Psychological ill-health: Distress

So far we have considered how cruelty (prolonged or acute suffering to animals) can be assessed in terms of physical indices, and disease.

In this chapter we are concerned with psychological suffering, and how we might be able to measure this in animals. To do this we have to assess the animals behaviour - what it does, or sometimes what it does not do, perhaps because it cannot due to the limits of its environment. First then we will consider the degree of behavioural restriction which is the result of the environment. This might help us with this thorny problem.

Behavioural restriction

Over the centuries behavioural restriction has been, and still is, one of the most important intuitive indicators of cruelty. Why do we feel that chaining a dog up for 24 hours a day is cruel? Probably because this restricts what the dog can do, where it can go, who it meets and so on. Why do we send people to prison as a punishment? The answer in part is because it restricts their individual freedoms.

The first ethologist to suggest this as an important indicator of assessing animal. welfare (and thus cruelty or its absences) was Thorpe [13]. He suggested that an animal should be able to carry out its normal behaviour, but he left it at that. Hediger [48] used this idea in his consideration of animals in zoos and circuses. Recently this idea has been the subject of controversy within ethology [12]. Some argue that we dont know what animal needs are anyway, and that knowledge concerning them cannot be assessed from our evolutionary knowledge and observation of what the species does when allowed to do anything it likes, but must be tested by giving the animal a choice of environments and seeing which one it chooses [e.g. 51] or how much work it will do in order to obtain an environment with better facilities [e.g. 52]. These discussions give rise to many theoretical problems concerning motivation, what it is or is not, and how it works.

Although these discussions are very interesting and may in the long run add to our total sum of knowledge, they are not I believe directly relevant to the present debate. I suggest that we already have knowledge on what a particular species of animal does and

therefore what it is likely to need or want to do. We have this knowledge from our studies of the animal in a wild or feral state where the animal has few behavioural restrictions, and our understanding of evolution which tells us that the way the animal behaves in such circumstances is the way it has evolved to behave and therefore the optimum for that species. In order to avoid possible suffering that it might undergo if it is deprived of being able to do any of its evolved behaviours, we should provide the animal, when under our jurisdiction, with an environment in which it can perform all the behaviour in its repertoire, provided that does not cause prolonged suffering to others.

KEY:    0 = no restriction     + = some     ++ = severe restriction

This means, in effect, that the animal, when under the jurisdiction of human beings, should be either in the type of social and physical environment in which it has evolved, or a good substitute. The animal should be given the opportunity to exercise all its behaviour, social and physical. Thus, for example, pigs should root about, beavers should build dams [53], mammals should raise their own young and all should be able to associate together in appropriate groups, be able to court and mate. Lions, dogs and other predators should be allowed to hunt. However, since hunting and killing will cause suffering to others who have a right to no prolonged or severe suffering, live prey should be substituted in one way or another. For example, at San Diego Wildlife Park, cheetahs hunt a mechanical antelope; and greyhounds race after a mechanical rabbit; pet dogs hunt and chase sticks and balls, domestic cats play with balls of wool.

The wild or feral (gone wild) environment may not be free of all behavioural restrictions. For example, the animals do not always have sufficient to eat or drink; they may be too hot or too cold; they contract diseases perhaps more readily than when they can be inoculated against them or treated for them, and they can be caught and eaten by predators, if they are preyed on. All of these things can cause severe prolonged suffering and indeed death, and they are behavioural restrictions that may be more severe in the wild than when under human jurisdiction - domestic or captive. They must therefore with caution be taken into account in our assessment of behavioural restriction, animal suffering and cruelty.

E.Y. = exercise yard.          B.W. = beast wagon
KEY: 0 = no restriction
+ = some restriction
++ = strong restriction
+* = impossible to provide

CONDITIONS Breeding = Dogs in breeding kennels
Show = Dogs kept in kennels predominantly for show
Experim = Experimental dogs kept in laboratory conditions
0 = none, or very rare restriction
+ = occasional restriction
++ = usual restriction for majority of the day
Total is only intended as a gross guide.No attempt is made to assess the relative importance of these various activities to the dog.

Figures 28 to 31 give an assessment of the behavioural restriction in some of the species found in the circus, in zoos and/or in domestic situations. The behavioural categories I have taken are designed to cover the full range of behaviour. However, no attempt has been made to assess their relative importance to the animal. For example,

Z = Zoo C = Circus

being able to move unrestricted for short periods each day may be more or less important to the individual than being in an enclosed yard all day, or shackled part of the day, or having sex or giving birth. The possibility of being able to have positive emotional relationships (i.e. become fond of others), even if this is between species one of which is a human being, may be far more important to certain species and individuals than many obvious physical restrictions. The appalling story of the quasi- scientific mismanagement of the elephant Pole Pole in London Zoo [54] whose policy of minimal handling and ignorance (or ignoring) the animals emotional needs ended in her death, illustrates this.

We do not know all the answers, but I think nevertheless it is time that we tried to draw some serious comparisons between the degree of behavioural restriction in different husbandry systems rather than relying on personal, intuitive assessment every time. For the benefit of the numerically minded, we can add up all the restrictions and give each husbandry system a behavioural restriction quotient (the final total in each column in Figures 28 to 31). If we do this, we find there are some surprising results. For example, it is not clear that circus animals are much more restricted in their behaviour than zoo animals (see Figures 28 and 29). In fact, there are indications that the opposite is sometimes the case. It is obvious that when animals are tied or shackled they are more behaviourally restricted than when loose in yards. What is not commonsense is that even if they are shackled or tied some of the time and completely unenclosed at other times, they may be less behaviourally restricted than those who are always in enclosures and/or isolated (columns 3, 4, 5 and 6 Figure 31).

How much behavioural restriction is acceptable? In the best of all possible worlds there would be none - and yet would there? Can animals or humans live lives with no behavioural restrictions? Also, even if this were possible, is it best on balance for the community or the individual? The debate rests on how much behavioural restriction is acceptable. Where should the line be drawn? I consider that we should draw it in much the same place as we do for human beings: that the animal should be able to perform all the behaviour in its repertoire, at least for some part of each day, provided it does not cause prolonged suffering to others, and that while under our jurisdiction the animals should not suffer other avoidable behavioural restrictions, such as from thirst or hunger or controllable disease.

It is clear that almost all our husbandry systems leave much room for improvement in this regard. Ideally surely, the majority of animals should be loose and unenclosed all the time, and remain with us because they choose to, not because they have to, like many of our pet dogs and cats. Is this so impossible? I dont think so, but it will involve much thought and some training to obtain it.

It is, of course, very important to conserve animals in the wild where they can live with minimal interference from humans and other animals - but there is no evidence that this is the only way in which the animals can live without behavioural restrictions or prolonged suffering - any more than this would be considered the case for human beings.

Behavioural distress

Suffering can and must also be measured in terms of behavioural indices [cf. 4; 5; 51]. In this context it is preferable to use the term distress [5]. The term distress refers in particular to behaviour that the animal does which indicates (although this has not always been tested to date) that there are possible physiological parameters of stress.

Empirical information on the degree of distress exhibited by the circus animals was accumulated as described in the methods section (Appendix 2). This was work recorded in the field with no possibility of setting up controlled experimental situations. As a result, there were many variables which may well affect the results. Nevertheless, it gives some indication of the amount of distress exhibited by the circus animals and compares this with other forms of husbandry, such as zoos and commercial horse stables.

KEY: min/hr = minute per hour observed
occ/hr = occurances per hour observed
N.R. = not recorded
** = p< 0.01 sign test

For some of these indices of distress to be assessed in the circus animals it is necessary for us to have more detailed recordings on the wild or feral conspecifics (members of the same species) than have been made to date. Wherever possible, comparisons have been made.

An important area of discussion here is related to whether or not all suffering, or even all pain, is bad and must be avoided. It is clear that some pain is necessary and often life preserving; for example, that related to having a tooth extracted or some types of life-preserving surgery. Equally, athletes will often suffer considerable pain voluntarily in getting themselves fit, and even keep-fit classes can cause pain, but the beneficial results are considered worth the pain. Thus all pain is not necessarily to be avoided; it is only pain and suffering where the benefits do not outweigh the costs for the individual and sometimes others that must be considered so. It is probably true to say that rarely, if ever, is prolonged severe pain in this category [23; 25]. The same argument, it would seem, is relevant to psychological pain or distress. A certain degree of distress may well be acceptable because the benefit outweighs the distress caused. Thus, for example, signs of possible frustration such as head shaking or pawing when a horse is confused in a training session one might argue is permissible, just as in a child fiddling around when not able to solve a problem in arithmetic. What, however, is a sign of inadequacy is if the head shaking or pawing continues for prolonged periods, and perhaps becomes stereotyped. Life does involve both pain and pleasure, distress and joy. To some extent pleasure and joy are perceived as a result of having pain and distress, and there is no way that life can be so constructed for humans and other animals so that it consists entirely of pleasure and joy; and even if this were possible, it is arguable if it is desirable. Thus, inevitably, there will be some pain and distress in the circus as in every other place where sentient beings are. The argument concerning the rightness or wrongness of animal management systems revolves at present around what are the acceptable levels. How can we measure where these might be?

Apart from using behavioural restrictions which we have already discussed, there are, I suggest (and many other ethologists agree at least in part with me) [e.g. 3; 31; 40; 51; 57] other behavioural indicators we could and do sometimes use to help us. These often involve making a comparison between the behaviour of a feral or wild animal and that of the captive, confined animal. It simplifies the problem to divide this behaviour into the following six categories. This is not to say that if the animal shows a change in any one of these categories that it is necessarily suffering and the environment is necessarily unsuitable, but if several of these categories are shown to be significantly different, then we could consider that the animal may well be distressed.

1) Behavioural abnormalities

Evidence of unacceptable levels of distress come, in part, from an assessment of the frequency of obvious behavioural abnormalities. Not all behaviour that does not occur in the wild is necessarily going to cause animals, or humans, to suffer. In fact, some behaviour that is abnormal in that it does not occur in the wild may well be beneficial for the animals emotional, physical or intellectual wellbeing; for example, reading and writing is not natural for humans but literacy is considered to be beneficial as the individual will then be able to have a fuller life. This is an important point and one that needs more consideration and thought. A large number of people consider that anything that the animal does in the wild is natural and therefore good and anything that he or she may do in captivity which is not in the wild repertoire is necessarily bad and wrong. This precludes the animal working in any way for humans, and humans working for animals. We discuss this in more detail later. At this point suffice it to say that this is both a moral and ethological question which is definitely highly disputable.

Our task here and now is to define what abnormal behaviour may be the result of prolonged distress and suffering and therefore be an indicator of it. We know little about this, but there are some abnormal behaviours which are often frequently repeated and which can occur in both animals and humans in captive or institutional environments [59; 60] and which apparently fall into the latter category... or might do. These behaviours are not fixed in all details, but they are repeated; such as running at the bars, repeated playing with a chain or pacing back and forth in caged or stabled animals.

2) Stereotypies

Another particular class of abnormal behaviour which can be relatively easily identified and which is therefore particularly useful in assessing distress or unsuitable animal environments are known as stereotypies. These are behaviours that are fixed in all details, apparently purposeless and repeated(Oxford English Dictionary). They include behaviours such as constant chewing, or crib-biting on particular objects in the environment, weaving, certain head circling, nodding or rocking movements. Recent research on stereotypies has indicated that when the animal is performing a stereotypy, there is an increase in the secretion of natural opiates from the brain [61]. In other words, it seems that the performing of the stereotypy functions to divert attention away from the external environment on to self-stimulation which in turn produces drugs to further dull the effects of the unacceptable external world.

Fig. 33. Crib-biting horse. They grip an object, often the stable door, and suck in
and swallow air,contracting the muscles of the neck near the head at the same time

Stereotypies, however, are often of high habit strength: addictive - the more they are performed the more they are likely to be performed as they are self-rewarding. This means that changing the environment will not necessarily stop them, once they are well established. So their performance may not always reflect the inadequacy of their present environment [e.g. 1; 29]. Thus it is necessary to consider the individuals past history. I believe now that we do have enough knowledge on the cause and development of stereotypies as well as some other behavioural abnormalities in most birds and mammals so we should be able to design environments so that they will not develop in the young animals. We do not, however, have sufficient knowledge to be able to cure established generalised stereotypies.

We must, though, make allowances for the present generation (e.g. stereotypic performing polar bears [63], lions or horses whose past experience was conducive to their development). The next generation can and should be raised without any, or very few, of these behaviours developing, if the prerequisites of environmeatal design outlined in Chapter 9 are adhered to.

3) A substantial increase in aggression

Another possible indicator of environmental inadequacy and psychological distress is the amount of aggression that the animal performs relative to that which it would normally perform in an unrestricted wild or feral state. Aggression tends to increase in some psychologically stressed and disturbed animals and humans. Social living animals tend not to be particularly aggressive to members of their social group, if they are, then the group tends to split up.

Disturbed, neurotic aniimals in pain and distress will tend to be more aggressive both to their social partners and to other species. To collect detailed information in order to make this comparison, we may have to spend many hours watching the animals. On the other hand, as is the case with some dogs, horses and lions, individuals are known to be particularly aggressive and that aggression often increases with pain [64], fear [65], frustration [66] and conflict [67]. Isolating, confining and restricting animals is also used as a technique to increase aggression by comparative psychologists [68]! Aggression is one of the behaviours which can be linked to psychological responses to stress. Thus, if we have animals which are more aggressive than their wild or feral cousins, whether the aggression is directed towards other members of their own species or to other species, this is likely to be because they are distressed. The elephant Pole Pole in London Zoo illustrated this well [54].

It is quite wrong to assume that animals as a general rule are by their nature seriously aggressive and unreliable. Studies of animals considered very ferocious in the wild, such as wild dogs [69], wolves [70], lions [71], tigers [72], elephants [27; 74; 75] and other species, indicate that the reverse is often the case. If the management of any animal husbandry system finds this to be the case - whether they are dealing with mice, men, bulls, elephants, lions or any other animals - they must reassess their management: they have got it wrong. The animals have been made aggressive by the environment. As Daphne Sheldrick, who has much experience of raising many species of wild animal, points out when considering the plight of the mismanaged young elephant Pole Pole: ...If she is difficult, aggressive and vicious, then there is a good reason for it, for elephants under normal circumstances are not naturally so...[76].

4) Time budgets

Here we are assessing how circus and zoo animals distribute their time between behaviours and differences in this from the wild or feral animal. One of the problems for zoo and circus animals in particular, but also for stabled horses and many farm livestock, is, since they are provided with food, the animals often do not have to search for it. Also, their food may be of such a high nutritive level that they spend much less time eating it than they would the lower quality foods in the wild. They may be in restricted environments and less able to spend time in purposeful movement, and the environment may be sterile and lack stimulation of any sort. As a result, the animals may have a lot of spare time. In some cases the animals, or humans in similar environments, will either sleep or rest much more than normal, or they may invent ways of self-stimulation such as performing stereotypies. Thus, assessing the time budgets of the animals in different environments can give us indication of the suitability of the environment for that animals behavioural needs. (Figure 34).

5) Increase in amount of behaviour related to frustration or conflict

Behaviour that can be related to frustration and conflicts, involving, in particular, whether an object is approached or avoided, is very varied. However, there is now some evidence that at such times, when the animal would like to perform something that it is unable to do, it will perform something else. The something else is often related to behaviours that are not normally of top priority, for example scratching (the result of skin irritation). Quite commonly we find that humans and other animals in such situations will scratch themselves, wag their tails, shake their heads, and so on [77; 78]. The individual might suddenly look the other way, or engage in some other behaviour that appears to be irrelevant to the situation, such as eating. Such behaviours are sometimes called displacement behaviour as the behaviour appears to be out of context. These behaviours may often develop their own particular characteristics: they may be incomplete, or performed in an offhand sort of way, or they may become what is termed ritualised: rather fixed in their form [79]. Any behaviour that may be self-directed (e.g. scratching, licking, head shaking or tossing and so on) or directed against objects (e.g. chewing or licking things) may be the result of frustration and conflict in anyones life, but by measuring how frequently these sorts of behaviours occur in animals in different environments we may obtain some idea of how much frustration or conflict they suffer, and whether this is much greater than normal.

6) Increase in the amount of behaviour related to fear

Behaviour related to fear is relatively easy to measure. It includes continued avoidance of things or routines, persistent running away, shivering, sweating, and sometimes over- reacting to slight environmental changes. It may involve defensive threat, that is, aggression, or freezing immobile. There are often physiological changes, such as an increase in heart and respiration rates, defaecation and urination [84].

7) Ontogenic (individual developmental) behavioural changes

This means, effectively, that the animal is not performing the normal behaviour for its species at that age or stage of development. For example, the veal calves that I studied [5] walked when released from their crates at 16 weeks as if they were only a day or so old. Other behavioural changes, such as delayed social behaviour or prolonged infantile behaviour, would come into this category.

These then are the ways in which we may be able to assess behavioural distress in animals. They are summarised:

POSSIBLE INDICATORS OF DISTRESS IN ANIMALS

The results from measuring these indices in zoos, circuses, and some other animal husbandry systems are given in the tables we have discussed in Chapter 3. The detailed behaviour changes are now discussed.

ELEPHANTS

1. Abnormal behaviour

Figure 35 gives the frequency of occurrence of abnormal behaviours for Indian and African elephants, in zoos and circuses, loose and tied. Abnormal behaviour consisted of bar-biting and playing with the shackle chain.

Fig. 34. Elephants. Time budgets

Several elephants also banged their trunks on the ground when excited and when requiring further individual attention particularly from the handler. Whether wild elephants perform this behaviour has not been reported. The differences in the amount these behaviours were performed in the different environments were not significant.

2. Stereotypies

All the elephants in both zoos and circuses performed stereotypies. These took the form of weaving or swaying backwards and forwards on the spot, and/or head nodding, often accompanied by trunk swinging. The stereotypies were performed from 6 to 15 minutes per hour observed. Most of this behaviour was recorded in the shackled/tied elephants, and least in the young Africans. There was no significant difference in the amount these behaviours were performed in the different environments, although the total numbers of hours recorded were small for the zoo elephants.

3. Increase in aggression

Two of the elephants were described as slightly unreliable and possibly aggressive towards human beings. However, this was not apparent in their behaviour to other elephants. Here the remarkable thing is the low levels of aggression between the elephants even in confined conditions where it might be expected to be relatively high - only one aggressive encounter recorded.

4. Time budget changes

Figure 34 gives the time budgets that we recorded and the significant differences. The loose elephants stood and ate for less of the time, moved around more and lay down more than the shackled elephants. There were no significant differences between the circus and zoo elephants in these behaviours, and the only significant difference between the African and Indian elephants was that the Africans ate for much more of the time (40.28 min/hour compared to 27.1).

Detailed comparable figures are not yet available for the wild elephants recorded.

5. Frustration and conflict

Head shaking, hitting the wall with the trunk and tail wagging were included. There were no significant differences in these behaviours for the different environments. There was a significant difference, however, between the Indian and African elephants - the Indian elephants performing more of these behaviours.

6. Fear

Panicking (fleeing), shivering, and very frequent high-pitched long and loud vocalisations are some possible indices of fear in elephants. There was no evidence of this behaviour while the animals were being recorded in their living quarters; only two instances were recorded from the elephants at other times.

7. Ontogenic change

There was no evidence of this during the period of study. The young African elephants did show behaviour that may be a precursor of stereotypic behaviour - trunk swinging. Stereotypies were established in the majority of the adult elephants in both circuses and ZOOS.

Summary of distress displayed in elephants

The most obvious and frequent indicator of possible distress, and therefore an inadequate environment for elephants, is the occurrence of stereotypies which involved, in particular, head nodding and weaving. Bar biting, an abnormal but not stereotypic behaviour (since it was not constant in form), also occurred where there were bars.

These behaviours occurred up to 22% of every observed hour in the zoo and circus elephants. It must, however, be borne in mind that these stereotypies may have become established earlier in the individual’s lives. Also, conditions may have improved but the generalised and established stereotypy did not disappear, although the amount they are performed could well be cut down; for example, the elephants performed most when they were shackled and had no food. Being sure that the elephants always had food and other objects to manipulate on offer, even when shackled, cut down the performance of these stereotypies.

The circus elephants were not observed weaving and head nodding when out for walks, performing, during training, or when being handled by their handlers. Increasing the interest of the environment, possibly the mental challenge of training, problem- solving and the possibilities for manipulation might well reduce these further.

The occurrence of these behaviours in loose enclosures in zoos, with many things to manipulate, suggests that there are more factors involved in its etiology in elephants, than simply behavioural restriction.

The young African elephants performed little weaving or head nodding, but they did perform trunk swinging which might well develop into weaving as they grow up unless serious consideration is given to their husbandry and mental stimulation.

* sign test - p<0.05

THE BIG CATS

1. Abnormal behaviour

There were no obvious signs of neurosis or pathology in the circus or zoo big cats. Pacing was the most common abnormal behaviour. It is not a stereotypy because it is not constant in form, and also possibly does have a purpose in exercising the animal. It was performed on average in these different species and environments for nearly 5 minutes in every hour, about 8% of the daytime.

Figure 37 row 7 gives the amount of pacing for the big cats in the different environments. There was insufficient data on the lions in zoos, but it is notable that there was no pacing shown during the recorded observations in the zoo tigers and there was no significant relationship here; in fact, for the lions and the tigers the trend was the other way:

lions - 2 min/hr beast wagon and 3.3 min/hr exercise yard
tigers - 8.4 min/hr beast wagon and 7.5 min/hr exercise yard.

There is no clear pattern. Nevertheless, the performance of pacing indicates environmental inadequacy.

2. Stereotypies

Although some big cats do develop head twisting or bar biting stereotypies, none of these were recorded in these animals in any of the environments.

3. Increase in aggression

One lion, a tiger and a leopard in the circuses were described as rather aggressive by their trainers. Such observations are not generally made on the zoo animals as no serious effort is made to have individual relationships with them or understand their individual personalities.

The leopards showed a trend towards more inter-specific aggression than the other cats, although only in the exercise yard, surprisingly. This was slightly higher than the inter-specific affiliative behaviour.

Until we have detailed information from the wild, it is not possible to assess whether these figures are very abnormal for the big cats.

4. Time budget changes

It is widely believed that the big cats, particularly lions, spend the majority of their time lying about resting [71] which it has been argued [84] makes them relatively easy animals to keep in captivity. Our records show that the amount of time spent lying varied from 27 minutes/hour to 50, with an average of 40.6 minutes/hour, 67% of the observed day.

The lions and tigers did not vary their lying time in the different environments nor between the zoos and circuses; but the leopards did. They spent only 27 minutes/hour (45%) lying in the exercise yard, while 50 minutes/hour (83%) of the daytime was spent lying down by leopards in the zoos.

The tigers and lions seem to indicate no gross changes in lying time from the wild. However, we will have to await results from wild studies before we know how significant the figures for leopards are. The lower resting time in the circuses may reflect that they have become more diurnal in this environment since they have fewer behavioural options at night when they are enclosed in the beast wagon. This is backed up by the significantly greater sleeping time in the daytime in the zoos, and less time moving (rows 2 and 6 of Figure 36) when they are not shut up at night.

FIGURE 36 BIG CATS. Maintenance behaviour in different environments (mins/hour/animal observed)
.	LIONS		TIGERS				LEOPARDS			MEAN	%
	BW	EY	C	Z	BW	EY	C	Z	EY
Observed hours	161	6	250	10	232	14	37	6	39	.	.
Number of individuals	32	6	47	5	42	7	19	3	8	.	.
.
1) Lying	48.8	45.0	39.2	43	40.1	40.7	33.7 **	50 **	27.2 **	40.6	67
2) Sleeping	6.5	?	1.5	4.5	1.6	3.2	5.5	3.2 **	1.4 **	4.2	7
3) Standing	4.2	6.7	3.7	2.5	3.8	2.1	3.1	0.8 *	3.7 *	3.4	5.6
4) Eating	2.5	0	5.6	0	6.0	0	1.6	0	1.9	2	3.2
5) Sitting	0.4	2.5	0.9	0.5	0.7	1.9	3.2	7.5	6.2	2.6	4.4
6) Moving	3.9	1.7	6.6	12.0	6.8	12.0	11.3 *	2.5 *	16.9	3.2	13.6
7) Touch other (affiliative)	5.7	0	7.4 **	1.0	7.2	1.4 **	2.6	13.3	4.2	4.6	7.7
8) Human contact	0.4 **	4.7 **	0.2	0	0.2	0	1.1	0	0	0.7	1.2

KEY BW - Beast wagon. EY - Exercise yard, C Circus (all data). Z - Zoo (all data). Tabulated figures are in minutes/cat/hour observed. Significant effects of the keeping conditions on behaviour are shown: * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01 (Mann Witney test). Tattersall [129] recorded the time budgets of 4 captive zoo leopards at Marwell Zoo. The % lying time is lower for her leopards (28-40% of daytime) than the zoo leopards we watched.

FIGURE 37 THE EFFECT OF THE ENiVIROMENT ON OTHER BEHAVIOUR OF THE BIG CATS Number of times/ observed hour the named behavioural categories occurred
.	LIONS		TIGERS				LEOPARDS			MEAN	%
	BW	EY	C	Z	BW	EY	C	Z	EY
Observed hours	161	6	250	10	232	14	87	6	39	.	.
Number of Individuals	32	6	47	5	42	7	19	3	8	.	.
.
1) Frustration	0.5	0.3	0.1	1.5	0	1.1	0.5	1.8	0.5	0.7	1.1
.
2) Social a) affiliative	4.6	8.8	5.7	4.2	4.9	3.1	4.6	?	6.2	5.3	8.7
b) aggressive	0.3 **	0 **	0.8	0	0.8	0	3.7	?	6.9	1.6	2.6
c) all vocalising	1.7	5.7	3.9 *	0.9 *	4.1	1.1	5.9	?	11.3 *	4.3	7.2
.
3) Object directed	2.8	2.4	0.7	4.9 *	0.6	3.7	2.4	1.7	2.6	2.4	4.0
4) Self directed	5.0 *	0.5 *	4.0	5.6	4.0	4.9	5.4	?	2.3	4.0	6.5
5) Locomotion	0.5 **	10.0 **	0.9	2.2	1.0	1.0	1.5 **	1.2	1.0 **	3.3	5.5

KEY - BW - Beast wagon EY - Exercise yard C circus Z - zoo
* p<0.05 ** - p<0.01 sign test

5. Frustration and conflict

The big cats and other canivores can develop self-licking behaviours which may even develop into self-consuming behaviour [82]. The lions in the beast wagons did show significantly more selfdirected behaviour than those in exercise yards; and the leopards had a high score (5.4 times/animal hour) in the beast wagons too.

6. Fear

Typical responses to fear in the big cats include fleeing, and defensive threat including ear flattening and hissing. There were few incidences of this in any of the cats.

7. Ontogenic changes

There was no evidence of gross ontogenic changes in the big cats, although there is little information in this area.

Summary of distress displayed in the big cats

Possible evidence for distress in circus and zoo lions, tigers and leopards might be particularly related to pacing, which should not occur at all if the environment was completely adequate. There were, however, some other behavioural differences particularly between the lions in the beast wagon and exercise yards; for example, in the beast wagon they performed significantly more self-directed activities (scratching, rubbing, grooming, sniffing themselves - Figure 37, row 5) and less other locomotion, such as leaping and rushing around (row 6). The leopards, by contrast, showed significantly more locomotion in the circus recordings, including the beast wagon, than in the exercise yards only!

One might expect in confined and behaviourally restricted environments that the few behaviours that can be performed would be performed more than normal. Another interesting difference is that the circus tigers vocalised much more than the zoo ones - much of these were purrs directed at humans, particularly their handlers and trainers. The leopards vocalised more in the exercise yards than in the beast wagon.

The conclusions from this are that apparently the big cats differ in how their behaviour changes in relation to their captive environment, and apart from the occurrence of pacing, there are no other clear indications of environmental inadequacy and therefore possible behavioural distress, although the leopards’ more dirunal habit and relatively higher level of frustration may point towards this.

The Bears

FIGURE 38 BEARS Maintenance behaviour. Number of minutes/bear hour observed.
.	BEARS
Observed hours	65
Number of individuals	9
.
1) Lying	18.0
2) Sleeping	3.8
3) Standing	7.9
4) Eating	3.7
5) Sitting	3.7
6) Moving	10.1
7) Drink	1.2
8) Hind leg (stand)	0.2
9) Defecate and urinate	0.1
10) Abnormal (stereotypes)	0.5
11) Touch other	4.0
12) Human contact	16.8
13) Pacing	18.3

 

FIGURE 39 BEARS Other behaviour Occassions/observed bear hours the named behavioural categories occurred.
.	BEARS
Observed hours	65
Number of individuals	9
.
1) Abnormal	2.3
2) Frustration	2.4
3) Social a) affiliative	11.4
b) aggressive	0
c) vocalise	0.7
4) Object directed	6
5) Self directed	7.2
6) Locomotion a) run	0.03
b) climb	0.38

1. Abnormal behaviour

The bears displayed no obvious signs of neurotic or pathological behaviour (Figures 38 and 39). Pacing occurred for 18.3 minutes per hour (30%). This is very high. The bears were not studied in zoos so we have no comparable figures. Other studies (e.g. 63) suggest that this figure may well be in line with the normal figure for zoo bears.

2. Stereotypies

Bears are particularly prone to developing stereotypies, particularly in zoos. One circus bear had a stereotypic head twist. This occurred for 0.52 minutes/observed bear hour. No other stereotypies were observed, although the sample was small.

3. Increase in aggression

The bears showed no aggression either to humans or to other bears during the observational periods.

4. Time budget changes

The bears were active during the observational periods, spending over 10 minutes in every hour moving around in their small beast wagons. They lay for 18 minutes/animal hour, but only 3.8 minutes were spent sleeping. They also sat, stood on their hind legs, spent time touching each other (4 minutes/animal hour) and much time in human contact (16.8 minutes/animal hour). We have no comparable figures from the wild or zoo animals at present.

5. Frustration and conflict

Behaviour that might be associated with frustration or conflict, such as head shaking, head nodding, running at bars, self-scratching, vocalising, was relatively common: 2.4 times/bear hour - relatively high compared to some of the other species.

6. Fear

There was no evidence of fear (fleeing, freezing) recorded in the bears.

7. Ontogenic change

We have no information here.

Summary of distress displayed in bears

Bears did show some evidence of distress; some stereotypic performance, abnormal pacing and bar biting, relatively high levels of behaviour possibly associated with frustration. They were active, perhaps abnormally so, but remarkably unaggressive.

FIGURE 40 CAMELS Maintenance Behaviour Number of minutes/observed hourthe named behavioural categories occured.
.	CAMEL	LLAMA		CATTLE	BUFFALO	REINDEER	PIGEONS
Observed hours	52	56	24	4	1	1	50
Number of Individuals	16	14	.	2	3	1	50
.
1) Lying	13.9	25.4	27.7	21.3	.	.	6.8
2) Sleeping	0.1	?	?	?	.	.	.
3) Standing	43.9	27.0	27.1	30.0	48.3	60.0	14.0
4) Eating	19.9	14.0	13.0	11.3	11.7	45.0	9.
5) Moving	2.3	4.3	3.4	5.0	13.	05.0	7.4
6) Stereo type	.	1.4	0.9	.	.	.	.
7) Touch Other(affiliative)	10.9	2.8	2.8	?	.	.	4.4
S)Human Contact	16.8	1.1	2.2	8.8	.	.	1.1
9)Cudding	13.8	3.4	3.5	3.8	.	.	9.3

THE CAMELIDS

The behaviour of these animals was only recorded in the circuses; therefore no comparisons with the zoo animals are possible.

1. Abnormal behaviour

One camel salivated greatly when in training and in the ring, and two other young camels salivated when being trained. This seemed to indicate a degree of anxiety, but could hardly be classified as neurotic or pathological behaviour.

The camels occasionally bit the bars (Figure 41 row 5) and two of the llamas chewed wood.

FIGURE. 41 CAMELS Other Behaviour number of times/observed hour the named behavioural categories occured.
.	CAMEL	LLAMA		CATTLE	BUFFALO	REINDEER	PIGEONS
Observed hours	52	56	24	4	1	1	50
Number of Individuals	16	14		2	3	1	50
.
1) Pleasure	3.9	0.1	0.1	.	.	.	0.4
2) Drink	1.6	0.5	0.3	0.5	.	.	0.04
3) Defecate & urinate	0.70.	2	0.1	.	.	.	0.1
4) Cough		0.2	0.2	.	.	.	0.06
5) Abnormal	0.4	0.1	0.1	.	.	.	.
6) Frustration	4.22	0.9	0.8	.	.	.	0.67
7) Social a) affiliative	0.7	0.7	1.0	.	.	.	1.1
b) aggressive	0.5	1.0	1.4	.	.	.	0.73
c) vocalise	0.1	0.1	0.1	.	.	.	7.4
8) Object directed	0.4	0.9	0.7	.	0.7	.	0.72
9) Self directed	2.4	3.3	2.9	.	1.3	1.0	3.4
10) Locomotion	.	.	.	.	.	.	1.67

24Hr Observed over 2 whole 24 hour periods.

2. Stereotypies

Camels and members of the llamadae in zoos quite frequently develop stereotypies, usually involving elaborate head movements. We did not, however, see any of these in the circus animals.

3. Increase in aggression

High levels of aggression were displayed. One camel occasionally bit, two spat, and two llamas bit and spat quite frequently in contact with humans. On the other hand, several camels could be tethered among the public and showed no sign of aggression, even when being touched by over 200 people per hour! Inter-group aggression was relatively high in the llamas (1/llama hour observed, compared to 0.5 for camels, and 0.3-0.4 for horses).

4. Time budget changes

We have no detailed information on the time budgets of feral or wild camelids, so it is not possible to assess the changes in time budgets. Nevertheless, it is interesting that camels spend more time standing, and llamas spend more time lying down. In addition, the llamas spend less time ruminating than, for example, cattle (5% of the time compared to around 20% for cat0e) [55; 73].

5. Frustration and conflict

Both the camels and the llamas performed behaviours that are often indicative of frustration relatively frequently. These are tail wagging, head shaking, pawing and foot stamping (occurring in camels 4.2 and 0.9 llamas/animal hour). It may be that these displays are common in any case in the camelids - we do not have any data from wild or feral animals with which to compare.

6. Fear

Spitting appears often to be related to defensive threat and did occur occasionally in training and during handling of the camels and llama. Ear flattening and biting can also be related to defensive threat, and did occur (see 3).

7. Ontogenic change

We have no information here.

Summary of distress displayed in camelids

There do not appear to be obvious signs of distress in the camelids, although some periodic signs of anxiety and possible discomfort are seen.

THE EQUIDS

I. Abnormal behaviour

Neurotic and pathological behaviour is relatively common in individually stabled domestic horses (Figure 27,). In the circus horses and ponies, three individuals (1.6%) could be described as neurotic.

Behaviour not normally in the animals repertoire, such as playing with the tether chain, chewing and biting objects, and door kicking, occurred in the majority of circus horses, but not in the zebras and mules. The mules sample was, however, very small.

FIGURE. 42 HORSES, PONIES, ZEBRA & MULES - Other Behaviour Number of times/observed hour the named behavioural categories occured
.	HORSES			PONIES	ZEBRA	MULES	.	.
	TIED	LB	24hr	.	.	.	MEAN	FERAL PASTURE *
Observed hours	160	155	329	80	26	14	.	.
Number of Individuals	64	49	14	35	10	2	.	.
.
1) Abnormal	0.8	0.6	1.1	2.0	0.1	.	0.8	.
2) Frustration	2.4	1.8	2.3	1.2	9.3	.	3.4	.
3) Social a) affiliative	0.6	NP	0.6	1.6	0.6	.	0.7 **	0.2 **
b) aggressive	0.4	NP	0.3	0.4	0.3	.	0.3 **	0.09 **
c) vocalise	0.5	0.7	0.5	0.8	0	1.1	0.6	.
4) Object directed	0.7	0.3	1.5	0.3	1.8	0.1	0.8	.
5) Self directed	0.7	0.85	0.4	0.7	1.0	.	0.5	.
6) Locomotion	0.8	1.7	0.8	2.7	7.6	.	.	.
7) Cough	0.3	0.1	0.8	0.2	.	.	0.4	.
8) Defecate & urinate	0.2	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	.	.

TIED = tied in stalls LB = loose box NP = not possible 24hr = 24 hour observations
* = from Goldsmidt Rothschild 1976, and K-Worthington 1987. ** = p<0.01 Mann Witney.

2. Stereotypies

Domestic stabled horses often perform stereotypies (crib-biting, weaving, wind-sucking etc. - see Figure 27). Six animals (3.3%) in the British circuses performed a stereotypy. In the Swiss circus, where all the animals were housed in individual looseboxes, fed unrestricted diets and with practically no contact between them or to the outside, 60% of the animals performed a stereotypy of one sort of another. This is nearer the normal level for racing, competitive and teaching stable yards (36.6% racing stables, 25.9% teaching stables).

3. Increase in aggression

Aggressive animals were not common in the circuses: 5 (2.8%) were aggressive towards human beings. The inter-specific aggression was low 0.3-0.4/animal hour, although slightly higher than in pastured animals (Figure 43). Aggressive interactions were lower than affiliative behaviour, as is the case in pastured animals [30].

FIGURE. 43 HORSES, PONIES, ZEBRA & MULES - Maintenance Behaviour Minutes/observed animal hour
.	HORSES			PONIES	ZEBRA	MULES	.		.		STABLED %
	TIED 1	LB 2	24hr. 3	4	5	6	MEAN 7	% 8	FERAL % 9	YARD % 10	GROUP 11	ISOL 12
Observed hours	160	155	329	80	26	14	.	.	2000	288	216	288
No. of Individuals	64	49	14	35	10	2	.	.	13	3	6
.
a) Lying	3.8	1.0	6.0	0.5	4.2	10.7	4.4	7.2	10	10	10	15
b) Sleeping (doze)	1.1	2.3	1.5	1.8	1.5	1.4	1.6	2.7	.	.	.	.
c) Standing (all)	43.5	58.5	46.1	53.1	53.3	47.5	50.5	84.1	80	80	87	80
d) Eating	20.9	35.6	22.1	29.3	29.6	31.1	28.1	46.8	60	57	47	15
e) Moving	0.8	1.7	0.9	2.7	7.7	1.4	2.5	42	10	10	5	0
f) Standing only	22.6	22.9	24	23.8	23.7	16.4	22.4	37	20	23	40	65
g) Stereotypes	0.08	0	0.04	0.9	0.1	?	0.2	0.4	0	0	10	50
h) Touch other	0.3	0	0.22	1.4	0.4	?	0.4	0.73	.	.	.	0
i) Human contact	9.7	11.8	7.6	2.6	4.1	?	7.16	11.9	.	.	2.4	2.1

4. Time budget changes

The time budgets for the horses, ponies, zebras and mules in the different environments are given in Figure 44. There are no significant differences from the way time is spent in the feral or yarded horses (see columns 8, 9, 10). This is different from the time budgets of single-stabled, quality horses fed restricted fibre in Britain which spend much more time standing doing nothing (65% compared to 37%) and less time eating (15% compared to 46.8%) [29]. One particularly important factor here is that the circus horses, as a general rule, had access to hay and/or straw to eat at all times.

5. Frustration and conflict

Behaviour often associated with frustration, such as tail wagging, head shaking, pawing, body shaking etc., was relatively common particularly in the zebras who performed such behaviour 9.3 times/hour observed.

6. Fear

Fear responses include fleeing, freezing, shivering and sweating, and defensive threat involving ear flattening and biting frequently. No avoidance of humans was recorded in the circus animals, although there was some aggression (see above). Evidence for shivering and sweating in fear was absent.

7. Ontogenic changes

There was no evidence for these in the circus horses. However, many of them were not ever allowed free social access to other horses. It may well be that their social development was not normal. This is very frequently the case of isolated and stable- restricted domestic horses.

Summary of distress displayed in equids

The degree of distress shown by the circus horses might be considered lower than that for the competitive racing and teaching stabled horses. There was some evidence of distress, and the keeping conditions could certainly be improved. The answer may rest in keeping the horses in groups in yards, rather than changing them from stalls to looseboxes which does not apparently reduce possible evidence of distress (Figure 42). The zebras did not show any greater evidence of distress than the horses; in fact, in some respects less, although they did perform more behaviours that could be related to frustration.

Conclusions

In summary, we can have some idea when an animal is distressed from looking at various aspects of his management, the degree of behavioural restriction as a result of this environment and management, and certain indices in his behaviour. These are summarised on page 76. It is true to say that there was evidence of prolonged distress and abnormal behaviour found in both zoos and circuses, but it is equally true to say this is the case with almost any animal husbandry system today. There was not significantly more distress shown in the circus animals than in the same species in zoos or domestic systems.

Fig. 44. How do horses in different environments spend their time?
A: The average time budgets for Camargue horses throughout the year. (After Duncan 1980).
B: Time budgets for a group of eight horses in a yard with ad libitum hay and straw.
C: The time budgets for three horses in individual stables fed ad libitum hay and straw and able to see and touch each other.
D: Time budgets for horses in stables where they cannot touch each other and only see each other over stable doors; they were fed restricted fibre (about 3kg/lday, horses of 15.2- 16hh).

We must conclude therefore that there is no evidence to back the case that circuses necessarily cause suffering any more than zoos or other animal systems do. What it does say is that circuses are no better and no worse than other husbandry in this respect. There should be no evidence for prolonged distress in any animal or human husbandry system.

It also argues for improvement in husbandry of all the animal keeping systems. There should be no, or very little, signs of suffering displayed in any appropriate animals husbandry. It would seem that more thought about the environments design and the treatment of the animal within it is needed here. This applies not only to animals that are traditionally wild but to traditionally domestic animals too.

Back to Contents.	Continue to Chapter 5
Visit Aardvark Publishing to buy this book or to view their selection of circus publications.
Join the Circus Friends Association	Visit the RSPCA Animadversion site
Any non working links, comments or suggestions please contact the webmaster: johneaston@diddly.co.uk