Signature redacted › wp › wp-content › uploads › 2016 › 06 › ... · attendance, their...

The Beast Within:Measuring the Minds of Zoo Animals

by

Julia Jane Duke

B.A. History of ScienceHarvard University, 2011

MASSAOE- INS EOF TECHNOLOGY

JUN 3 0 2014

LIBRARIES

SUBMITTED TO THE PROGRAM IN COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES/WRITINGON JUNE 11, 2014 IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE WRITINGAT THE

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SEPTEMBER 2014

0 Julia J. Duke. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paperand electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now

known or hereafter created.

Signature redactedSignature of Author:

Certified by:

Accepted by:

__ Program in Comparative Media Studies/WritingJune 11, 2014

Signature redacted\I Marcia Bartusiak

Proessor of the Practice, Graduate ogram in Science WritingThesis Advisor

Tom LevensonProfessor of Science Writing

Director, Graduate Program in Science Writing

The Beast Within:Measuring the Minds of Zoo Animals

by

Julia Jane Duke

Submitted to the Program in Comparative Media Studies/Writingon June 11, 2014 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Science Writing

ABSTRACT

Though zoos have come far from their early days of concrete boxes in caring for theirresidents' physical health, zoo animals' mental health-the feelings and thoughts beneaththe furry and scaly exteriors-has only recently become a serious field of research. Thefear of anthropomorphism, or the furnishing of non-human entities with humancharacteristics such as "happy" or "depressed," has discouraged scientists for decadesfrom approaching this seemingly unscientific and unknowable topic. But as the conceptof welfare becomes increasingly lauded as the main focus of zoos, crucial to zoos'attendance, their respect by society, and their future existence, zoo keepers, curators, andresearchers are beginning to seek out new ways to discover and understand their animals'true feelings-broadening 'animal welfare' to include minds as well as bodies.

This thesis explores new studies, technologies, and ways of thinking about animal mentalwelfare among zoo researchers. Specifically, the thesis focuses on researchers atBrookfield Zoo in Chicago, who have developed a unique tool for studying welfare basedon the idea that animals have emotions that can and should be ascertained-and thatkeepers, those who spend long periods of time with the animals, have the ability to tellhow their animals are feeling.

Thesis Supervisor: Marcia BartusiakTitle: Professor of the Practice

THE BEAST WITHIN:Measuring the Minds of Zoo Animals

or a below-freezing, cloudy day,spotted with snow showers, thereis a surprising turnout. Wrapped in

fluffy coats, armed with mittens and snowboots, and hauling covered strollers, Januaryvisitors to New York City's Central Park Zoogo to great lengths to trek the small, 6.5-acreanimal park. The sea lions are out, catchingfish and waving flippers, and lemurs frolic,shielded from the cold in the humid TropicZone building.

Caked with a fresh batch of snow,rolling rocks nearby look primed for the stepsof an arctic native. But in this exhibit, inbetween the snow leopards and the penguins,no feet or fur grace the snow. In the exhibit'sunderwater viewing area, a dark tunnel litlargely by sunlight shining through blue-brown water, visitors stop for a moment,staring at floating leaves and twigs in thecloudy water. Only a small black sign by eachwindow indicates that there's nothing to see."Exhibit Currently Closed: We're working onsomething exciting and new!" they read. Themuddy pool has no reason to be cleaned out.The last polar bear to tread the water inCentral Park Zoo passed away in August2013. His name was Gus.

Weighing about 1,000 pounds, Guswas known for his obsessive swimmingroutine. He would drift smoothly through thewater, slowly pushing off of one side of theexhibit with his hefty white haunches. Glidinginto a slow backstroke, he would floatbackwards toward one of the viewingwindows with his nose and stomach in the air,then gracefully dive to the bottom and twistaround to swim forward, back to the otherside. Then he would do it all over

A sign at Gus's empty exhibit

again. And again. And again, sometimes up totwelve hours in a day, etching a figure-eight inthe water. Gus's repetitive laps earned him thetitles of "neurotic Gus,"' "the lonely polarbear,"" and the "bi-polar bear."'

Gus's habitual swimming is a type ofbehavior that all zoo keepers watch out for. Itis known as stereotypy, a recurring routine ofaction that is considered an indicator of stressor discontent. Polar bears are the largest landcarnivore-their range in the wild can reach31,000 square miles. By contrast, the entireCentral Park Zoo is just one hundredth of asquare mile, or less than one millionth the sizeof a polar bear's natural territory. Whilewatching the routine unfold, New Yorkersquestioned whether Gus, like themselves intheir tiny New York apartments, felt crampedin an absurdly small living space. Or was itthe maddening clamor of the city? Thenoxious smells of car exhaust and garbage?The keepers and vets focused on his physicalhealth, examining his food and housing.

4 The Beast Within: Measuring the Minds of Zoo Animals

Without the ability to ask Gus himself todisclose his deepest feelings, observers couldonly speculate.

To get to the bottom of the problem, in1994 the zoo hired Tim Desmond, an animalbehaviorist and the trainer of the whale in themovie "Free Willy," to treat him. Print andtelevision media were quickly filled with newsof a depressed New York Zoo polar bear intherapy. The number of visitors to Gus's homeskyrocketed, as people came to view andcheer up the pacing swimmer. "This is a bearNew Yorkers can relate to," a New York Timesarticle said, "anybody who is anybody inManhattan has a therapist." " Some articlesclaimed he was also put on Prozac.v

"Bored" was Desmond's $25,000diagnosis. His prescribed treatment involvedadding new physical and mental challenges,such as putting his food at the bottom of thepool, burying it in gravel, or providing livetrout to catch." Working for food is one thingbears have in the wild that they don't incaptivity, Desmond reasoned, and perhaps itoffers an engaging activity to keep themoccupied and healthy. With meals and toyshanded to him regularly, maybe Gus hadbecome like a spoiled rich kid, discontentedand lazy.

With the help of these novel programs,Gus did appear better for a while. But then,eight years later, he had a relapse. In 2002,another $25,000 was spent on a new pool thatcreated a constant current for the bear to swimin, in hopes of discouraging a new bout ofrepetitive swimming." They also added a logfor Gus to roll on and even a private air-conditioned room for him to sleep in. Thekeepers spent their lunchtimes discussingdifferent ways to keep Gus healthy andengaged. "I'm going out on a limb as ananimal behaviorist saying he is happy," said

Don Moore, the zoo's senior curator at thetime.v"".

And then, after losing his femalecompanion of twenty-four years, Ida, in 2011,all of Gus's symptoms returned in full force.The media once again contemplated the bear'sfeelings. "Is Gus the Widowed Central ParkPolar Bear Sad?" inquired the New York-based blog Gothamist." In 2013, Gus lost hisappetite and had difficulty chewing andswallowing food. The keepers wondered if thesymptoms indicated a deeper dive intodepression, but veterinarians soon discovereda large, inoperable tumor. At the age oftwenty-seven, Gus was euthanized.

After his death, sympathy for the sadbear only heightened. A swarm of articles andeulogies connected Gus's life to that of allNew Yorkers. "We are all Gus the depressedpolar bear," read one article in New YorkMagazine."

A polar bear swimming in a zoo exhibit

The case of Gus is an extreme exampleof a common yet controversial humanpractice; we readily see human-like emotionsin animals. Scientists call thisanthropomorphism. It is difficult to view a

The Beast Within: Meas

large, furry mammal playing with a red ball,slouching with its head on its paws, or staringstraight at you, without musing on the being'sinner state. When a dog pursues its own tailfor hours, or a zebra bounds excitedly aroundits exhibit, we can't help but wonder; what arethey thinking? The connection felt betweenNew Yorkers and Gus, the care andconsideration afforded an Ursus maritimus,illustrates a common concern we have withthe mental experiences of animals.

While watching Gus pace back andforth across his pool, lingering by the viewingwindow, or peering back at the humanspeering in, people at the exhibit ponderedGus's deepest emotions, ailments, and desires.Though Gus spent his entire life in captivity,both zoo keepers and visitors likely wondered,did Gus yearn for thousands of acres of iceand snow? Did he dream of snagging a freshseal dinner as it popped out of the open water?Was he as tormented by his manmadeconfinement in the center of New York Cityas his perpetual pacing seemed to suggest?

Zoos-the good ones at least-havealways taken care of their charges' physicalhealth: providing food, shelter, and medicinefor their illnesses. These physical provisionsare the parameters by which good welfare hastraditionally been defined. Keepers and vetskeep checklists and routines to ensureanimals' bodies are in good condition, that furis shiny, eyes are clear, appetite is healthy, andexcrement looks normal. But if an animal hasall of its physical needs seemingly taken careof, yet still shows signs of discontent, how doyou fix a problem that you can't be sure isthere? Zoo goers don't hesitate to declare ananimal "unhappy," but zoo keepers andresearchers shy from such words. It is notprofessional or scientific to beanthropomorphic; the animals may beexpressing poor welfare, but "unhappy"?

uring the Minds of Zoo Animals 5

That's not a word they are comfortable with.A growing frustration with this

quandary is rising within the zoo world.Popular, expressive individuals like Gusprompt public awareness and media attention.Sad animals do not make for happy zoo goers- and through their visits, donations,memberships, and media attention, visitors putpressure on zoos to make changes. As zoos areconfronted by their investors' concern fortheir animals' mental health, there is agrowing willingness to tackle the unknown:the inner feelings, emotions, and eventhoughts of the furry, scaled, and wingedcreatures in their care. While visitors watchseals clap and gibbons swing from branch tobranch, speculating on which ones lookhappy, sad, pensive, or grumpy, zoos aretaking steps to perform objective scientifictests that can confirm those impressions.

The question is: How do you set up arigorous, controlled experiment to enter ananimal's mind? And how do you ensure that,in the process of probing parrot, penguin, andpuma feelings, that you do more than justbestow them with your own emotions?

A History of Animal ThoughtsAnthropomorphism is ingrained in us.

We call hurricanes Carmen, Ivan and Wilma,we suspect our laptops of conspiring againstus when they freeze up, and we thinkdiamonds can be our friend. With moving,breathing characters, it's even easier-andpossibly for as long as Homo sapiens hasexisted, hunting, evading, and coexisting withanimals, humans have pondered the thoughtsof other species, as they anticipated themovements of their prey or calculated theintentions of newly encountered creatures.

In the fourth century B.C., Aristotlebelieved animals could experience certainsensations such as pain and anger, but


maintained that only people have souls." Theschool of Greek philosophers called Stoics inthe third century B.C. held that animals haveno sensations or emotions of any kind, thusrequiring no moral consideration. Thisphilosophy was picked up by early Christianthinkers and stuck, shaping early Westernviews of animal mind.""

One notable philosopher influenced byAristotelian and Stoic ideas was seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes, whoproposed a dualist philosophy of mind andbody. The mind is not anchored in the body,Descartes believed; in humans it is a separateentity, the soul, an immaterial link to the mindof God. Animals do not have this link to God,and thus they are no more than reflex-drivenmachines, covered in flesh and fur. For many,the mental line between humans and animalswas drawn.

But then, in the nineteenth century,naturalist Charles Darwin strayed fromDescartes' dualistic views. Darwin saw acohesive relationship between the bodies andminds of both humans and animals-emotionsand all. In Descent ofMan, Darwin noted, "Itis a significant fact, that the more habits ofany particular animal are studied by anaturalist, the more he attributes to reason, andthe less to unlearnt instinct.""'" Throughevolution, he concluded, we share withanimals a mixture of the same neurologicalparts-making it only natural to draw parallelsbetween the minds of humans and the animalkingdom.

In light of this inherent cognitiveconnection, animal thoughts became a genuineresearch topic for Darwin. He filled hisnotebooks and publications with animalanecdotes attesting to their inner experiences.As he wrote in Descent ofMan, "The love of adog for his master is notorious; in the agony ofdeath he has been known to caress his master,

and every one has heard of the dog sufferingunder vivisection, who licked the hand of theoperator."Xlv

At the London Zoological Garden,which was founded during Darwin's time forthe purpose of scientific observation,' Darwinsaw cleverness in elephants as theymaneuvered their trunks to blow objectsoutside of their exhibit closer to them."' Hescoured the zoo for evidence of emotionaltears for his book The Expression of theEmotions in Man and Animals. "" Hecontemplated the inner goings-on of Jenny theorangutan, who "kicked & cried, precisely likea naughty child" when the keeper offered andthen retracted an apple.""' Such instancesconvinced Darwin that all "higher" animals"have the same senses, intuitions, andsensations-even the more complex ones,such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation,gratitude, and magnanimity." "They even havea sense of humor," he wrote, "they feelwonder and curiosity."x

But near the end of his life, Darwincame under fire for his overlyanthropomorphic tales of animal mind."Though he was a revered and distinguishedscientist, his writings on bestial mentalfaculties earned him little academic praise. Atthis time, a new branch of cognitive sciencewas rising to the fore, and Darwin's beliefs onthe minds of animals quickly became obsolete.

These newcomers rejected the veryidea of animal feelings. Called behaviorists,they believed only objective, observableactions could constitute scientific data. In his1913 manifesto, American psychologist JohnB. Watson called for a psychology that leads"practically to the ignoring ofconsciousness.""' The mind should not bestudied, he said, as it is too much the subjectof conjecture. Harkening back to the ideas ofthe Stoics, behaviorists asserted that animalsdon't feel; they just act. In 1927, Russian

The Beast Within: Measuring the Minds of Zoo Animals

physiologist Ivan Pavlov, whose work andwritings had a large influence on behaviorism,wrote that animals should be examined"without any need to resort to fantasticspeculations as to the existence of anypossible subjective states.""" We can leam allwe need to know about psychology bywatching behaviors, he asserted. Behavioristsdoubted whether even humans could think forthemselves, much less animals.

In the early twentieth century,behaviorism reigned. The new intellectualleadership relocated the proper place forconducting animal science. Zoos, homes, andbackyards, where Darwin and others hadconducted animal observations, were replacedby laboratories-a more "scientific"setting."" To investigate the feeling of fear,Watson viewed the reactions of a boy named"Little Albert," who, when repeatedlypresented with a white rat accompanied by aloud clanging sound in his lab, soon becamefearful of any furry object. B.F. Skinnerwatched rats learn behaviors as they pressedlevers for either rewards or punishment in hisengineered "Skinner Box." Emotions in bothhumans and animals, they decided, were justconditioned responses.

While behaviorism changed the face ofpsychological science, the character of zooschanged, too. Instead of places of scientificstudy as they were used by Darwin, zoosbecame almost entirely recreational. A visitorto the New York Zoological Park in 1904noted that "[l]earning natural history.. .is notthe greatest good this zoo does for themultitude." What matters most, he wrote, isthat people get "out into the fresh air andsunshine for one mighty good day in whichthey have forgotten themselves and theirperhaps stuffy city rooms."Mv With this role,zoos proliferated in the beginning of thetwentieth century. By 1900, there were about

thirty zoos and aquariums in the U.S., and by1950, seventy-seven more zoos had emerged.

At first, there was no governing bodyto oversee animal care and no legislation inplace to ensure proper animal welfare. Animalexhibits were initially of the "concrete box"variety-simple, easy to clean spaces. Due toa lack of data on wild animals' physical needs,habits, and preferences, early zoo buildersoften had no idea how to house wild species.In 1879, bears roamed Chicago's Lincoln Parkat night after escaping from the zoo's firstbear enclosure. The sea lion pool, built in1889, also could not contain its residents, andthe sea lions sauntered into a nearby restaurantone night. All were later captured except forone, which was last seen diving into LakeMichigan.'

But with increased knowledge ofanimals' natural history in the later twentiethcentury, zoos began featuring fewer bars andmore naturalistic, immersion exhibits that fitthe physical and behavioral needs of eachspecies. Instead of in empty, white boxes,unrepresentative of a species' natural habitat,animals and the guests who came to viewthem were soon brought into the species'native lands--into the Serengeti, the ArcticCircle, and the deep ocean. Withimprovements in exhibits, technology, andmethods for delivering veterinary care, zoosmade massive strides in caring for the physicalwelfare of their animals in the 1970s and '80s.Around the same time, the first animal welfarelaws were enacted in the U.S., regulating thesale and handling of animals used in research.

Extending these welfare concerns onestep further-to an animal's mentalcondition-is largely due to Donald Griffin, aformer professor of zoology and animalbehavior who taught at Cornell, Harvard, andRockefeller universities. His work identifyingecholocation-the use of sonar to navigate

7


and hunt-in bats, revived the idea of animalsentience. From the 1970s to the early 2000s,with the respect he earned as a rigorousscientist from this work, Griffin set out tobring the investigation of mental experiencesin animals back from the times of Darwin. Hecalled this new field of study "cognitiveethology," and young scientists flocked to thefield to begin searching for the evolutionaryorigin of the cognitive mind, how humanminds are connected to those of animals, andwhat this means for the mental experiences ofanimals today. Previously shunned as asubject unfit for scientific research, animalcognition crossed again into the realm ofscientific analysis. When Griffin passed awayin 2003, his New York Times obituarydescribed him as "the only reason that animalthinking was given consideration at all.'"'"While the field of cognitive ethology is stillyoung and not without critics, Griffin and hisfollowers have tenaciously pushed animalstudies beyond the physical body and itsactions.

Today, chihuahuas strut streets insweaters and shoes, the ill-tempered internetsensation Grumpy Cat loathes everything, andbooks, television and movies adorn animalswith voices, feelings and friends. In the 2003movie Finding Nemo, a young clownfishnamed Nemo is caught by fisherman in theGreat Barrier Reef and finds himself in adentist's fish tank, where he and his new palsdevise a return to the sea. In the 2005 cartoonMadagascar, Marty the zebra, Alex the lionand other creatures plot their escape fromCentral Park Zoo. Much of society has longthought like Darwin-seeing thoughts andfeelings in the actions of animals. And now,Griffin has opened the door for conjecturingthis way in science, as well.

As institutions for the public andincreasingly for the growth of animal science

as well, zoos today find themselves in themidst of this burgeoning field of emotionstudies, facing a rising flood of questions: Ifanimals feel, do all animals feel? How canyou tell what a python feels, or a butterfly, afish, or an ant? And most crucially-whenexploring the minds of others, how do wedistinguish their feelings from ours? When abird loses its mate, does it feel a crushingweight of grief like we do? A less acuteagony? Or something else entirely? Does alion relish the warming welcome of a morningsun?

Zoo keepers know animals havefeelings-they see it every day. By caring forthousands of different kinds of animals fromall over the world, zoos are in a uniqueposition to find some answers, across speciesand across lands. Yet zoo staff remaindistrustful of anthropomorphism. The fear ofcommitting the scientific sin of ascribinghuman qualities to critters lingers menacinglyin the back of keeper minds. Zoo researchersstudy "affective states," and keepers aresometimes hesitant to disclose animal names,for fear of encouraging the public to viewanimals and their actions with human-likecharacteristics.

What zoos desire-and are nowbeginning to search for-is a scientific basisfor animal emotion, to distance themselvesfrom the clinging stigmatization of"unscientific" anthropomorphism. Zoos hopeto evaluate well-being with tests andexperiments, to procure hard scientific data inorder to build confidence that they know howtheir animals feel. To ensure that they arehelping rather than hurting their charges, zoosaim to link behaviors and emotions to a datapoint.


A New TrackBrookfield Zoo, a large, 216-acre zoo

just outside of Chicago, hosts around 450species of animals. The zoo has been the placeof many firsts since its opening in 1934;indoor multi-species exhibits and successfulgorilla brain surgery both debuted atBrookfield. It was one of the first zoos to usemoats and ditches rather than cages to separateanimals from zoo visitors." And in recentyears, it experienced yet another first.

In 2006, Nadja Wielebnowski, then theVice President of Conservation Science atBrookfield, noticed a curious connection. Shepaid close attention to the many aspects ofanimal care and met regularly with keepers,managers, curators, and veterinarians aboutanimal updates and changes. Conversationswith keepers of okapis, an endangered animalthat appears half deer, half zebra, stuck out inher mind. She heard the okapi keepers oftenexpress feelings of "just knowing" whensomething was wrong with an okapi. Its earswould droop, its gait would slow, or food wasnot quite as enticing; subtle differences inbehavior raised a tiny red flag in the keepers'minds.

But the keepers often didn't write it intheir daily log book or mention it to theirmanagers, having no real proof to substantiatetheir intuition. It was an indefinable sense thatsomething was "off"-one of those timeswhen you can't put your finger on it, butsomething tells you that things are not right. Itcould easily be nothing more than keepersextending their own feelings to the okapi;perhaps they'd just had a fight with theirgirlfriend, or they missed breakfast thatmorning. Or, the okapi could just be having abad day and would be better tomorrow. It's anokapi, anyway-how can a person possiblyread into its feelings? Yet often, days or weekslater, the animal's health began to show

visible deterioration, requiring theveterinarians to step in and figure out whatwas wrong.

Okapis are not like gorillas or tigers,who have expressive faces and gestures thatmore outwardly scream for help when they'rein pain. Okapis are prey animals, stoic in theirbehavior; in their native home in the rainforests of Central Africa, they have learnedthat assuming a tired posture only showsweakness, inviting leopards to pounce. Thisadaptation makes ascertaining the animals'levels of discomfort or discontent all the moreproblematic.

Nonetheless, the correlation of keeperhunches with okapi vet visits seemed toWielebnowski too much of a coincidence. Thekeeper inklings came even before anytraditional physical warnings appeared. Iftaken seriously, she thought, a keeper's hunchcould save an animal's life. But a hunch is stilla hunch. So, Wielebnowski wondered whetherkeeper observations could be experimentallyvalidated. She decided to investigate theparallels between keepers' red flags andphysiological changes in the animal's body.

There are multiple ways to deduceanimal well-being; keepers can look forchanges in an animal's behavior, how shiny itscoat is, or whether it has lost weight. Theseare all physical, outwardly visible changes;these are the notes keepers take in their dailylogs. Like the behaviorists' canon states, thephysical is the only kind of observations wehumans can be sure of without the ability toask the animal to describe its inner sensations.

But in humans, we know that well-being goes far beyond the physical. A friend'ssudden slumped posture and shuffling walkraise concern for more than their physicalhealth-and a quick "are you okay?" couldconfirm our suspicions. Herein lies the majordifference in diagnosing humans versus

9


animals; in humans, diagnosis of depressionhas emotion-related check marks. Doctors askabout feelings of sadness, loss of enjoyment inonce pleasurable activities, and difficultiesmaking decisions.

Studies have shown links betweendepression and physical symptoms such asaches and pains, digestive problems, sleeppatterns, and appetite. The chemicals in thebrain that affect one's mood are also involvedwith feelings of pain. Distinguishing betweenpain caused by depression and pain caused byother means is an important distinction tomake for treatment and for betterunderstanding how to interact with and carefor a person-but what about animals?

A sun bear curls up at Lincoln Park Zoo

There are ways to assess an animal'sinner welfare. It's not always something akeeper's daily routine can catch. One of themost popular and scientifically acceptedmeans of analyzing an animal's mentalcondition requires a trained eye and alaboratory: the study of hormones.

Wielebnowski, a driven animalresearcher and Austrian-born biologist, isespecially attuned to the connection betweenchemicals and behavior. At the Smithsonian

National Zoo before moving to Brookfield,Wielebnowski spent three postdoctoral yearsstudying the behavior and stress of cheetahsand clouded leopards. She examined both theirbehavior and hormones, focusing on findingways to study hormones in the least intrusivemanner. During her PhD research,Wielebnowski also developed an interest inanimal personalities-especially how differentpersonalities may result in differing reactionsto stressful events. In 2001, she began atBrookfield as curator and behavioralendocrinologist, continuing her analysis ofanimal hormones focused on stress. When shemoved up to vice president in 2006, shewidened her gaze to encompass animal

welfare science in general, and she stillkept a watchful eye on the endocrinologylab.

"They call it 'stress studies,"' saidJocelyn Bryant, manager of the lab."Though some people don't like to use theword 'stress."' The zoo's endocrinologylab is made up of two rooms filled withlarge freezers, chemicals, scales and testtubes in a building situated between thereptiles and the primates. Bryant iscurrently the only endocrinologist on staff,in charge of all hormone analysis for thezoo's 2,300 animals. After Wielebnowskiswitched roles, "I had an assistant, but

now it's just me. It's pretty wild," shelaughed. Bryant, a bubbly, blonde-hairedwoman, occupies an office near the lab withthree desks all to herself. She fills the emptyspace with images of her German shepherdand the sound of alt-rock radio.

Her work used to primarily involvereproductive tests, to find out when animalswere pregnant. Now, she says, stress studiesare more common. Fecal hormone analysis,studying the hormones discharged in waste,emerged just over the last few decades. The


rise in popularity of this science within thezoo world suggests an excitement over the useof a chemical--a modicum of science-toinvestigate the feelings of animals.

Chronic stress in animals, like inhumans, is considered an undeniable agent ofpoor health. We all know stress can do badthings to us; it can tense your shoulders,mangle your digestive system, and make youwant to hurl expletives at inanimate objects.When we experience stress in some way, itcauses a rise in certain hormones. Sometimes,with adrenaline, it keeps us alert and focused.By increasing the amount of these hormonesin our system, our bodies can send energysources to the places of need, shipping ourinner energy troops away from digestingbreakfast to assisting the areas in most need ofdefense.

A little bit of stress is a good thing thatkeeps us alive in times of danger. When astressful event happens, hormonal glandsrelease molecules called corticosteroids, oncue. The primary chemical, cortisol, increasesthe amounts of sugars available for use in thebloodstream. But sometimes, when thesechemicals have loitered around too long,things start going downhill. Studies haveshown that long-term stress in humans canlead to issues such as obesity, sleepingproblems, anxiety-and depression. Knowingthe effects these chemicals have on humanwell-being, scientists began analyzing levelsof these hormones in animals, as well.

The association of too much stresswith overall negative health effects is known;the critical level of stress, however, and theexact effects caused by prolonged stress inanimals, are unknown. But as much in animalmind studies lies on the side of unknown, foranimal researchers, the study of stress seems amore concrete method of determining ananimal's feelings than many other means.

Bryant specifically measures cortisol

levels. Hormone levels were traditionallymeasured by sedating animals, bringing theminto the lab, and taking blood. More recently,to study stress without stressing out theanimals in the process, zoo scientists filchtheir feces. "I still wish I knew who came upwith this," Bryant sighed. In the "poop lab,"hormones are extracted from the animal waste.They are then taken to the "assay lab," wherethe results are analyzed.

Not every zoo, though, has thecapability to run these studies, as not everyzoo has an endocrinology lab onsite. And theanalyses do not always produce useful results.Fecal hormone analysis in particular does notwork for every species; the consistency of birdwaste, for example, does not lend itself well tohormone studies. But for okapis, it works.

Wielebnowski requested keeperscollect okapi waste and bring it to the lab.There, Bryant mashed the waste and placedsmall samples of it in test tubes in solution.The contents were then thoroughly mixed toshake out the desired chemicals from the otherwaste ingredients. Bryant's lab freezer wasquickly filled with cold okapi poop awaitinganalysis.

Once Bryant extracted and analyzedfecal hormones of interest, she generatedgraphs displaying the various levels of stresshormones in different okapis. Comparingmultiple samples over time can reveal 'peaks'in hormone levels - times when the animalexperienced heightened stress. These could bethe times when okapi well-being startedplummeting.

With a list of dates of keepers' redflags, Wielebnowski sat down with thehormone results to compare the timing of theobservational and physiological events. If thekeeper notes didn't match up with thehormones, the keepers' suspicions could notbe verified, and would remain just that:

11


suspicions. If they did match, keeperimpressions could be treated as more than thatthey could be used as meaningful data. Ascientific finding to accompany an inkling.

Staring at graphs of hormonesalongside lists of keeper thoughts,Wielebnowski confirmed her own suspicions.They matched, peak for peak.

To initiate deeper analysis of theseconnections, Wielebnowski applied for grantsto bring a postdoctoral researcher on board."If we can find a way based on science thatintegrates this information in an easy form,with graphs and printouts available, we wouldhave a good communication tool," shethought. In early 2007, Jessica Whitham, arecent graduate of a Ph.D. program inbiopsychology at the University of Chicago,joined the zoo as a postdoc in behavioralendocrinology. Wielebnowski immediatelyput her to work on the new finding.

"She brought me in, sat me down andtold me that when she would have [theendocrinology lab run samples, the fecalcorticoids, that they found that the keepers hadsaid that the animals are off. Even though theycouldn't pinpoint exactly what was wrong,they noticed peaks in those weeks," saidWhitham. Wielebnowski and Whitham beganbrainstorming ways to turn the keepers'subjective analyses into objective, qualitativeassessments that could provide insight intoanimal welfare.

But first, they needed to definewelfare.

What is welfare?Welfare is a hot-button word,

associated with bloody chickens stuffed intiny cages, like the images that splatterbrochures disseminated by animal rights

organizations. The word suggests the need tocorrect horrid conditions, rather than the dailycare of animals. Zoos have not wanted to belinked to that picture, so the term faded fromzoo lingo.

Terry Maple, the former director ofZoo Atlanta and former professor of bothbiology and psychology at Georgia Tech,noticed the avoidance of the term. A friendlybut somewhat gruff man with a palpable pridein his work, Maple recently co-wrote a bookentitled Zoo Animal Welfare, detailing hisideas for best practices and future changes,drawing from his thirty years' experienceworking with zoos. To bring the concept ofwelfare back into the zoo, he decided toimplement a new term for it. When he startedworking as a consultant to the San FranciscoZoo, he began using the term "wellness," inreference to the modern concept of overallwell-being in humans. "I determined thatwelfare was a somewhat misunderstood term.Zoos weren't as warmed up to it as theyshould've been... so I tried to link it tohumanity in some way," said Maple. The"wellness initiative" at San Francisco Zoobegan in 2012, hiring a Curator of AnimalBehavior and Wellness.

While the term "wellness" so far hasstuck in San Francisco among the health-conscious hipsters, the word welfare actuallybegan making a comeback in the zoo world inthe 2000s. In 2000, the Association of Zoos &Aquariums (AZA), the organization thatinspects and accredits zoos in the U.S., formedits first Animal Welfare Committee (AWC).Every year, zoo professionals from accreditedinstitutions convene at an AZA conference topresent new developments and research.Between the years 2004 and 2007, there wasno mention of the word "welfare" in any ofthe presentation titles or categories at the AZAconferences. In 2008, Jessica Whitham andNadja Wielebnowski


made the first mention of the word in theirpresentation, introducing their work oncreating a new strategy for understandingwelfare at Brookfield.

By then, Brookfield Zoo had embracedthe word. Influenced by Wielebnowski'semphasis on animal welfare as vice presidentof conservation science, in May of 2008,Brookfield Zoo hosted its first zoo animalwelfare conference, one of the firstinternational zoo conferences specificallyfocused on welfare. At the same time, the zooannounced the opening of a new center, theCenter for the Science of Animal Welfare(CSAW), the first zoo center with a titledenoting the study of animal welfare.

In 2009, there were three differentAZA presentations on "welfare," includingone by Whitham and Wielebnowski entitled"Hunches, Intuitions, and Score Sheets: Howto Employ Them to Improve Animal Welfareat Zoos and Aquariums." By 2012, the word'welfare' was mentioned ten times in the listof conference presentations. And in 2013, theword warranted its own category. "Obviouslykeepers think of welfare on a daily basis, butmore researchers are putting that term touse-the science of animal welfare isdefinitely what's picked up," said Whitham.

Other zoos have opened up their ownwelfare centers, as well, and have added theword welfare into their missions, such asOregon Zoo's pronounced dedication to"advancing the highest level of animalwelfare." AZA's Animal Welfare Committeehas been compiling knowledge and guidelineson different species' well-being ever since itsformation. "There is quite a focus on, andincreasing momentum, focused on animalwelfare within AZA," wrote Sharon Dewar,public relations advisor for the AnimalWelfare Committee.

Whether or not more work on animalwelfare is being done now than in the past, the

term has securely entered the zoo lexicon. Butwhat does the word mean to those who use ittoday?

Asking a zoo professional to definegood welfare is like asking a vineyard ownerto define a good wine; it is a complex conceptto pin down, a set of mostly indefinablequalities. The wine grower or sommelier mayspout out common knowledge andexpectations, the popular descriptions of winesuch as pleasing to the palate, withcomplexity, earthiness, and a balance ofsweetness-but, they would point out, thesuccessful combination of these characteristicsvary for every type of wine and for everytongue tasting it. Some wines may win awardsor have higher price tags, but in the end, it issubjective. A bad wine is generally moreeasily agreed upon than a good wine. Definingwelfare by the manifestly negative signs, likethose seen in inadequate chicken farms, issimilarly more easily interpreted.

Whitham sees a new movement inwelfare studies: a switch of focus fromidentifying negative welfare to achievingpositive welfare. "That's what we're trying todo here-not just correctly identify poorwelfare, but figure out how to go from good togreat welfare: how to know if an individual isthriving," she said passionately, with anemphatic thriving. "Good," "great," and"thriving" are the sexy new welfare words,and Whitham repeated them multiple times ineach conversation on the topic. To Whitham,good welfare can only be discovered if you"start asking the animals," and go beyond thephysical questions.

Though the word has come into widerusage, welfare is still a loaded word. Whenasked how she defines welfare, Megan Ross,vice president of animal care and education atLincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, just a few miles

13


from Brookfield Zoo, was at first unsure howto answer. "How do I define welfare..." shesaid. "that is a hard word to define."

Then she went on; "I would say thatwelfare is that an animal has thepsychological, physical, physiological, andsocial needs that they require, so in some wayswe are meeting all of the different needs thatthat animal has. If they have good welfare,you're meeting those things. If they have poorwelfare, then some of those needs are notbeing met." Ross included psychological andsocial needs on the list, as part ofunderstanding the whole of an animal. Shebelieves not just one indicator, but all, must beconsidered.

Those outside of zoos have their ownideas of what welfare should constitute."Animal welfare isn't an absolute; it's thestate of the animal. It's not what you'reoffering it-you could in theory give ananimal everything it needs for its life, but theanimal could still be very poor," saidChris Draper of the animal welfareorganization Born Free, which aims to "endthe suffering of wild animals in captivity."""'This idea of welfare extends more deeply intothe animal-an animal can be perfectlyphysically healthy, with shiny fur, glossy eyesand a fine appetite, and still not have goodwelfare, an idea easily understood by any whohave watched the discontented animals in themovie Madagascar.

Zoo professionals seem to increasinglyagree. But scientists still have difficultyexplaining this concept. "I'm a scientist, sowhatever the outcome is, I just say what theresults are," said Bryant in her zoo office. Herhormone graphs show peaks that can indicatestress, or they don't-in which case theanimal is, according to her measures, fine."There are different ways that people viewwelfare here," reflected Bryant. "Some people

believe that you have to be sick or dyingbefore it's an actual issue, while others like tonip it early...but definitely keepers seem tofeel most strongly," she said.

Events that especially affectBrookfield's animals, according to Bryant, arethe zoo's booming summer concerts, when30,000 children and adults descend on thepremises. These concerts inevitably causehormone-level jumps in her graphs. Manykeepers would like these events to stop, asthey always notice odd behaviors during andafter. Bryant herself focuses on what thehormones say, which agree with the keepers."Part of me wants to say, well this is how it is,and maybe we shouldn't do that anymorebecause it stressed them out." She initiallybelieved her science separate from the conceptof animal welfare. "At first I thought I had tospin everything to fit under this animalwelfare umbrella," she recalled. But now, shesees her work's connection to animal welfare.

To some, welfare is simply a new labelbeing slapped onto things zoos have alwaysdone, a newly popularized term, like "YOLO"or "swag," that is not an especially new idea."Welfare is the hot topic now in zoos," saidCraig Demitros, Assistant Curator of Primatesat Brookfield. An energetic, dark-haired manwith a friendly face and work-worn skin,Demitros had been at the zoo for thirty years.While he recognized the new emphasis on theword, he asserted that what appears to be agrowing focus on "welfare" is actuallynothing new. To Demitros, it's just a differentway of framing the animal care practices thatkeepers have always done. "I think it's a partof the evolution of zoos, that welfare is allover everything. It's everything we do," hesaid, with a dramatic wave of his hands.

But to others, like Whitham, it is a newand growing scientific concern-somethingmore than zoos have done in the past: aredefinition of "welfare," leading animal

14


science and care into unfamiliar territory thattakes more than just physical health intoaccount.

Weaving a Welfare ToolFaced with the seemingly daunting

task of defining animal welfare for a zoo fullof myriad species, Whitham andWielebnowski pushed forward. In 2008, theydecided to survey the zoo keepers, managers,and curators who, like the okapi keepers whosensed inconspicuous changes, had workedclosely with a species for many years. Theyexpected a great array of responses, and noeasy answer.

They first chose twelve species,ranging from gecko to hawk to elephant, forwhich to create welfare surveys. Theydeveloped a questionnaire for the expertsasking, in various ways and words, "How doyou tell how an animal is feeling?" Thequestionnaire inquired how long the surveytaker had worked as a keeper, how long theyhad worked with the species in question, andhow many hours per week they spend with theanimals. Other questions included: How doyou determine if an individual is doing well?How do you determine if an individual isdoing poorly? Do you feel that you can tellwhether an individual is in good health?Healthy? Comfortable? "Off'? "Happy"?"Depressed"? The more emotional words suchas "happy" and "depressed" were always inquotation marks. "We knew that people mightfeel uncomfortable using those terms, so forthose folks we used quotation marks,"explained Whitham.

The survey also provided a long list ofterms, including "jittery," "impulsive," "feelsgood," "careless," "shy," "insecure," "sad,""apathetic," and "cool," asking the respondersto rate them on a scale of usefulness indetermining animal welfare. Finally, the

survey included two pages for open-endedresponses, one for listing criteria used inassessing poor well-being, the other for "goodor even great well-being." The survey alsoasked directly whether it is worthwhile to usegut-feelings, "the subjective, qualitativeassessments of keepers" when looking atwelfare.

Whitham and Wielebnowski wereunsure what to expect-their shameless use ofanthropomorphic terms and direct inquiries onthe inner state of animals could easily garnerscoffs and ridicule. But the replies surprisedthem.

After about six months of datacollection, the results were in. Though theyhad anticipated weeks to months of back-and-forth about what constitutes welfare, Whithamand Wielebnowski instead found substantialagreement. About 95 percent of the responsesshowed no hesitation in assessing whethertheir animals are "happy" or "depressed." Forsome species, such as gecko, people weremore hesitant to bestow the animals withemotions. But most responders gave serious,thought-out answers to questions involvingwhat are generally consideredanthropomorphic terms. "Keepers use thewords freely in the lunchroom,anyway...unless a researcher walks in,"reflected Whitham.

Craig Demitros filled out thequestionnaire for gorillas. "When we get intoterms like 'off' and the following 'happy' and'depressed' used to describe gorillas, we areapproaching for better or worse becominganthropomorphic," wrote Demitros in hisresponse. Fully aware that he was answeringquestions involving potentially unscientificwords, he justified his reason for responding;for apes at least, their close relations withhumans make anthropomorphism easier andmore acceptable, and is even becoming more

15


accepted in the world of primatology, hewrote.

He also further endorsed the usefulnessof keepers. "Keepers can tell an animal is offthrough a 'gut feeling,"' he wrote. 'It can'talways be pinpointed but you know somethingis not right with the individual. They are just'not themselves."' Demitros mostly avoidedemotive words in his discussion of animalwelfare. When he did use words associatedwith feelings, they were each time chaperonedby finger-quotation marks and a markedintonation.

"Some of it just comes withexperience - you know the animalsmore," he said, and "not just species ingeneral but individuals as well -there's a lot of variation betweengorilla 'personalities,' if you will." Akeeper's background with the animal iskey, he explained. Happy gorillas, hesaid, "act silly" and make whatexperienced gorilla observers know as"content grumbles." Perhaps indicativeof his experience and relationshipswith animals as a long-time zooveteran, Demitros's wariness ofanthropomorphic words did not deterhim from using them.

Besides the open willingness toconsider emotions in animals, the biggestsurprise for Whitham and Wielebnowski wasthe quick agreement on what welfare means.Once the surveys were returned, Whithamsummarized and compressed the findings intoone list of items, a "definition" of welfare forthe species in question. When put together andsent out for final confirmation, people werelargely satisfied. The experts concurred onhow to spot a happy or unhappy animal, evenamong leopard geckos.

After collecting the experts' thoughts,Whitham and Wielebnowski further whittledthem down to ten to fifteen indicators ofwelfare, a list of one- to three-word ratingscales to be used in analysis. For gorillas, thefinal list of welfare checkmarks includedappetite, locomotion, attitude, feces, posture,calm-relaxed, performs self-mutilatingbehaviors, and produces content grumbles.These categories were then rated by keeperson a five-point scale from poor to excellent.

A gorilla and baby at Brookfield Zoo

As every species of animal has its ownlikes, dislikes, and preferences, every speciesacquired its own survey with its own criteria.Many of the indicators overlap across species,such as appetite, activity levels, and pacingbehaviors like those exhibited by Gus thepolar bear. But others are more specific,requiring intimate knowledge of a species,such as whether gorillas produce "contentgrumbles," whether red-tailed hawks spend anuncommonly long time staring off into thedistance, or whether geckos have "onion-like"skin.


With the surveys formed, they wereready to be tested and used by keepers.

They decided to call this new welfare-monitoring tool "WelfareTrak." The keepersgo about their normal routine during the week,cleaning, feeding, observing, and filling outtheir daily logs. At the end of the week, oncetheir shift is done, the keepers pull out thesurveys for each individual animal theyworked with that week. Looking back on theirweek, they rank the attitudes, activity levels,and other markers of well-being. The idea is tofill the questionnaire out as quickly aspossible, spending about two to three minutesper animal. "We don't want them to over-think their responses," Whitham said, "just agut reaction, a quick glance at the week." TheWelfareTrak data can then be compared withinformation from physical exams, hormoneanalyses, and other behavioral observations.

A crucial final step in the use ofWelfareTrak is having regular meetings todiscuss results. Once a month, the keepers andcurators meet to go over the graphs and scores

caretakers. After a few years of preliminarytesting and tweaking at Brookfield, in 2011the tool began a yearlong pilot at five differentAZA institutions. With a grant, Whitham andWielebnowski also developed a website forthe tool, which went live in the summer of2013.

"WelfareTrak allows caretakers to bethe 'voices' for the animals under their care,"the WelfareTrak website declares. ToWielebnowski and Whitham, it makes perfectsense; keepers and animal caretakers have anexceptional responsibility over andrelationship with their animals, and theircloseness naturally fosters insight beyond thephysical realm. "Sometimes keepers spendmore time with the animals than with theirown spouses," Whitham joked. Just as youmight take your grandmother to the doctor todiscuss her medicine, speaking on behalf ofboth her emotional and physical needs, theyfeel the keepers fill the same role for theirfurry and feathered wards.

WelfareTrak@ allows caretakers to be the 'voices'for the animals under their care.

-WelfareTrak website

of each animal in their area. Demitros and histeam of primate keepers helped test the gorillasurveys once the final list was constructed. Hefelt that even though it was only a fewmoments per week, the keepers' responsespicked up on things - on trends and behaviorthat brought up productive discussion. "Itreally showed that casual keeper observationsthat might be considered subjective are reallyobjective," said Demitros.

Although initially created just forBrookfield, they eventually decided to makeWelfareTrak available to any animal

Back on Track?As Whitham and Wielebnowski had

hoped, keepers who tested the tool reported anability to catch welfare issues early on. In onecase, a keeper gave one rhinocerosconsistently low scores on "showing interestin the environment" and "playing." Toimprove those behaviors, the rhino teamdecided to alter their management style,giving the rhino new treats and toys to peakhis interest-and the rhino's scores improved.In another case, the tool picked up on agorilla's penchant for log-shaped feeders,

17


which resulted in "content grumbles" heardfor the first time by visitors peering from thewalkway. WelfareTrak also saved a geckofrom unpleasant circumstances; after noticingan overall decrease in welfare scores after thegecko began being frequently handled andmoved around for an educational program,they retired her from the program, and herscores got better.

Today, WelfareTrak is used regularlyin at least six different wildlife institutions.The team at Brookfield is working ondeveloping surveys for more species, and theyhave over forty requests from differentinstitutions for demos and more informationabout the tool. Wielebnowski recently movedfrom Brookfield to Oregon Zoo, and she iscurrently applying WelfareTrak to assess polarbear well-being there. She plans to extend thetool to black bears and otters, then toelephants, chimps, orangutan, and others inthe future. Wielebnowski's former Brookfieldposition has been filled by an experimentalpsychologist, Lance Miller. He and Whithamplan to continue expanding and marketingWelfareTrak-with the possibility ofimplementing WelfareTrak across an entirecountry for monitoring a species.

WelfareTrak also had an unexpectedside effect. According to keeper surveys, thetool revealed more than glimpses intoanimals' inner sensations -it provided insightinto the minds of other humans, as well. Onelead keeper of twenty-seven years toldWhitham and Wielebnowski, "The best part ofit was the insight into how my coworkersthink.""" Multiple keepers expressed asimilar sentiment. As various individualsdelve into the mind of another species, thesimilarities and differences in theirinterpretations-and thus their ways ofthinking about others and the world-becomeclear. Moreover, besides giving animals a"voice," the keepers felt they gained more of a

"voice" themselves. With data points tosupport their instincts, they have proof of adeep knowledge of their animals-and thatthey know what they're doing.

Yet while Griffin's followers, zookeepers, and researchers like Whitham andWielebnowski have embraced the concept andstudy of beastly feelings, the behaviorists'dogma persists, and the animal-mind debaterages on. In February 2014, just a few monthsafter the WelfareTrak website was rolled out,a story swept across news sites and stations."Behaviorists: Dogs Feel No Shame Despitethe Look," read the title on the AssociatedPress website. The article explained thebehaviorist notion that dogs feel nothing. Petowners may be convinced of their pups'remorse by those droopy eyes, ears, and tails.This feeling is encapsulated in the populartrend of online "dog shaming," puttingpictures online of dogs looking guilty forapparent crimes they committed, such asshredding a twelve-pack of toilet paper rollsall over the living room or eating an entirewheel of cheese.

None of these canines, the articlessaid, know what they did wrong, or even whatshame is. The articles referenced a study byAlexandra Horowitz, an associate professor ofpsychology at Barnard College. In a test offourteen dogs, Horowitz noted the dogs'reactions to their owners when they left andreturned after ordering the dogs not to eat atreat. She found that "guilty" looks appearedonly after dogs were scolded by their owners,whether or not they committed the crime. TheAP article concluded with a quote from aprofessor at Texas A&M University's Collegeof Veterinary Medicine, Dr. Bonnie Beaver.Beaver recapitulated the behaviorist belief thatnothing more than body language andphysiological responses can provideevidence-and that "we will never truly knowbecause we cannot ask them."

The Beast Within: Measuring the Minds of Zoo Animals 19

A Choir of Voices: Other We will never truly knowPerspectives because we cannot ask them.

Despite the ongoing dispute and -Dr. Bonnie Beaver,uncertainty, Brookfield Zoo is not alone Professor, Texas A&M University'sin its quest to expand and conquer College of Veterinary Medicinewelfare beyond the physical. In 2009,the Detroit Zoo was the second zoo to found a been looking into infrared thermography, acenter with welfare in its title. Detroit's Center medical science that uses infrared cameras tofor Zoo Animal Welfare (CZAW) focuses on find areas of stress and irregular blood flow.collecting and disseminating animal welfare- By detecting elevated body temperatures, itrelated information and fostering discussions. can show spots of infections or physical strainStephanie Allard, who comes from a on animal bodies with just the glance of apsychology background, was appointed camera. Such a system could help detectDirector of Animal Welfare and leader of welfare problems early on, with lessCZAW in 2013. She helps host workshops disturbance of the actual animal. But thethat encourage people to put themselves in the technology is expensive.hooves and paws of zoo animals; in the four- Allard conveyed a sense of frustration atday experience, "the whole idea is to really get the difficult, multi-faceted nature ofinto the nitty gritty of what it's like to be an understanding true animal welfare. "None ofanimal in a zoo," said Allard. By imagining that is easy, and none of that is quick; I keepthemselves in the position of an animal, having to remind myself, this isn't somethingperhaps they gain a better sense of their we can find out overnight on any animal," shemindset, to dig deeper into the brains of said.beasts. Regarding the welfare of zoo animals,"as an industry we are starting to want to have Perhaps reflecting the influence ofthe answers.. .to embrace what we might find behaviorism, strictly behavior-basedout," she said. In describing Detroit's observation is still the most popular form ofmethods, she used the same key words as research. This is also the type of study thatWhitham: zoos are striving to have animals was used on Gus the polar bear.that are "thriving." Lincoln Park Zoo, also in Chicago, is

in the process of building its own behavior-Detroit is also working on new, based welfare monitoring tool called

noninvasive technologies, like fecal hormone ZooMonitor. "When people talk about animalstudies, to study welfare. Recently, they have welfare, it's really not an easy thing to get at,"

said Megan Ross, "These animalscan't tell us that they're having a

" As an industry we are starting to great day; they can't tell us that they

wantto avethe nswrs..tofeel happy; but sometimes animalswant to have the answers...to can kind of indicate to you that they

embrace what we might find out. don't like something," she said. To-Stephanie Allard, attain welfare information,

Director of Animal Welfare, Detroit Zoo ZooMonitor uses behavioralmonitoring-the scientific collection


of animal actions as data for discovering whatan animal likes or doesn't like.

While WelfareTrak surveys arecompleted on paper and then entered into thewebsite once a week, ZooMonitor is an iPadapp. Observers watch the animal for tenminutes, entering the animal's behavior ateach one-minute interval directly into the app,multiple times per week. Unlike WelfareTrak,which is made for keeper use, ZooMonitorobservations are generally conducted byresearchers. Rather than capturing a keeper'sweekly gut feelings about an animal's variousstates of wellness, ZooMonitor insteadcollects snapshots of an animal's behavior.The basic method is similar to that ofbehaviorism, except that animal mentality isallowed. Even though we can't directly ask ananimal how it's feeling, Ross believespsychological states must still be sought.

Ross explained the tradition of trustinggut instinct in zoo keeping. "It used to be thatpeople relied exclusively on gut instinct.. .itwas your experience working with animalsthat really dictated how you took care ofthem," she said. While she believesWelfareTrak is a valid tool, she pointed outthat gut instincts can often be misleading.Keepers are extremely busy, she said, and theyspend time with lots of individual animals.

"Keepers are what I call our first lineof defense - they're the first people that mightnotice something changing. But sometimes, ifyou work with something every day, youmight miss something because you're close toit," said Ross. Also, modem developments inscience and technology provide us with anexpanding set of tools to study welfare, shesaid. Like Whitham views WelfareTrak, Rossviews ZooMonitor as a means of giving theanimals a voice. "We're really allowing themto tell us what they like," she explained.

For Ross, the collection of objectivedata is paramount in getting to the root of

welfare, but she sees the value in other modesof research. "I think that WelfareTrak andZooMonitor are actually very complementaryof each other, because WelfareTrak gets thatsubjective nature of things and is quantifyingit in a way to give you some data, and thenZooMonitor is really based on this behavioral,objective viewing." Ross is a behavioralresearcher, so she is naturally inclined towardthe study of behavior. Wielebnowski had abackground in hormonal studies, andWhitham in anthropology. The variety ofmodalities provides different perspectives,ideas, and methods. "I think a lot of people arereally trying to figure out what's going onwith welfare, across the board," said Ross, "Ithink there's lots of different scientistsapproaching it in lots of different ways."

Jason Watters is the current vicepresident of wellness and animal behavior atSan Francisco Zoo and a former researchscientist at Brookfield. While at Brookfield,he led the development and implementation ofEthoTrak, an application similar to that ofZooMonitor. Whereas EthoTrak andZooMonitor are behavior-monitoringprograms, he called WelfareTrak an "opinion-monitoring program." With a doctoral degreein animal behavior, he directs San Francisco'swellness initiative. Theirs is a slightlydifferent approach than other zoos are taking,he said; it's a more comprehensive, broadview of overall well-being in the zoo. "We getwrapped up in thinking about health and bodycondition," said Watters. Believing all animalsneed basically the same things, he focuses onwhether animals' actions show they are doingwell-or "thriving"-and by doing so,promote positive experiences for those whovisit as well. "We're trying to make sure thateverybody feels okay," he said.

Before moving to Brookfield in March2014, Lance Miller worked as a scientist in


behavioral ecology at San Diego Zoo.According to Miller, San Diego is "one of thefew institutions that is actually trying to lookat the entire collection" of animals.Concentrating on behaviors, San Diego'sresearchers seek a method of study thatincorporates every species and individual andtheir specific needs. Miller reported that theywere in the process of developing anapplication like ZooMonitor as well,harnessing new technologies to assemble thedeluge of animal data. Miller praised the levelof collaboration between zoos, but pointed outthat they "wouldn't be moving the fieldforward as quickly as they are" without thediversity of approaches zoos are taking totackle the subject of animal welfare.

Besides implementing WelfareTrak onthe resident polar bears at Oregon Zoo,Wielebnowski also leads AZA's AnimalWelfare Committee. And in the past fewyears, she spearheaded a massive study on zooelephant welfare. The study analyzed 255elephants at 70 different institutions-about95 percent of zoos with elephants. This study"provides a sound, science-based platform forfuture discussions of elephant welfare," byinspecting as many angles of welfare aspossible, said one team member of the study.The researchers, from institutions all over,looked at body condition, repetitive actions,foot and joint health, reproductive cycles, andmore. "We have asked the elephants how theyperceive their welfare and they haveanswered," the researcher said."'

The results were unveiled at the 2013AZA Annual Conference in Kansas City, in apresentation entitled simply, "Using Scienceto Understand Zoo Elephant Welfare." "Thisstudy represents a milestone in theunderstanding of the factors that contribute tozoo elephant welfare," the summary of thepresentation began.'" Zoo professionals

widely consider this a groundbreaking study, atestament to the importance of animal welfarescience.

Don Moore, Associate Director ofAnimal Care Sciences at the National Zoo,called the study "the biggest thing that the zooassociation has done" in the past few years.Among many findings, the study providedfirm evidence that concrete floors are not goodfor elephants' feet, something that keepers hadlong suspected but had no real proof. "Thatwas huge," he said. The study also found thatfemale elephants were more likely to havesuccessful births with increased socialexperiences and a larger variety of enrichmentitems. Like neurotic Gus, elephants can alsopace routinely-and this decreased whenelephants had more space to roam and morepositive relationships with other elephants andkeepers. In the future, Moore predicts a boostin grant money to zoos to fund similar studies,for the purpose of getting to the bottom ofwhat animals need.

It's not all about science, though, saidMoore. "It may start with the rise of a newscience, and then the public gets interested.This drives more media attention, whichdrives more studies, which drives moreeducation on the topic, which drives pressureon governing authorities.. .and all that circularstuff has led to today, and modern zoos withnaturalistic exhibits," he concluded.

his circular process certainly seemstrue in the case of Gus, whose cycleof media coverage, public outcries,and scientific analysis repeatedmultiple times. If the zoo will not

say how an animal feels, the public will. Thesequence of media attention, public demand,and zoo response begins. The loss of Gus hasbeen followed by a cry for a replacement, a

21


new Gus to swim the pool, as well as a pleadto never subject a polar bear to Gus's situationagain. As there are few polar bears to goaround, Central Park Zoo is currently unsureof its plans for its empty exhibit. Likeelephants, polar bears are a large, charismaticmammal that many believe shouldn't even bein a zoo. But for the individuals that are incaptivity, zoos are gathering together, poolingresources, and struggling to get into theirheads, in order to give the animals a "voice."

Some believe the new developments inanimal welfare research are simply a matter ofrelabeling old practices. Others see a genuinemovement in thought, practice, and science.But there is no doubt that, almost like the daysof Darwin, zoo animals today are ever morethe subjects of science. Keepers, researchers,and students eye them from behind exhibitbarriers, behind notebooks and iPads. Themethods of pinning down their thoughts andfeelings may differ, but zoos are realizing thatwithout the mental aspect of welfare, thepicture is not complete. With developingtechnologies, strategies, and new ways ofthinking about animal minds, they may gainmore insight into animal welfare-and howanimals truly feel, inside and out.

By attempting to enter an animal'sseparate, different mind, zoos are embarkingon the journey that Darwin and billions ofothers have joined, free from the bounds of"anthropomorphism" or what constitutes"science": the everlasting effort to understandand connect with other life on this planet.


Source Notes

Daly, "Neurotic Gus Bears Loss of Gal Pal, Ida, in His Own New York Way."" Ackerman, "Gus, the Lonely Polar Bear."" "Gus the Bi-Polar Bear and the Pain of Existence."" Kifner, "ABOUT NEW YORK; Stay-at-Home SWB, 8, Into Fitness, Seeks Thrills.Zuckerman, "Gus, Central Park's Famously Depressive Polar Bear, Has Died."Daly, "Neurotic Gus Bears Loss of Gal Pal, Ida, in His Own New York Way."Cosgrove, "SPA THERAPY FOR BIPOLAR BEAR."

"i Ibid.'x Carlson, "Is Gus The Widowed Central Park Polar Bear Sad?".x Dolnick, "We Are All Gus the Depressed Polar Bear."" Allen, "Animal Consciousness."Xii Sorabji, Animal Minds and Human Morals. 2.xli Darwin, The Descent of Man. 67.XIV Darwin, The Descent ofMan. 39." Kisling, Zoo and Aquarium History. 37.

XV Darwin, Selections from "The Origin of Species ", "The Descent of Man", "The Espressionsof the Emotions in Man andAnimals ", "Animals and Plants ", "Insectivorous Plants" and "TheFormation of Vegetable Mould" 84.xv" Masson, When Elephants Weep. 106." Darwin, Selections. 84.

XIX Ibid. 85.Baratay and Hardouin-Fugier, Zoo. 182.Hauser, "Behaviorism."Pavlov, Conditioned Reflexes. 16.Baratay and Hardouin-Fugier, Zoo. 132.

XXiV Ibid. 169.XXV "Lincoln Park Zoo Timeline."" Yoon, "Donald R. Griffin, 88, Dies; Argued Animals Can Think."

xxv" Chicago Zoological Society, "About CZS."Born Free USA. "About Us - Keep Wildlife in the Wild."

User Testimonials, Welfaretrak.org.Manning, "Behaviorists."Baker, "Executive Summaries, Using Science to Understand Zoo Elephant Welfare."

XXXII Ibid.

23


Bibliography & Selected Readings

Ackerman, Diane. "Gus, the Lonely Polar Bear." The New York Times. 2 Jul 2011.Online. Accessed Mar 2 2014.

Baker, Anne. "Executive Summaries, Using Science to Understand Zoo ElephantWelfare." Presented at the AZA National Conference, Kansas City, Sept 10, 2013.

Baratay, Eric, and Elisabeth Hardouin-Fugier. Zoo: A History ofZoological Gardens inthe West. London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2003.

"Behaviorists: Dogs Feel No Shame despite the Look." The Big Story. Online. AccessedApril 29, 2014.

Carlson, Jen. "Is Gus The Widowed Central Park Polar Bear Sad?" Gothamist. 7 Jun2011. Online. Accessed May 4, 2014.

Cosgrove, Julia & Wasserman, Joanne. "SPA THERAPY FOR BIPOLAR BEAR." NYDaily News. 28 Jun 2002. Online. Accessed April 10, 2014.

Daly, Michael. "Neurotic Gus Bears Loss of Gal Pal, Ida, in His Own New York Way."NY Daily News. 5 Jun 2011. Online. Accessed April 30, 2014.

Dolnick, Ben. "We Are All Gus the Depressed Polar Bear." Daily Intelligencer. 30 Aug2013. Online. Accessed May 8, 2014.

Darwin, Charles, and Hall, Arthur D., Ed. Selectionsfrom "The Origin ofSpecies, " "TheDescent of Man," "The Expressions of the Emotions in Man andAnimals, ""Animals andPlants," "Insectivorous Plants, " and "The Formation of Vegetable Mould." New York:Street & Smith, 1902.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent ofMan. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1898.

Dawkins, Marian Stamp. "A user's guide to animal welfare science." Trends in Ecologyand Evolution. Vol. 21 No. 2, p 77-82. February 2006.

"Gus the Bi-Polar Bear and the Pain of Existence." The Faster Times. 5 Jul 2011. Online.Accessed May 4, 2014.

Hanson, Elizabeth. Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos. Princeton,N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Hosey, Geoffrey R., Melfi, Vicky, and Pankhurst, Sheila. Zoo Animals: Behaviour,Management, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.


Kalof, Linda. Looking at Animals in Human History. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.,2007.

Kifner, John. "ABOUT NEW YORK; Stay-at-Home SWB, 8, Into Fitness, SeeksThrills." The New York Times. 2 Jul 1994. Online. Accessed Mar 4 2014.

Kisling, Vernon N., Ed. Zoo andAquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections ToZoological Gardens. New York: CRC Press, 2000.

Manning, Sue. "Behaviorists: Dogs Feel No Shame despite the Look." Associated Press.26 Feb 2014. Online. Accessed April 29, 2014.

Maple, Terry, & Perdue, Bonnie. Zoo Animal Welfare. New York: Springer, 2013.

Masson, J. Moussaieff, McCarthy, Susan. When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives ofAnimals. New York: Delta, 1996.

Morell, Virginia. Animal Wise: The Thoughts and Emotions of our Fellow Creatures.New York: Crown Publishers, 2013.

Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich. Conditioned Reflexes. Reprint. Mineola, N.Y.: DoverPublications, 2003.

Ritvo, Harriet. Noble Cows and Hybrid Zebras: Essays on Animals and History.Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010.

Sorabji, Richard. Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate.Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995.

Whitham, J. and Wielebnowski, N. "New directions for animal welfare science." AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science. Vol. 147, p. 247-260. 2013.

Wickins-Drazilova, Dita. "Zoo Animal Welfare." Journal ofAgricultural andEnvironmental Ethics. 19: 27-36.2006.

Yoon, Carol Kaesuk. "Donald R. Griffin, 88, Dies; Argued Animals Can Think." TheNew York Times, November 14, 2003. Online. Accessed April 30, 2014.

Zuckerman, Esther. "Gus, Central Park's Famously Depressive Polar Bear, Has Died."The Wire. 28 Aug 2013. Online. Accessed April 30, 2014.

Images1. Copyright 2014 Julia Duke. Taken at Central Park Zoo.2. Copyright 2014 Julia Duke. Taken at Lincoln Park Zoo.


3. Copyright 2014 Julia Duke. Taken at Lincoln Park Zoo.4. Copyright 2014 Julia Duke. Taken at Brookfield Zoo.

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have been possible without the zoo keepers, curators, managers andresearchers who generously took time out of their busy schedules to speak with me.Endless thanks go to Jessica Whitham, who somehow made time for phone calls during her newbaby's naptimes and even facilitated my visit to Brookfield Zoo while on maternity leave. Iwould also like to thank Jocelyn, Craig, and Danielle for showing me such wonderful hospitalityat Brookfield on a freezing, icy Chicago day, and for giving me hours of their time and words.

The idea for this thesis began during my time at Lincoln Park Zoo, and I'll never forget thekindness and attention I was shown during my time there and after. For sparking the idea and foranswering my many questions once the idea became a thesis, Megan Ross, Katie Gillespie, andeveryone who lent their help and thoughts at Lincoln Park Zoo, I cannot thank you enough.

Special thanks to:

Marcia Bartusiak, my thesis advisor, for her exceptional patience and careful edits on my many(very rough) drafts.

Shannon Larkin, for being the best mother hen a group of caffeine- and chocolate-cravingscience writers could ever ask for.

Lindsay Brownell, my friend, roommate, and fellow science writer, for being there with methrough a year of all-nighters and all emotions.

The GPSW Class of 2014, for the support, laughs, memorable quotes, and inspiration.

Susan Duke & Scott Duke, my parents, for their unfailing words of encouragement and pride.

About the Author

Julie Duke is a native of Saint Louis, Missouri and a lifelong animal lover. She graduated fromHarvard University with a degree in History of Science in 2011. While working in theConservation & Science office of Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo for two years post-Harvard, shediscovered an increasing desire to express her passion for wildlife and science through words andarticles. She left to earn her Master's at M.I.T.'s Graduate Program in Science Writing, and willspend the summer of 2014 writing about her favorite topic for The Wildlife Society.

Signature redacted › wp › wp-content › uploads › 2016 › 06 › ... · attendance, their...

Documents

Transcript of Signature redacted › wp › wp-content › uploads › 2016 › 06 › ... · attendance, their...