Considering What Animals “Need to Do” in Enclosure Design: Questions on Bird Flight and Aviaries
Author:
Rose Paul1ORCID, Freeman Marianne2ORCID, Hickey Ian3, Kelly Robert1ORCID, Greenwell Phillip4
Affiliation:
1. Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK 2. Sparsholt College Hampshire, University Centre Sparsholt, Sparsholt, Winchester SO21 2NF, UK 3. Chester Zoo, Upton-by-Chester, Chester CH2 1LH, UK 4. Salce, 32430 St. Georges, France
Abstract
Zoo enclosure design, and housing and husbandry protocols, will always be a compromise between what a species has evolved to do and what is possible to offer in a human-created environment. For some species, behaviours that are commonly performed in the wild may be constrained by husbandry practices that are used for ease or aesthetics or are accepted conventions. As zoos place more emphasis on positive animal welfare states, zoo enclosures should be scrutinised to check that what is provided, in terms of useful space, appropriate replication of habitat features, and maximal potential for natural behaviour performance, is relevant to the species and individuals being housed. For some species, zoos need to grapple with tough questions where the answer may not seem immediately obvious to ensure they are continuously improving standards of care, opportunities for the performance of species-typical behaviours, and advancing the attainment of positive welfare states. Determining the importance of flight, for example, and what this behaviour adds to the quality of life of a zoo-housed bird, is an important question that needs addressing to truly advance aviculture and how we determine bird welfare. This paper provides questions that should be answered and poses measures of what flight means to a bird, to provide evidence for the development and evolution of zoo bird housing. If we can devise some way of asking the animals in our care what they need, we can more firmly support decisions made that surround enclosure design, and housing decisions. Ultimately, this means gathering evidence on whether birds like to fly (e.g., from birds in training or demonstration activities) by applying mixed methods approaches of behavioural analysis, data on wild ecology, qualitative behavioural assessment, and cognitive bias testing to develop a robust suite of tools to address avian welfare considerations. Avian welfare scientists should attempt to define what meaningful flight is (i.e., flight that truly suggests a bird is flying) in order to support guidelines on aviary dimensions, space allowance, and welfare outputs from birds in both flighted and flight-restricted populations, and to determine what is most appropriate for an individual species. Changing the term “best practice” husbandry guidelines to “better practice” husbandry guidelines would instil the importance of regular review and reassessment of housing and management suitability for a species to ensure such care regimes remain appropriate. With an increasingly welfare-savvy public visiting zoos, it is essential that we seek more evidence to support and justify how birds are kept and ultimately use such evidence to enact changes to practices that are shown to infringe on avian welfare.
Reference77 articles.
1. Effects of a modern exhibit design on captive tiger welfare;Smith;Zoo Biol.,2023 2. de Azevedo, C.S., Cipreste, C.F., Pizzutto, C.S., and Young, R.J. (2023). Review of the effects of enclosure complexity and design on the behaviour and physiology of zoo animals. Animals, 13. 3. Miller, L.J., Vicino, G.A., Sheftel, J., and Lauderdale, L.K. (2020). Behavioral diversity as a potential indicator of positive animal welfare. Animals, 10. 4. In pursuit of peak animal welfare; the need to prioritize the meaningful over the measurable;Veasey;Zoo Biol.,2017 5. Melfi, V.A., Bowkett, A.E., Plowman, A.B., and Pullen, K. (2004, January 9–13). Do zoo designers know enough about animals. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Zoo Design, Torquay, UK.
|
|