CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Law and WelfareEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics

Dilemmas for Natural Living Concepts of Zoo Animal Welfare

Open access
Learmonth, Mark James·2019·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani9060318PMC PMC6616422
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This ethical discourse specifically deals with dilemmas encountered within zoological institutions, namely for the concept of natural living, and a new term—wilding. It is agreed by some that zoos are not ethically wrong in principle, but there are currently some contradictions and ethical concerns for zoos in practice. Natural living is a complicated concept, facing multiple criticisms. Not all natural behaviours, nor natural environments, are to the benefit of animals in a captive setting, and practical application of the natural living concept has flaws. Expression of natural behaviours does not necessarily indicate positive well-being of an animal. Herein it is suggested that highly-motivated behaviours may be a better term to properly explain behaviours of more significance to captive animals. Wilding refers to extrapolation of the natural living concept to treating an animal as wild, residing in a wild habitat. This definition is intrinsically problematic, as quite literally by definition, captivity is not a wild nor natural environment. Treating a captive animal exactly the same as a wild counterpart is practically impossible for many species in a few ways. This article discusses complexities of natural living versus natural aesthetics as judged by humans, as well as the possibility of innate preference for naturalness within animals. Zoos nobly strive to keep wild animals as natural and undomesticated as possible. Here it is argued that unintended and unavoidable genetic and epigenetic drift favouring adaptations for life in a captive environment may still occur, despite our best efforts to prevent this from occurring. This article further discusses the blurred lines between natural and unnatural behaviours, and the overlaps with more important highly-motivated behaviours, which may be better predictors of positive affective states in captive animals, and thus, better predictors of positive well-being and welfare. Finally, as we are now in the Anthropocene era, it is suggested that human-animal interactions could actually be considered natural in a way, and notwithstanding, be very important to animals that initiate these interactions, especially for “a life worth living”.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani9060318

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Through being exposed to and learning how to handle a wide variety of situations and stimuli, animals build their resilience and, thus, their capacity to adapt and cope with future adversities.

    “Through being exposed to and learning how to handle a wide variety of situations and stimuli, animals build their resilience and, thus, their capacity to adapt and cope with future adversities [80].”

    From The Concept of Agency, Animal Wellbeing, and the Practical Realities of Ex Situ Breeding Programs in Zoos and Aquariums (2024) · cites this paper as [80]

    Section 3, “Wilding: The Natural Living Dilemma” (page unavailable), says that brief, minimally harmful stressors are thought to confer some resilience on zoo animals. It does not establish that exposure to a wide variety of situations teaches animals to cope with future adversities, and it calls for more evidence that the intended resilience is achieved. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 55 · Cited by 62

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. [1]Fraser D. Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008 113 142 149 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011 · DOI
  2. [4]Mellor D.J. Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement N. Z. Vet. J. 2015 63 3 8 10.1080/00480169.2014.926799 24875268 · DOI
  3. [5]Palmer C. Morrin H. Sandøe P. Is it ethically defensible to keep animals in zoos and aquariums? The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics Fisher B. Routledge New York, NY, USA 2019
  4. [7]Sandøe P. Jensen K.K. The idea of animal welfare—Developments and tensions Veterinary & Animal Ethics: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Veterinary and Animal Ethics, September 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Hertfordshire, UK 2011
  5. [8]Veasey J.S. In pursuit of peak animal welfare: The need to prioritize the meaningful over the measurable Zoo Biol. 2017 36 413 425 10.1002/zoo.21390 29193216 · DOI
  6. [9]Weary D.M. Robbins J.A. Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare Anim. Welf. 2019 28 33 40 10.7120/09627286.28.1.033 · DOI
  7. [10]Yeates J. Naturalness and animal welfare Animals 2018 8 53 10.3390/ani8040053 29621140 PMC5946137 · DOI
  8. [11]Bekoff M. Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL, USA 2013
  9. [15]Mellor D.J. Beausoleil N.J. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states Anim. Welf. 2015 24 241 253 10.7120/09627286.24.3.241 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [16]Charles N. Animals just love you as you are: Experiencing kinship across the species barrier Sociology 2014 48 715 730 10.1177/0038038513515353 · DOI
  11. [21]Mellor D.J. Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment N. Z. Vet. J. 2015 63 17 23 10.1080/00480169.2014.926802 24875152 · DOI
  12. [22]Bracke M.B.M. Hopster H. Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006 19 77 89 10.1007/s10806-005-4493-7 · DOI
  13. [23]Dawkins M.S. The science of animal suffering Ethology 2008 114 937 945 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01557.x · DOI
  14. [25]Oxford English Dictionary Online Definition: Wild Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2019 Available online: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wild (accessed on 26 May 2019)
  15. [27]Cambridge English Online Dictionary Definition: Captivity Cambridge University Press Oxford, UK 2019 Available online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/captivity (accessed on 26 May 2019)
  16. [28]Sih A. Ferrari M.O. Harris D.H. Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change Evolut. Appl. 2011 4 367 387 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00166.x PMC3352552 25567979 · DOI
  17. [29]Palmer C. Saving species but losing wildness: Should we genetically adapt wild animal species to help them respond to climate change? Midwest Stud. Philos. 2016 40 234 251 10.1111/misp.12058 · DOI
  18. [30]Mason G. Burn C.C. Dallaire J.A. Kroshko J. Kinkaid H.M. Jeschke J.M. Plastic animals in cages: Behavioural flexibility and responses to captivity Anim. Behav. 2013 85 1113 1126 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.02.002 · DOI
  19. [31]Maple T. Perdue B.M. Zoo Animal Welfare Springer New York, NY, USA 2013
  20. [33]Díaz S. Settele J. Brondízio E. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Advance Unedited Version Proceedings of the IPBES 7th Session Paris, France 6 May 2019 UNESCO Paris, France 2019
  21. [34]Mason G.J. Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010 25 713 721 10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.011 20952089 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [35]Lyons D. Developmental cascades linking stress inoculation, arousal regulation, and resilience Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2009 3 1 6 10.3389/neuro.08.032.2009 19826626 PMC2759374 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [36]Parker K.J. Maestripieri D. Identifying key features of early stressful experiences that produce stress vulnerability an resilience in primates Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2011 35 1466 1483 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.09.003 20851145 PMC3023826 · DOI
  24. [37]Rimpley K. Buchanan-Smith H.M. Reliably signalling a startling husbandry event improves welfare of zoo-housed capuchins (Sapajus apella) Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013 147 205 213 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.04.017 · DOI
  25. [39]Claxton A.M. The potential of the human-animal relationship as an environmental enrichment for the welfare of zoo-housed animals Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011 133 1 10 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [40]Jones H. McGregor P.K. Farmer H.L.A. Baker K.R. The influence of visitor behavior on captive Crowned Lemurs (Eulemur coronatus) and implications for welfare Zoo Biol. 2016 35 222 228 10.1002/zoo.21291 27142724 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [43]Case B.C. Lobar G.A. Doerr P.D. The physiological and behavioural impacts of and preference for an enriched environment in the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005 92 353 365 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.11.011 · DOI
  28. [44]Tetzlaff S.J. Sperry J.H. DeGregorio B.A. Captive-reared juvenile box turtles innately prefer naturalistic habitat: Implications for translocation Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018 204 128 133 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.03.007 · DOI
  29. [45]Partridge L. Habitat selection in titmice Nature 1974 247 573 574 10.1038/247573a0 · DOI
  30. [46]Kagan R. Carter S. Allard S. A universal animal welfare framework for zoos J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2015 18 Suppl. 1 1 10 10.1080/10888705.2015.1075830 26440493 PMC4673521 · DOI
  31. [47]Price E.O. Behavioural development in animals undergoing domestication Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999 65 245 271 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00087-8 · DOI
  32. [49]Pierotti R. Fogg B.R. The First Domestication: How Wolves and Humans Coevolved Yale University Press New Haven, CT, USA 2017
  33. [50]Herbeck Y.E. Gulevich R.G. Shepeleva D.V. Grinevich V.V. Oxytocin: Co-evolution of human and domesticated animals Russ. J. Genet. Appl. Res. 2017 7 220 227 10.1134/S2079059717030042 · DOI
  34. [51]Nagasawa M. Mitsui S. En S. Ohtani N. Ohta M. Sakuma Y. Onaka T. Mogi K. Kikusui T. Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds Science 2015 348 333 336 10.1126/science.1261022 25883356 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [52]Ward S.J. Melfi V. Keeper-animal interactions: Differences between the behaviour of zoo animals affect stockmanship PLoS ONE 2015 10 e0140237 10.1371/journal.pone.0140237 26509670 PMC4624973 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [53]Hosey G. Melfi V. Human-animal bonds between zoo professionals and the animals in their care Zoo Biol. 2012 31 13 26 10.1002/zoo.20359 21061294 · DOI
  37. [54]Špinka M. Animal agency, animal awareness and animal welfare Anim. Welf. 2019 28 11 20 10.7120/09627286.28.1.011 · DOI
  38. [56]Mellor D.J. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “A life worth living” Animals 2016 6 21 10.3390/ani6030021 PMC4810049 27102171 · DOI · Paper page
  39. [57]Meijer J.H. Robbers Y. Wheel running in the wild Proc. R. Soc. B 2014 281 1 5 10.1098/rspb.2014.0210 PMC4046404 24850923 · DOI
  40. [58]Weiss E. Wilson S. The use of classical and operant conditioning in training Aldabra tortoises (Geochelone gigantea) for venipuncture and other husbandry issues J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2003 6 33 38 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0601_03 12795857 · DOI
  41. [59]Morgan K. Tromborg C. Sources of stress in captivity Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007 102 262 302 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.032 · DOI · Paper page
  42. [60]Wells D. A note on the influence of visitors on the behavior and welfare of zoo-housed gorillas Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005 93 13 17 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.019 · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Learmonth, M. J.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Learmonth, Mark James
ORCID
Learmonth, Mark James
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-06-05
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
318
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani9060318
PMC
PMC6616422
OpenAlex
W2948206252
Cited by
62
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 5
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Australian Government
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
Keywords
zoo animal welfare, natural living, wilding, captive animals, animal welfare, aesthetics of nature, genetic drift, epigenetic drift, human-animal interaction, Anthropocene, animal welfare ethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review