiting in a hide for several hours or taking a plane to Kenya, and this experience becomes even more 'real' when they have direct contact with the animal, as JerseyLotte's account proves. People need to understand is all it takes is a splodge of soap or handgel and then you can eat after animal contact, and it is not much different than touching their own pets, as Ash mentioned. Infact, people keeping guinea pigs are probably at more risk of catching a zoonotic disease than from a gecko which I keep, which proves it all.

The underlying message is that a little bit of dirt is better than none at all. Unforgettable experiences should not be put behind risks with low probabilities.
 
One should never underestimate the potential of zoonoses (and anthropozoonosis, too).

However, there is a healthy (sic) middle-ground between paranoid, oversensitive (and hardly realistic) bans of animal-human contact (in my opinion, one of the most important things zoos provide) and avoidable spreading of diseases due to lack of hygienes.

Zoos (and in particular their veterinary staff) should take care that a profound and professional hygiene regime is established, followed by all involved and constantly controlled. This won't guarantee 100% safety, but will decrease the chance of such accidents happening, and still allow (controlled) safe animal-human contact.
 
I gotta tell you, when I first read this post I read, "Should children be fed to animals in zoos" and then my answer was going to be, depends on the child. :)
 
Zoos need to take a stand on this and not be dictated to by the health and safety mafia.Obviously common sense needs to be used and the disinfectant gel is a great idea.I am lucky enough to have been in constant contact with the most diverse fauna from a very early stage (without any disinfectant gel as it happens) and I now have such a robust immune system that I basically have never had the slightest sniffle or any type of health problem( touch wood).There is a real danger to children from certain zoonoses becoming increasingly prevalent in Europe, which were not given much attention in the past as they were less of a problem- one example would be leishmaniosis.Most of these zoonoses, including several canine parasites, are far more of a problem with domestic pets than with zoo stock, and it is with domestic pets that there is an appreciable potential for these problems.
 
Sun Wukong said:
However, there is a healthy (sic) middle-ground between paranoid, oversensitive (and hardly realistic) bans of animal-human contact (in my opinion, one of the most important things zoos provide) and avoidable spreading of diseases due to lack of hygienes.
.
Click to expand...

To me stroking and handling small animals like rabbits, guinea pigs, reptiles,even feeding sheep & goats with adequate hygeine(washing facilties) on hand are all within the 'green light' zone as I'm the first to agree this sort of contact is hugely beneficial (at least for the children if not the animals!!;) )

But I still say offering food to a salivating, snuffling antelope which sticks its head into your car in a Safari Park, with no opportunity to wash a child's hands for maybe half an hour or more afterward, represents to me, a decided health risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top