Ue at=wloleiaat-]me)mdel-WAlenl-laler- lam Crxelelf-lalelame) mm 4elel (-1-] 01-1 em [aren C7 ¢ Ye AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of ZOO KEEPERS These are unprecedented times. Share your photos and stories of positivity and resilience to the AKF Editor at shane.good@aazk.org. 133 ABOUT THE COVER 134 FROM THE PRESIDENT FEATURED ARTICLES 137-141 Connections for Conservation: Bringing out the birds Darcy Huismann 142-145 Gender Labeling and Behavior: “This Animal Doesn’t Like Men” John Scott TRAINING TALES 146-149 Who’s Teaching Who? Husbandry Training Adventures with Two American White Pelicans Becky Jahns CONSERVATION STATION 150-157 Comparing Educational Programming and Usage of Single-Use Plastics at Zoos and Aquariums in the United States and Canada Amy Sarno .com® PREMIUM ANIMAL NUTRITION Discover what tens of thousan of customers including commercial reptile breeding facilities, veterinarians and some of our country’s most respected zoos and aquariums have already learned: with Rodentpro.com®, you get quality AND value! Guaranteed. RodentPro.com® offers only the highest quality frozen mice, rats, abbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, erbils, chickens, quail, live insects, ther foods and supplies at prices lat are MORE than competitive. /e set the industry standards y Offering unsurpassed quality, feeder direct pricing and year- und availability. € are confident that you will be ruly pleased with the products and service you receive from RodentPro.com®. We will do whatever it takes to earn your business. We guarantee it! Ol gelsyareyalitarsy: www.RodentPro.com It’s quick, convenient and guaranteed! PO. Box 118 Inglefield, IN 47618-9998 Tel: 812.867.7598 Fax: 812.867.6058 ‘ ik - = Hea , XY E-mail: info@rodentpro.com a 7 == . - ¥ PayPal Bottoms Up! ©2020 RodentPro.com, LLC. MISSION STATEMENT American Association of Zoo Keepers, Inc. wast AMERICAN The American Association of Zoo Keepers, Inc. exists to advance excellence in the animal keeping profession, foster effective communication beneficial to animal care, support deserving conservation projects, and promote the preservation of our natural resources and animal life. ASSOCIATION of ZOO KEEPERS ABOUT THE COVER Bo is the Hutchinson Zoo's resident burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). As burrowing owls are one of the few species of diurnal owls, Bo is a friendly and busy bird, finding just the right hole to stow away his food, or perching on a tall branch to survey those below. He sees the keepers long before they see him, holding an intense gaze that belies his small stature. He may only stand about nine inches tall, but each inch is packed with the same hunting prowess and raw power of his larger cousins. Relatively speaking, of course. Seen somewhat often in Bo's homeland of Kansas, burrowing owls make their homes in previously dug burrows in and around prairie dog colonies (and other similar arid habitats) where they feed, breed, and raise their young. They rely heavily on these prairie environments, forming mutually beneficial relationships with the nearby colonies. In order to attract insects, they will line the entrances of their burrows with feces, often feeding their lured prey to their offspring. Although they are classified as a species of least concern, the encroachment of human civilization onto grassland environments is causing their numbers, as well as those of many other prairie species, to dwindle. Many zoos, the Hutchinson Zoo included, are part of the burrowing owl Species Survival Program® (SSP) with the goal of preserving and raising up new generations of these beautiful animals. Although small, these owls play a big role in the preservation of the world's too-often forgotten tallgrass prairie regions. Photo by Molly Foster Articles sent to Animal Keepers’ Forum will be reviewed by the editorial staff for publication. Articles of a research or technical nature will be submitted to one or more of the zoo professionals who serve as referees for AKF. No commitment is made to the author, but an effort will be made to publish articles as soon as possible. Lengthy articles may be separated into monthly installments at the discretion of the Editor. The Editor reserves the right to edit material without consultation unless approval is requested in writing by the author. Materials submitted will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed, appropriately-sized envelope. Telephone, fax or e-mail contributions of late-breaking news or last-minute insertions are accepted as space allows. Phone (330) 483-1104; FAX (330) 483-1444; e-mail is shane.good@aazk.org. If you have questions about submission guidelines, please contact the Editor. Submission guidelines are also found at: aazk.org/akf-submission-guidelines/. Deadline for each regular issue is the 3 of the preceding month. Dedicated issues may have separate deadline dates and will be noted by the Editor. Articles printed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the AKF staff or the American Association of Zoo Keepers, Inc. Publication does not indicate endorsement by the Association. Items in this publication may be reprinted providing credit to this publication is given and a copy of the reprinted material is forwarded to the Editor. If an article is shown to be separately copyrighted by the author(s), then permission must be sought from the author(s). Reprints of material appearing in this journal may be ordered from the Editor. Regular back issues are available for $6.00 each. Special issues may cost more. MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Animal Data Transfer Forms available for download at aazk.org. AAZK Publications/Logo Products/ Apparel available at AAZK Administrative Office or at aazk.org. oy Responsibly ORESTED PAPER ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM TO CONTACT THE AKF EDITOR: Shane Good, AKF Editor P.O. Box 535, Valley City, OH 44280 330-483-1104 Shane.Good@aazk.org AAZK Administrative Office American Association of Zoo Keepers 8476 E. Speedway Blvd. Suite 204 Tucson, AZ 85710-1728 520-298-9688 (Phone/Fax) CHIEF EXECUTIVE/FINANCIAL OFFICER: Ed Hansen | Ed.Hansen@aazk.org DIRECTOR of PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT and CONFERENCE MANAGEMENT Bethany Bingham, Bethany.Bingham @aazk.org ANIMAL KEEPERS' FORUM - EDITOR Shane Good, Shane.Good @aazk.org GRAPHIC DESIGNER Elizabeth Thibodeaux, Elizabeth. Thibodeaux@aazk.org ENRICHMENT OPTIONS COLUMN COORDINATORS Stephanie Miner, Julie Hartell-DeNardo, Beth Stark-Posta, Beth Ament-Briggs TRAINING TALES COLUMN COORDINATORS Kim Kezer, Jay Pratte, Angela Binney CONSERVATION STATION COLUMN COORDINATOR Philip Fensterer ANIMAL WELFARE COLUMN COORDINATORS Stephanie Miner, Julie Hartell-DeNardo, Beth Stark-Posta, Beth Ament-Briggs BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OVERSIGHTS PRESIDENT: Paul Brandenburger, Paul.Brandenburger@aazk.org VICE PRESIDENT - Conservation: Nicole Pepo, Nicole.Pepo@aazk.org Ethics Chair Conservation Committee Chair: Saul Bauer, Conservation@aazk.org Vice Chair: Carrie Ellis, Conservation@aazk.org Bowling for Rhinos Program Program Manager: Kym Janke, Kym.Janke@aazk.org Vice Manager: Matthew Mills, BFR@aazk.org Trees for You and Me Program Program Manager: Christy Mazrimas-Ott, Christy.Mazrimas-Ott@aazk.org Vice Manager: Vacant BOARD MEMBER - Education: Ellen Vossekuil, Ellen.Gallagher@aazk.org International Outreach Committee Chair: Yvette Kemp, Yvette.Kemp@aazk.org Vice Chair: Noah Shields, |OC@aazk.org AAZK Resource Committee Chair: Jenny Owens, ARC@aazk.org Vice Chair - Loren Berry, ARC@aazk.org BOARD MEMBER - Recognition: James Weinpress, James.Weinpress@aazk.org Awards Committee Chair: Erika Defer, Awards@aazk.org Vice Chair: Autumn Lindey, Awards@aazk.org Grants Committee Chair: Laura Chapman, Grants@aazk.org Vice Chair: Stacie Bockheim, Grants@aazk.org BOARD MEMBER - Regulation: Kristen Scaglione, Kristen.Scaglione@aazk.org Safety Committee Chair: Sara Morris, Sara.Morris@aazk.org Vice Chair: Kathryn Juliano, Safety@aazk.org Animal Welfare Committee Chair: Megan Wright, Megan.Wright@aazk.org Vice Chair: Tricia Gunther, BHC@aazk.org Bylaws Program Rebecca Filippini, Rebecca.Filippini@aazk.org BOARD MEMBER - Communication: Abbie Doan, Abbie.Doan@aazk.org Communication Committee Chair: Joy Kotheimer, Communication@aazk.org Vice Chair: Tianna Redieck, Communication@aazk.org National Zoo Keeper Week Program Program Manager: Jenna Schmidt, NZKW @aazk.org Vice Manager - Audrey Harmon, NZKW @aazk.org FROM THE PRESIDENT Despite all of these difficulties, the increases in outreach and togetherness that has blossomed in some cases cannot be overlooked. 134 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM An interesting secret about the President’s message is that it is written over a month before publishing. I am often unable to comment on current affairs as a result of the time delay. The ongoing pandemic means that this will be deviation from the norm. Hopefully the situation has calmed down by the time this message reaches you and it is commenting on the previous events. Working during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a highly unsettling experience because every important community has been affected. The community within a facility is used to dealing with “essential employee” life. All facilities have plans in place for dealing with closures where the animal care staff pulls together as a team to maintain husbandry and other staff sit tight until they’re needed or pitch in where able. But this is different because all standard plans have gone out the window. Many facilities have completely split working groups or limited exposure to fellow staff members. This means that tight-knit teams that work to ensure strong communication and animal care skills are separated from another in a way that they may have never experienced before. And that doesn’t speak to the non-essential staff and volunteers that are completely separated from their work. A community of coworkers ensures strong professional morale and these fractures can leave us all dispirited. The impact outside of one’s facility is the distinctly different experience though. The widespread effect on the whole community of zoo keepers and facilities is difficult to perceive. Typically, zoo keepers can turn outward from an emergency situation at home and look at the efforts of other zoos, aquariums, and other organizations and envision the future when you can get back to work as usual. But now when we look out we see that everyone is dealing with a very similar situation to ourselves. And the impact on the non-work related world has made it tough to fully relax on days off. Limiting gatherings with friends and family and following the constant updates to an evolving situation can be overwhelming. Despite all of these difficulties, the increases in outreach and togetherness that has blossomed in some cases cannot be overlooked. Organizations have increased their connectivity with online resources, local areas have supported groups as they call out for support, and many individuals have done their part in helping to protect those most at risk. And the world of animal care has joined in on these efforts. Online learning activities and video series have been sent out by many zoos and aquariums to continue spreading their messages to the public. Fundraisers in support of the ongoing animal care practices have found support from passionate people. Staff members have pulled together to support one another in whatever way possible during a time of great strain. And this work buoys me and instills a confidence that all communities will endure and grow stronger in turn. Regards, Fel HO Paul Paul.Brandenburger@AAZK.org a JOIN TODAY cena at AAZK.ORG ASSOCIATION of ZOO KEEPERS Membership with the American Association of Zoo Keepers includes a subscription to the Animal Keepers' Forum, member rates for AAZK events and products, access to the Members Only section of aazk.org, plus much more! BIG CAT INTERNSHIPS AVAILABLE “Saving Tigers One by One” ~ = = Join us in As seen on Animal Planet” “Growing Up Tiger” Learn about Big Cat Management. Internship involves Animal Care Apprenticeship and Public Education. We offer experience that counts towards employment. 0 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 135 AUSTRALIAN OUTBACK PLANTATION No Worries Mate! Zoo Animal Browse Specialists @ Arizona Grown Year Round Supply # Shipments Twice Weekly Overnight Air - Ground Transportation @ Pear ¢Ash ¢ Elm @ Mulberry @ Ficus @ Olive @ Brachychiton # Acacia @ Callistemon # Eucalyptus @ Enrichment Sticks Paul D. Chambers, CH. 623-780-8500 AustralianOutbackPlants@gmail.com - www.australianoutbackplants.com \ Worlds (Lost Extensive Fucalyptus Browse -lantation LET'S BE FRIENDS | la ae - i i] = — 1 “hy ¥ ° ri ‘ 7 a fe rey i 1, < ee - i ‘ co Wi lt i. Lo re Nt | tui? ( . 7M f 7 ee a iL ina s | 7 | Pa yi ° iy a > | : ) ah 7 1 . a rh | hl - . Vy ' " j : if faV't) : a ‘i F J ® f \ Be. + ‘ oe as 7 HY eA U ’ r . eae hl el er} rt f LG 4 ‘*, r ‘ / << y \ 1 a Facebook.com/AAZKinc Twitter.com/AAZKinc 136 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM Darcy Huismann, Team Lead of the Shows and Ambassadors Animal Team Kansas City Zoo, Kansas City, Missouri Introduction Zoos have historically existed for entertainment, research, and more recently, education (Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008). In the 1990’s, many factors such as animal rights activists, the animal welfare movement, and moral justification of zoos and aquariums began to push for zoos to strive towards conservation, action, and awareness (Smith, et al., 2008). Today, Zoos exist with the four mains goals of education, conservation, entertainment, and research (Carr & Cohen, 2011; Roe, McConney, & Mansfield, 2014). This shift, or addition, of concentrations has not altered the overall goal of providing entertainment to zoo visitors. Studies have been done that demonstrate an increase in entertainment value can increase the educational takeaway (Dilenschneider, 2017). Focusing on just one of the four aspects does not assist in meeting the overall goals of U.S. zoo institutions. There are a number of roles that must be filled in today’s society by these facilities (Roe, McConney and Mansfield, 2014). Current research has shown that the public eye and zoo facility missions do not always align in terms of fulfilling said roles (Roe, et al., 2014). However, one thing remains consistent; the public, and the zoo, seek education and conservation messaging that can be brought home and translated into everyday life (McConney and Mansfield, 2014). In general, visitors attend zoo facilities for entertainment. However, zoos and aquariums are continually striving Blue and gold macaw. Photo by Bill Araujo. to increase their educational and conservation reach to encourage the average zoo guest to make a difference in our world today. One of the best ways to instill effective educational practices is through the use of entertainment. Education and entertainment can be used in conjunction to strengthen one another and increase the value of a zoo visitor's daily experience at any given institution (Dilenschneider, 2017). The Australia Zoo surveyed their visitors after a flighted bird show demonstrated a conservation message about recycling and cleaning up roadways (Smith, et al., 2008). Visitors were questioned regarding their likeliness to increase or begin conservation actions at home post bird presentation and interaction (Smith, et al., 2008). This study concluded that human-animal interactions are more likely to evoke personal emotion and willingness to change personal practices at home (Smith, et al., 2008). Positive emotional experiences at a zoological institution strengthen a visitor’s experience and likeliness to return in the future (Powell & Bullock, 2014). These emotional experiences can be encouraged through human-animal interactions (Mann, Ballantyne, and Packer, 2017). Ina 2017 study, animal interactions were incorporated with promoting at home conservation strategies that visitors could participate in, post zoo visit (Mann, et al., 2017). Almost 50% of the survey respondents said they had made a positive conservation change in their lives attributing towards that human-animal interaction experience at the facility (Mann, et al., 2017). These unique human-animal interactions are the actions zoo institutions should be striving for to increase the impact their Athos accepting donations. Photo by Darcy Huismann a. The author working with Athos. Photo by Bill Araujo. conservation messages are having on the visiting public (Powell & Bullock, 2014). The following research done at the Kansas City Zoo explores the use of a blue and gold macaw (Ara ararauna) to assist zoo visitors in making a monetary donation towards the zoo’s conservation fund. This is creating a human-animal interaction that could directly increase conservation funding. Methods The target population was any zoo visitor seeking to donate money to the Kansas City Zoo Conservation Fund that attended any two of the daily Wings of Wonder bird shows. Data were collected between the dates of 01 October 2017 and 09 April 2018. Data collection was only considered complete if two sets of data were collected in one day. One show, morning or afternoon, had the bird present and taking donations while the opposite show time only had the collection box standing alone. To minimize variability, one trainer worked the bird while donations were collected; the same trainer collected data at both shows; and only one bird took donations for the duration of the study. The bird taking donations was trained a year prior to the data collection start. A four-year-old blue and gold macaw named Athos was trained to take dollar donations from zoo visitor guests’ hands. Each dollar is folded one or two times and handed directly to the bird’s beak. The blue and gold macaw then takes the dollar and inserts it into a pre-cut hole in the top of the donation box. Once the donation is collected, and placed inside the box, the bird receives a treat, or reward, for doing the correct behavior. At the conclusion of each show, a conservation message was given to encourage zoo visitors to donate to the zoo’s general conservation fund. The conservation fund donates money towards projects such as Polar Bears International, Cheetah Conservation Fund, Amphibian Arc, and many more (Kansas City Zoo, 2017). The conservation message remained the same throughout all Wings of Wonder bird shows. The only difference to the closing conservation message was additional directions for donating if the bird was taking donations. The Wings of Wonder show times were 1130 and 1430 daily. The bird was present for half of the collection May 2020 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 139 Donations Per Visitor 50 50.25 Combined Donated to Bird Deanated ta Box Graph 1: Average donations per visitor through bird donations, box donations, and combined donations. There was a total of 41 trials with 3376 visitors producing an average of $0.21 per visitor. times at the morning show and the other half in the afternoon show. The conservation box stayed the same, in the same location, and monitored by the same individual regardless of whether the bird was taking donations or not. At the beginning of each Wings of Wonder bird show, the audience count was documented and noted if additional guests joined throughout the show. At the conclusion of each show, the monetary amount collected during that specific show was recorded. Results The data indicate more audience members during bird collection shows compared to the stand alone box collection shows. The total number of guests present during box collection was 1369 while the total number of guests present during bird collection was 2032. The total number of money donated during box donation was $169.71 and the total number of money donated during bird collection was $560.00. To eliminate any potential data number discrepancies simply due to audience size, the average dollar amount per guest was calculated and utilized for data analysis. These numbers are $0.12 per visitor with box collection and 140 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM $0.28 per visitor during bird collection. Graph 1 is an illustration that shows the combined number of donations collected per visitor, the donations collected per visitor with bird collection, and the donations collected per visitor through box collection. There were multiple shows during February, March, and April where there were audience member numbers of zero, which in turn gave a monetary donation number of zero. There were also very small shows that produced zero donations whether the bird was present or not. Analysis The performed two sample t-test, assuming equal variances, produced a p-value less than or equal to 0.05, thus proving the need to reject the null hypothesis. This null hypothesis stated that there would be no significant difference between the amount of donations given between the bird shows utilizing the blue and gold macaw or the stand alone donation box. Table 1 shows the t-test values for the monetary amount donated per visitor and the found P value. Discussion There was a significant increase in conservation donations when there was direct human-animal interaction. The general trend showed higher audience numbers during the morning bird show. This is potentially due to a large portion of the visitors attending the Wings of Wonder bird show on their way into the zoo, as opposed to on their way out of the zoo. The audience numbers doubled, which can have an effect on the monetary amount of donations flowing in. However, despite an increased audience number, the monetary donations were consistently higher during the show of the day that had the t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Donations Given to Bird vs. Box Bird Mean 0.391996591 Variance 0.347405655 Observations 41 Pooled Variance 0.188428508 Hypothesized Mean Difference | 0 df 80 t Stat 2.993336466 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001834849 t Critical one-tail 1.664124579 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.003669698 t Critical two-tail 1.990063421 Box 0.105016407 0.02945136 41 Table 1: T-test and p values of donations given to the bird versus donations given to the box during collections. The P(T<=t) two-tail rejects the null hypothesis. bird present and collecting donations. Donations typically followed a conservative trend, multiple families donating two to three dollars. Occasional outliers included a couple of $20 bills collected throughout the research period and a handful of $10 bills donated. One extremely generous individual donated a $100 bill during one of our more intimate 1130 bird shows with the bird present and taking donations. These generous donations had an impact on monetary amount per visitor for those particular shows. Comparing the monetary amount per visitor while the bird was taking donations versus the box collection, there was twice as much donated with the bird present. During box donations, there was an average of $0.12 donated per individual while during the bird collection, an average of $0.28 per individual. The average monetary amount more than doubled while audience members were interacting with a live bird. Conclusion Facilitating an interaction between a zoo visitor and an animal clearly creates a strong connection that leads people to want to contribute more towards conservation. When someone can interact with an animal, a connection is made. There is an emotional response that creates a connection between that animal and the message being conveyed. Research shows that having physical interactions can strengthen those emotional responses and, in turn, can create at home differences that are geared towards conservation issues. As shown in this study, when visitors had the opportunity to interact with a live bird, they were more than twice as likely to donate towards the conservation zoo fund at the Kansas City Zoo. Here, results showed that having a blue and gold macaw take donations directly from visitors' hands generated an increase in the overall donations made towards conservation. Associating an animal interaction with donating to conservation is one tool that can be used when working on improving the reach of conservation efforts. This study shows the potential of having a bird taking donations at every show to increase donations towards the conservation projects that the Kansas City Zoo supports all around the world. This can be extended to other institutions wanting to increase their funds towards conservation. We as humans are the only species on this planet that can ensure future generations of others, so we should do our part and try to make this world a better place for all living creatures surviving off this land. {P* Literature Cited Carr, N., and Cohen, S. 2011. The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People & Animals, 24(2), 175-189. doi:10 .2752/175303711x12998632257620 Dilenschneider, C. 2017. How to leverage education value to increase visitation to culture organizations (DATA). Data & Analysis. Kansas City Zoo. Conservation Archive. 2017. Retrieved November 25, 2017, from https://www.kansascityzoo.org/ conservation/ Mann, J., Ballantyne, R., and Packer, J. 2017. Penguin promises: encouraging aquarium visitors to take conservation action. Environmental Education Research 0:0, pages 1-16. Powell, D., and Bullock, E. 2014. Evaluation of factors affecting emotional responses in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness. Anthrozoés 27:3:389-405. Roe, K., McConney, A., and Mansfield, C.F. 2014. The Role of Zoos in Modern Society—A Comparison of Zoos, Reported Priorities and What Visitors Believe They Should Be. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 27(4), 529-541. doi:10.2752/08927931 4x14072268687808 Smith, L., Broad, S., and Weiler, B. 2008. A closer examination of the impact of zoo Visits on visitor behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5):544. doi:10.2167 /jost817.0 Swanagan, J.S. 2000. Factors influencing zoo Visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 31.4: 26-31. May 2020 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 141 Gender Labeling and Behavior: “This Animal Doesn’t Like Men” John Scott, Wild Animal Keeper Wildlife Conservation Society — Central Park Zoo New York, NY Introduction All too often in the wildlife industry, we are presented with situations that test both our patience and abilities as professionals in the field. A gorilla may charge at the bars towards a male zookeeper, a hornbill may fly at the face of a female trainer, or an eagle bates away from a male educator. In such trying times, phrases like “that bird doesn’t like men” or “that gorilla doesn’t like women” become incredibly common to hear at zoos and aquariums all over the country. But in dissecting these familiar idioms, do these animals actually express a preference or distaste towards one gender over the other? These sayings can become labels that we affix to animals, masking our own inabilities to break down behaviors. Labels can quickly develop into crutches that are used to “explain” behavior. Alternatively, gender may become a conditioned stimulus for behaviors like biting or charging, behaviors that have been given the construct label “aggressive.” In either case, while Angel Ocasio and Katy. Photo courtesy of Judy Lobo Wolfe 142 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM working with animals that “don’t like” a particular keeper may seem like a daunting task, through positive interactions, relationships can be built despite an animal’s preferences fora particular gender. Labels and Constructs At a most basic level, phrases like “that bird doesn’t like men” are labels that are affixed to animals in an attempt to accurately assess and describe behavior. Despite best intentions, these labels or constructs, often go “beyond simple description of observed behaviors into the realm of hypothetical explanations for why an animal behaves as it does” (Friedman, 2014). Examples of this phenomenon include birds biting because they are aggressive, or bating because they do not like women. These constructs are problematic because they are intangible descriptions and therefore are not hypotheses that can be tested with the scientific method. In addition, these constructs that are used to describe animals often times foster and can become self-fulfilling prophecies (Friedman, 2014). An animal that is labeled as being aggressive towards men will cause male trainers to act differently around that particular animal. By labeling an animal, it provides an easy excuse to surplus or get rid of that animal. And more importantly it provides an excuse for professionals to throw in the towel and give up, instead of working on a strategy to combat problem behaviors towards a particular gender (Friedman, 2014). If trainers do continue to work with that specific animal, it can often lead to ineffective training strategies that utilize the mentality of “showing the animal who’s boss” (Friedman, 2014). By labeling an animal, it either serves to promote sloppy training, or cease working with that particular animal entirely. Constructs are particularly dangerous because they are intangible concepts that are attached to animals that are constantly demonstrating tangible behaviors. Constructs are “abstractions by definition, and abstractions cannot cause behavior” (Friedman, 2014). In order to analyze these labels, we need to describe clearly observable behaviors and the conditions that both set the scene for the behavior to occur and reinforce it. However intangible these constructs may be, they are often utilized as a coverall for a multitude of behaviors that are observed over the course of one’s professional career. It is common to hear terms like, “height dominant”, “gender dominant” or “food dominant” used to describe animals in captive settings. However, instead of using a construct like being “height dominant”, one might describe the tangible, observable behavior of a bird not stepping up from a higher perch when the glove is offered. A familiar construct to many animal professionals might be that a particular animal “doesn’t like men”. Instead of using that particular label, the behavior could be more scientifically described as “screaming when a particular trainer approaches” or, “bates more frequently for male trainers”. By analyzing the observable behavior and the conditions that support it, we can develop a training solution and a sweeping generalization or intangible construct can be avoided. More problems are created than are being solved by using construct labels rather than a behavioral description. One such issue is that an animal having a preference for a particular gender is a vague concept that is open to interpretation by each trainer. In theory, all observers would see the same thing and behavior would not be open to interpretation by any trainer (Insalaco, 2005). Not all trainers could agree that a specific animal doesn’t like men, however they could all agree that the animal tends to bate more for men than for women, thereby assessing the behavior and not ascribing to a construct. What one trainer “sees as aggression, another might see as fear, and yet another might see as hunger” (Insalaco, 2005). One trainer deciding that a hawk doesn’t like women might not look the same to another trainer, they might interpret it as something completely different. Usually when we are using constructs to describe an animal, “we are just making an assumption as to what the animal is thinking based on some other behavior we are seeing” (Insalaco, 2005). By using labels, wildlife professionals are treading into dangerous territory by anthropomorphizing the animals in their care. It encourages and justifies trainers and keepers thinking for their animals and analyzing hypothetical thoughts or emotions, instead of training tangible behaviors (Insalaco, 2005). Constructs essentially limit professionals by allowing them to assess behavior in broad, intangible terms instead of focusing on changing the behaviors that they are seeing on a daily basis. When examining the use of constructs in regards to animals, the natural question arises as to why wildlife professionals use these labels to begin with? Is the use of these terms simply an extension of human nature (Insalaco, 2005)? Usually the labels utilized and the conclusions that are often jumped to reflect the way humans feel or think in that particular situation. Instead of an animal not liking a specific gender, they could be responding to a number of antecedents in the surrounding environment that set the stage for the behavior being labeled as “not liking” that particular trainer or their gender. In recognizing that construct, professionals can start seeking out ways to avoid labeling their animals. The simplest way would “be to use the verb ‘to do’ when asking yourself questions about the animals’ behavior” (Insalaco, 2005). By constantly asking “what is the animal doing”, one can avoid anthropomorphizing an animal and thinking that one can get inside their head and know what they are thinking. Upon hearing another professional using a label to describe an animal, instead ask “what does that look like” and have them describe the behavior in depth instead of utilizing generalizations. It is important to remember that behavior Cory Scott and Margaretta. Photo courtesy of Cory Scott Ra lea age d = oe eB i f rh 7a does not exist in a vacuum and therefore the environment plays a huge role in behavior (Insalaco, 2005). By using these techniques, constructs like animals not liking gender can be replaced by descriptions of observable behaviors and related conditions instead. Science Behind the Label Using descriptive analyses of behavior, one might still find that a bird bates away more frequently from men ora gorilla charges towards a female keeper more often than towards men. Avoiding labels, one might still wonder why these behaviors occur more frequently towards a particular gender. To properly May 2020 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 143 answer that question, one must delve into the causes of those particular behaviors. At a fundamental level, a stimulus is triggering the bating or charging behavior. A stimulus can be described as “any event that affects, or is capable of affecting, behavior” (Friedman, 2014). When these stimuli influence the behavior it precedes, then they can be described as antecedent events. Conversely, when the stimuli affect the behavior it follows, they are called consequent events (Friedman, 2014). However, today’s consequent events may eventually develop into tomorrow’s antecedent events, because no behavior exists in a vacuum. A new trigger or elicitor, called a conditioned stimulus (CS) can be developed by, “close, repeated pairing of a neutral stimulus with an existing elicitor” (Friedman 2014). Gender can become a conditioned stimulus for behaviors that are labeled as “aggressive” or “not liking men” based on repeated pairing to an existing elicitor. Those unwanted behaviors then become conditioned responses to the gender of the particular trainer (Friedman, 2014). While avoiding constructs like animals “not liking” a particular gender, one may still find that gender perhaps is a conditioned stimuli for many undesired behaviors. Unconditioned stimuli and their responses fall under the category of respondent behavior, which refers to the fact that these behaviors are innate and fully functional the first time they are performed, even without previous experience to the eliciting stimulus (Friedman, 2014). Examples of these instinctive responses include a fly landing on a dog’s ear and the ear twitching or a puff of air which is directed at an eye, causing the eye to blink. These respondent behaviors occur independently of consequences, and therefore the consequences do not affect the future strength of the behavior (Friedman, 2014). As mentioned before, one can create a new elicitor - conditioned stimuli - by repeatedly pairing the neutral stimulus with the existing elicitor. This type of stimulus-stimulus learning is responsible for behavioral examples like Pavlov’s dogs. The conditioned stimulus was the sound of the tone ringing which triggered the conditioned response of the dogs salivating. This respondent learning is also responsible for things like respondent fear, where an antecedent stimulus that triggers fear can be learned through respondent conditioning (Friedman, 2014).The behavior that many label as “fear” (bating, charging) is developed over time through conditioning by pairing a neutral stimulus to an aversive experience. Therefore if a rehabilitation bird is repeatedly grabbed by males, then the male gender can become the new conditioned stimulus that triggers the respondent fear. The label of that particular bird not liking men is inherently a hypothetical concept; the observable “fear” (charging, banging on the sides of enclosures) may have been a conditioned stimulus through repeated pairings of the male gender with the unpleasant experience of being caught up. While gender may be classically conditioned through repeated pairings with an aversive situation, the behavior that we see also falls under an operant umbrella. Under operant conditioning, behaviors are dependent on the consequences that follow (Friedman, 2014). Behaviors that the animal finds successful are repeated, and behaviors that do not work are modified or suppressed (Friedman, 2014). While a bird of prey bating away from a male trainer or a gorilla charging the mesh at a male keeper may have been classically conditioned through pairing the male gender with a negative experience, there is also some operant learning involved. Something is reinforcing the behaviors that the animal is exhibiting, otherwise those observable behaviors would have gone extinct over time. The gorilla charging or banging the sides of their enclosure at male keepers might have been reinforced for doing so because each time the gorilla charges male keepers, those keepers might have left the area. The removal of the undesired keepers serves to potentially reinforce the behavior of charging (if the behavior is maintaining or increasing in frequency). This would fall under the category of negative reinforcement (R°), because the removal of the male keeper (negative) serves to increase the frequency (reinforce) of the gorilla charging that keeper (Friedman, 2014). Therefore while the behaviors that get labeled as “not liking” (charging, etc) could be classically conditioned, they also fall under the operant scope due Adam Geltz and Boston. Photo courtesy of Natural Encounters Inc. and WOW Magic to the unintentional reinforcement of undesired behaviors. What Can Be Done? All hope is not lost if an animal has been conditioned to respond negatively to a certain gender through respondent learning. There are several methods of varying severity that can help mitigate the respondent fear caused by the new eliciting stimulus. The first is through systematic desensitization where, “a conditioned emotional trigger (fear) is extinguished by gradually exposing the animal to the stimulus” (Friedman, 2014). For an animal that responds negatively to a certain gender, one would start with small interactions with the animal and a staff member that is affected by this respondent fear, and gradually increase the duration and frequency of these interactions. In order to do so, one must establish a stimulus hierarchy that creates a scale from no fear response, to situations that elicit extreme responses (Friedman, 2014). Once the animal is exposed to that first step on the hierarchy and presents behavior deemed “relaxed”, then the next step is presented. However, special care must be taken to not elicit the fear response at any level of exposure (Friedman, 2014). Therefore, through gradual exposure to a certain gender, one could hopefully combat a conditioned fear response to that particular staff member and their gender. Other techniques to deal with conditioned responses exist. Firstly there is counter-conditioning where an animal’s conditioned response to a stimulus is replaced with an opposite reaction (Friedman, 2014). This method of combating conditioned stimuli can also be partnered with positive reinforcement, thereby reinforcing the calm behavior after exposure to a stimulus. For example, if a dog is afraid of the sound of a vacuum, then the sound could be paired instead with food. With an animal that presented a fear response to a particular gender, men for instance, then food should be presented to the animal every time a male trainer interacts with them. However, this tactic can only occur if the new stimulus (food) triggers a response powerful enough to supplant the problem response, in this case being fear (Friedman, 2014). If the new stimulus does not overcome the fear response, then this method of counter-conditioning is ineffective. The most extreme method of dealing with conditioned fear responses is flooding, where the animal is presented with the feared stimulus in full strength, all at once (Friedman, 2014). If an animal shows “fear” (charging, bating, etc.) towards a specific gender, then the animal would be presented only with trainers of that certain gender. With flooding, the animal is blocked from escaping until its respondent fear is completely extinguished (Friedman 2014). Flooding is an extremely severe method of dealing with conditioned responses, therefore few trainers consider flooding an acceptable form of behavior therapy (Friedman, 2014). In addition, this method of behavior Nick Newman and Sierra. Photo courtesy of Judy Lobo Wolfe modification can backfire if the flooding is incomplete (Friedman, 2014). Therefore flooding, while drastic, is an ineffective way of reducing fear responses and seldom used among animal training professionals. If an animal demonstrates a conditioned fear response to trainers of a certain gender, there are ways to build trust between the human and animal. Trust can be defined as being, “A level of certainty that interaction will result in good outcomes and so interaction increases” (Martin & Friedman, 2013). In regards to the example of an animal presenting a fear response, trust would be shown by the animal confidently approaching, instead of trying to escape any opportunity to interact with trainers of both genders (Martin & Friedman, 2013). An easy way to view the concept of trust is through the metaphor of a bank account. Each time one interacts with an animal in a positive manner, they place a deposit into the trust account. Withdrawals from that account are made through force, threats, and punishment (Martin & Friedman, 2013). The goal with all relationships with animals is to build up a high enough trust account to withstand the withdrawals that inevitably occur (Martin & Friedman, 2013). Case Study and Conclusion Examples of zookeepers and animal trainers working through the label of animals “not liking men” exist throughout many zoological facilities across the country. One such example is Maya, an Ornate Hawk-Eagle (Spizaetus ornatus) that lives at Central Park Zoo in New York City. Maya had the label of “not liking men” affixed to her for years, despite keepers being able to operationally define what that behavior looked like. Maya would charge the wire of her enclosure, lunge at, and land on the backs of male keepers, all which was labeled as her not liking that particular gender. Instead of letting this behavior continue and allowing Maya to become more practiced at these behaviors, keepers decided that a solution to this problem was needed. The answer to this problem was to station Maya on a branch in the front of her enclosure. Before servicing her enclosure, keepers prompt her to her station with a finger point, and then reinforce her with her diet once she is stationed on the branch. By training this behavior, male keepers are able to enter her enclosure to service the area, without worrying about Maya lunging or landing on them while they were cleaning. Through the power of positive reinforcement, several male keepers are now able to work in the same space as Maya, despite the fact that she had been historically labeled as “not liking men.” Labels and constructs are persistent problems when working with animals in any zoological facility, because they do not address the observable behavior in conditions. Instead of focusing on tangible, concrete behaviors that animals exhibit, they instead affix vague generalities to these beings which provide excuses for improper training or giving up on that animal entirely. One of the most common labels is an animal “not liking” men or women. This label can be operationally defined as that particular animal charging or bating more for one gender or another. If an animal bates more for male trainers, their gender could have become a conditioned stimulus in the past for that bating behavior due to repeated pairing of their gender with an aversive stimulus. However, this is nota final sentence for that animal and the gender they have been labeled as “not liking”. Instead, by having positive interactions with that animal, and making deposits into that animal’s trust account, the label of not liking that gender can be overcome. {Mf Works Cited Friedman, S. Living and Learning With Animals: The Fundamental Principles and Procedures of Teaching and Learning. On-line course found at http://www.behaviorworks.org/ htm /lla_professional_overview.html. Insalaco, E. 2005. But What Does it Look Like? Using Observable Phenomena to Interpret Behavior and Solve Train- ing Challenges. Natural Encounters, Inc. Retrieved April 24, 2018, from http:// naturalencounters.com/site/wp-content/ uploads/2015/11/But_What_Does_It_ Look_Like-Emily_Insalaco.pdf Martin, S., and Friedman, S. 2013. The Power of Trust. The International Association of Avian Trainers and Educators (IAATE). Retrieved April 24, 2018, Retrieved from http://www.behaviorworks.org/files/ar- ticles/The Power of Trust.pdf TRAINING TALES Who’s Teaching Who? Husbandry Training Adventures with Two American White Pelicans Becky Jahns, Husbandry Assistant, North Eastern Wisconsin Zoo Introduction The Northeastern Wisconsin Zoo is home to two non-releasable American White Pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), both with left eye injuries, leaving them blind on that side. Both birds are curious, intelligent, amiable, and participate in feeding experiences with the public. I wanted to build on and reinforce the stationing behaviors they learned for those encounters and add some husbandry behaviors to their repertoire. Our young female responded well to tactile desensitization, progressing rapidly. Our older male, however, was a bit hesitant about being touched and required more creativity and problem solving. I have absolutely loved working with these birds, discovering their unique personalities, and delving into behaviors that are new for both them and myself! 146 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM Training Steps I started training with the pelicans in their indoor holding area in April of 2018. Both birds had already learned to station in their pond or on a large platform to prevent food-begging on exhibit. I started reinforcing them to station on a small stump instead. This made the intended station much more specific. Once they were comfortable with the stump as their new Station, I started varying the station heights. They then had two low stumps to station on for public feedings, and a set of three stump steps to elevate them for foot exams and to make other husbandry behaviors easier. I refrained from training behaviors that involve touching or other potentially uncomfortable behaviors while on the low stumps so their stationing behavior remained solid for public feedings with a lower risk of breaking down as we started tactile work. At this point, they moved outdoors and we had a short break in training as they transitioned to their outdoor space. Our female is incredibly food motivated. She adjusted quickly, allowing me to feel her keel and manipulate her wings; however, it didn’t appear to be as voluntary as I wanted it to be. It was more like she tolerated it so she could get fish. After consulting with a coworker, we decided to introduce a start-button behavior. Instead of cuing “touch” and reaching out to touch her, I would extend my hand and wait for her to step into it and make contact on her own. Within a few sessions she realized she could step forward and make the fish appear! This had a huge effect on her ability to stand calmly as she now moved and waited for her bridge instead of flailing and head- bobbing until fish were produced. This behavior shift also gave me a new way to gauge my criteria. If she started flailing, I would take a step back and increase my rate of reinforcement before proceeding again. Once she would reliably lean into my hand, I increased the amount of time she held there until I could feel up and down her keel without her backing away. I originally began training foot presentation by squatting down in front of her, cueing, placing my hand palm up next to her foot (touching the side). Then I reinforced when her foot came up, and eventually when she placed her foot in my hand and allowed me to lift it and look underneath. When I moved onto her blind side, however, I realized I should have made the cue tactile instead of visual, as she would crane her neck around to look at my hand with her good eye. I immediately changed my cue from just the verbal “foot” and extended palm, to a double tap on the foot that I wanted before placing my hand next to it. She quickly picked up on the change and began raising her foot after the tap and sometimes even before the visual presentation of my hand. When I tried the tap on her blind side for the first time she responded by raising that foot immediately! At this point she was progressing so rapidly that I wanted to experiment and decided to try injection training. I began prodding more with my fingers during her keel targets to start simulating a poke, which she took in stride. I then squatted in front of her and asked for the keel touch and she responded well. She was already used to me being in that position for the foot checks. She was not one to jump or move quickly off the station during sessions even when spooked, so I felt her moving backwards off station during the poke was a negligible risk. This position also prevented her from moving forward into the needle since she was in contact with my hand. While she held on target I gave a verbal cue “poke” and poked her with my finger in her breast muscle, where the injections would be administered. When she would stand calmly for that, we progressed to a capped syringe, then to a syringe with progressively thinner wires (large and small gauge paper clips) inside to simulate a needle. Once we got to the thin wire, I started building duration and did mock injections by manipulating the syringe plunger. Throughout all her training, I occasionally brought interns and other keepers with me to desensitize her to having new people around. Overall, it took approximately four months to train the tactile behaviors, and only six weeks for her injection training. She was trained 2-6 times per week over four months during the summer. Her daily diet was used as reinforcement, divided into four feedings per day: one free meal in the morning, a small meal early afternoon on the low stations during the public feeding encounter, and then the midday and closing diets for training. We were able to maintain the behaviors over the winter, and then put her training to the test in the spring when she received her West Nile Virus vaccine from our veterinarian voluntarily in April 2019! She even stayed for more training after the injection and returned to station eagerly the next week, allowing our veterinarian to do a capped simulated poke then as well! May 2020 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 147 148 Our male pelican proved to be much more sensitive to my body language and didn’t tolerate touch well, even though he had no issues with personal space outside of training sessions. He refused to participate in tactile sessions for most of the summer, opting to crate train instead. When he would come to station, he stood sideways and leaned away from me, and jumped off to leave the session if my hand moved towards him. Eventually, I had a coworker watch a session. She noted that instead of responding to my verbal bridge, he was staring down my treat bucket with his good eye, which was causing the issues in his positioning and responses. Once I backtracked and really paid attention to my mechanics and re-established my verbal bridge, he started progressing. By the last few weeks of summer, he began to position himself facing me, and occasionally leaned in for a light touch! At this point the birds were moved back inside for the winter season, and he became much more confident indoors! Our indoor holding space allows us to shift the birds to one side or the other, and is much quieter with less distractions than our outdoor aviary. I believe this had a lot to do with his progress, as I was able to separate out our pushy female and he didn’t have to compete with or worry about her. ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM He quickly progressed to jumping on the stations before I had even gotten set up! He was still hesitant about being touched while I was standing, so I tried switching to cueing for foot presentation first since that put me in a lower position. He responded really well to this new positioning, and rapidly learned foot presentation following the same updated protocol used with our female. Since he seemed much more comfortable with me lower, I trained his keel targets from the squatting position first instead of standing which worked well. Within a month he was positioning straight, leaning into my touch, and allowing me to feel his keel! Once I had built up some duration and pressure on his keel targets, I began prodding with my fingers and, to my surprise, he was okay with it! Within five sessions the bird who wouldn’t allow me to even reach towards him over the summer was allowing me to poke him with a capped syringe. Within a month he had completed his injection training! He continues to be jumpy when I’m standing upright, but is definitely progressing in that regard as well. Over the winter training, sessions decreased to only around four sessions per month due to scheduling, which made his sudden burst even more impressive to me! By spring he transitioned to the outdoor training space very well, and we began to incorporate other keepers and interns into his training to get him comfortable around new people in preparation for his spring vaccines. Unfortunately, his distrust of the veterinarian won out, and he was restrained for his vaccine during his annual physical after a few attempts at getting it done voluntarily. During training he stands more calmly and reliably than even our female does, so I’m confident that with some more work desensitizing to the presence of our veterinarian he will be ready to go the next time around! Conclusion This process has been a learning experience for all of us. This was my first time training these behaviors with any animal, and I learned a lot about paying attention to the small things, the impact they can have, and about listening to the animal. Simply having sloppy reinforcement strategies potentially set back our male for months, and listening to him and adjusting my training plan to keep him comfortable rocketed us forward over the winter! Switching from almost pure counterconditioning to more operant work dramatically impacted early training with our female and greatly decreased what I now consider stress behaviors. I believe that learning this early with her also greatly improved my relationship with our more sensitive male who wouldn't have taken so kindly to my trial-and-error in that regard. I also learned the value of recording sessions and having someone else watch. So much of what I learned came from having a more experienced coworker who was willing to watch, troubleshoot, and coach me through the process. Asking for help is never a bad idea, and doesn’t minimize your skills as a trainer. Having the extra set of eyes will not only help your skills but your animals’ skills as well. I thoroughly believe this project has helped me become a better trainer, and has given our birds the skills to participate in their own care ina much more positive and stress-free manner. Huge thanks go to the staff and management here at the NEW Zoo for allowing me to spend time on this project. Special thanks to fellow keeper Megan Walsh for letting me work with her animals and for being an amazing mentor and resource, to Angela Kawski- Kroenig for allowing me to utilize her media interns to document the training process and for guiding me through the writing and editing of this submission, and to our vet staff as well for all of their advice! UPDATE Our female pelican stood perfectly and received her West Nile vaccine voluntarily in April! She stayed on station through the whole thing and even continued training afterwards, and came right back the next week for more ‘easy' treats when our vet stopped by again, even allowing a capped practice poke! Our male is perfect in training sessions, but is still nervous about the vet, and refused to come to station with her present. We tried a few more times with him, but eventually he received his injection while in hand for his annual exam. Hopefully next year will be his year! We're continuing to try and desensitize him to the vet as we're able. He stands perfectly for both myself and our interns, so | have a lot of faith in him! Training Tales Editorial By Angela C Binney, Training Tales Column Co-coordinator Have you ever heard the phrase, “In order to advance, you have to go back to basics”? Whether we have a few or twenty years of training experience, a review of basic principles can often help us in our current ambitions. Brushing up on classical and operant conditioning techniques, consulting with colleagues, and watching our own recorded sessions can really open our eyes to areas of opportunity where even minor adjustments could potentially have a huge impact. Incidentally, we might also stumble upon a new viewpoint or concept that could help break past obstacles we may encounter. While the foundations of behavioral training are relatively consistent over time (see AZA/AAZK Training Terms and Definitions, 2016), our interpretation of these concepts has evolved with time. This is especially pertinent to the topic of choice. For instance, the “start-button behavior” concept. A start-button behavior refers to training a default behavior that the animal can exhibit when ready to proceed (Ramirez, 2018). It is a communication tool that allows the animal to tell us when they are ready by exhibiting a certain behavior (Branigan, 2019). Denise Fenzi refers to this as a “consent behavior” (2018). In the example of the female pelican, the trainer waits until the pelican touches her hand before proceeding with tactile desensitization (e.g. palpating the keel). The trainer uses operant conditioning to train a basic target behavior, using her hand as a target. She waits for the animal to operate (move toward the hand) rather than moving her hand toward the animal. The start-button aspect is in the fact that the animal initiates (starts) the training sequence. The trainer will not reach to make contact with the animal prior to the animal giving consent by touching the trainer’s hand. This differs greatly from the trainer driven session where the trainer might give a cue (e.g. saying the word “touch”) followed by touching initiated by the trainer, which may not work out so well if the animal is not on the same page. By thinking of it in this way, the trainer purposely follows the animal’s cues (read the animal) and moves at the animal’s pace rather than focusing solely on their own agenda, thus avoiding pitfalls often associated with moving too quickly. By continuously learning and tapping into the vast array of resources such as training books, journals, workshops, videos, and of course colleagues, we can refresh our knowledge and enhance our training experiences greatly. Thank you, Becky, for sharing your Training Tale and best wishes with the pelicans! AZA/AAZK. 2016. AZA/AAZK Animal Training Terms & Definitions. On www. aazk.org. Accessed on 21 January 2020. Branigan H. 2019. Start Button Behaviors Homework. On Train Smarter with Hannah Branigan. At www.hannahbranigan.dog/programs. Accessed on 21 January 2020. Fenzi, D. 2018. The future of progressive dog training. On Fenzi Dog Sports Academy. At www.denisefenzi.com/2018/10/the-future-of-progessive-dog- training blog. Accessed on 21 January 2020. Ramirez, K. 2018. What is Choice? The Evolution of a Concept. In Ken’s Letters. www.clickertraining.org/what-is-choice. Accessed on 21 January 2020. CONSERVATION STATION Comparing Educational Programming and Usage of Single- Use Plastics at Zoos and Aquariums in the United States and Canada Amy Sarno, Australasia Team Lead Kansas City Zoo, Missouri, USA Project Dragonfly Global Field Program Abstract Plastic pollution is a significant threat to ecosystems and wildlife across the globe. The worldwide prevalence of Reducing our | single-use plastics (SUPs) plays a large takes time, It’s OK to start small. role in this environmental crisis. This keep recycling — it still helps! issue does however have the potential Together, we can make a difference for wildlife. to be addressed through educational campaigns and by transitioning away from these one-time use items and toward reusable alternatives. Zoos and aquariums are scientific conservation organizations that play a crucial role in educating their communities about key environmental issues impacting wildlife. This study compares the use of, and messaging about, SUPs at zoos and aquariums in the United States and Canada. By surveying these facilities directly, information was gathered ae OF Dolphin show at the Indianapolis Zoo 150 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM about any educational programming they may have in place about SUPs, as well as what types, if any, of SUPs they have available for their visitors. The data were analyzed to determine if there were any trends among these facilities as to which have better practices surrounding SUPs. Factors contributing to this determination include whether they are aquariums, or zoos without aquariums, their distance from the ocean, if they are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) or the Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA), and the size of the institution itself. The data show significant correlations between aquariums, facilities located closer to the ocean, accredited organizations and larger- sized institutions all having better SUP practices and educational programming than their counterpart organizations. While there are a few facilities currently participating in all of the best SUP practices addressed in this research, most facilities have room for improvement, some more than others. Hopefully the results of this study will inspire zoos and aquariums to increase their efforts around the SUP crisis and strive for meaningful behavioral change from their visitors to protect the environment from damaging plastic pollution. Introduction Plastics are a large part of daily life in modern society and provide many practical applications and conveniences. However, usage of disposable plastics results in substantial negative impacts on the environment. Plastic build-up on the planet continues to increase due to its resistance to degradation paired with unsustainable usage rates and disposal methods (Thompson et al., 2009). Millions of animals are killed by plastics every year (Parker, 2019) and marine debris is composed of between 60-92% Graphic at the Detroit Zoo a Hert la a ; rabrs iz ft? CuriOdyssey photo by Carmen Sepetka plastics (Thompson et al., 2009). Current clean-up efforts, though valuable, cannot keep up with the increasing amounts of plastics being disposed of and entering into the environment (Prata et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2009). Therefore, reduction in the use of these disposable plastics is the only viable strategy to mitigate the increasingly negative effects this pollution is having on the planet. In addition to being visually unappealing in the environment, plastic pollution causes several severe threats to wildlife. Because of its buoyant nature, plastic debris often floats and becomes a vessel for colonization by various marine organisms that can sustain life in the plastic while it travels to different bodies of water; thus, creating a potential for the transport of invasive species to different ecosystems (Gregory, 2009). Although plastics do not biodegrade the same way organic materials do, there is still a slow break down of some of the materials that make up plastic items. This leaching of chemicals such as phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA) into the environment has been proven to affect the reproduction in all taxa studied, as well as impair development in amphibians and crustaceans (Thompson et al., 2009). There is another major detriment of plastic pollution that receives more | mainstream attention; the results of wildlife ingesting plastics or becoming entangled by them. Over 700 species of mammals, birds, fish, turtles and invertebrates have been documented ingesting or becoming entangled in plastic debris; causing injury, ulcers, impaired feeding and potential starvation, mobility and reproduction, and even death (Gall and Thompson, 2015). Although there is limited data compared to the suspected number of wildlife encounters with plastic, the existing data does suggest that rates of these incidents have increased over time (Ryan et al., 2009). This trend is not surprising given the previously mentioned increasing rates of usage by humans. Zoos and aquariums are established pillars of environmental education in their communities and have the responsibility to both lead by example, as well as educate, about the seriousness of the plastic pollution issue the planet is currently facing. This inquiry seeks to determine if there are certain factors that result in zoos and aquariums in the United States and Canada having more or less investment into the issue of SUPs. The results of this research are important to shine light on a critical environmental issue and to identify areas where zoos and aquariums can improve to better align their actions and messaging with May 2020 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 151 the best practices surrounding SUPs and continue to be leaders in the realm of environmental education and stewardship. Methods To acquire data on what messaging facilities had in place and what SUPs, if any, were offered to guests on their properties I wanted to get information from as many institutions as possible. J initially set my scope as all of North America and reached out to several zoos and aquariums in Mexico, but was unable to obtain any information from any Mexican facilities, presumably due to the language barrier. I began by sending e-mails to every public zoo or aquarium | could find in North America that was listed as a member on the websites of either the AZA, CAZA, or the Zoological Association of America Figure 1: Map of Surveyed Facilities (ZAA), by posting in a zookeepers’ social Image courtesy of Google Maps networking group, utilizing a list of facilities provided to AZA population managers (of which I am one), as well as through general online searches for “zoos” and “aquariums” in various facilities from which I was able to obtain the environment? were received through direct e-mail was asked eight yes or no questions Ae Daecee ean ae ear < epee A : : . e institution provide plastic bags Tor guests In your giit Ss about SUP usage at their organization = e s ell Nae i Q1. Does the institution have any messaging in any zookeeper chats, shows or educational pro- gramming about reducing the use of single-use plastics? (see Table 1). To accompany the Q7. Does the institution provide disposable (non-biodegradable) silverware/cutlery for guests in answers to each of these questions, your restaurants? the JBSteUnOnS ae classified based Q8. Does the institution have refillable water bottle stations (filtered water not just the standard on four different criteria (see Table 2). drinking fountains)? To most accurately reflect the size of Tabet uesbereuckedicreaohracinys i facility, zoos were classified based on the ee ie it aang Pree ee teen eee number of individual animals housed and aquariums were classified based onthe total number of different species | Categories exhibited. Presence of Aquarium No Aquariums Absence of an For smaller facilities that didn’t have Aquarium restaurants or sell beverages, the eee i. ' : a di t lid d Proximity of Facility State or Province State or Province ee ee eee P noe ae } to the Ocean Touches Ocean Doesn’t Touch Ocean cutlery were not applicable. Thus, their percentages of participation in best practices were calculated based on the Accreditation Status | Accredited by AZA or Not CAZA or AZA Ac- of Facility CAZA credited number of potential SUP Proeueee they Small zoo = 499 animals | Medium zoo = 500- Large zoo = 1,500 had in place. For example, a facility Size Of Facility or less 1,499 animals animals or more without any food or beverage services ; that had SUP educational programming small Aquarium = 249 Medium Aquarium = Large Aquarium = : : : ate species or less 250-749 species 750 species or more and signage, no plastic bags in their gift shop, filtered water bottle refill stations Table 2: Categorization Criteria for Facilities and SUP information on their website would still get a score of 100% (1.0). 152 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM If the same facility had educational programing and signage, but offered plastic bags, had no refill stations and no SUP information on their website, they would receive a score of 40% (0.4). Results 193 zoos and aquariums in North America, primarily in the United States, were surveyed. These institutions represented the range of facility types including those that are only five acres in total size, through moderate-sized parks, and all the way up to large establishments serving over three million visitors annually. Some facilities were solely aquariums, some were zoos without aquariums, and a few were zoos that also had aquariums as a part of their parks. Of the 193 surveyed institutions, 20 were participating in all nine of the environmentally conscious SUP actions to educate their visitors and model being SUP free (10.4% of all surveyed facilities). Figure 2 details the breakdown of the overall SUP practices of the organizations for each of the nine potential actions. When comparing the practices of different facilities, the action that the most institutions, 160 (82.9%), had done was eliminating plastic straws. In contrast, the action that the fewest organizations were practicing was eliminating plastic water bottles, with 51 (26.4%) institutions being free of plastic bottled water. When comparing the presence or absence of an aquarium, the data show a significant correlation between aquariums having higher levels of SUP best practices compared to those facilities without aquariums, with a p-value of 0.0003 (see Figures 3 and 4). The average level of participation in SUP best practices for aquariums was 72.3% as compared to 59.5% for facilities without aquariums. While being bottled water free was the practice least prevalent in both zoos and aquariums, 44.3% of aquariums have eliminated this source of SUP as compared to 18.5% of facilities without aquariums that have done away with plastic bottled water. In contrast, the practice that had the highest percentage of participation for aquariums was different than that of organizations without aquariums. The action with the highest percentage of aquarium participation (87.3%) was having educational programming about : Percentage of Facilities Doing Activity sR R899 # FF SUP 0s SUP Sigrage = Nolids §«=NeStraws No Bottled No Plastic Programing Niarbesr Bags fio Phantic Cutlery oatins Figure 2: Overall Single-Use Plastic Activities For All Facilities Surveyed B0% 70% 60% 50% § ~ 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Aquarium No Aquarium Figure 3: Overall SUP Practices at Aquariums vs Zoos Without Aquariums | Pragraming No lids WoStraws No Bottled NaPlastic Meo Plastic SUP on euatice Water Bags Cutlery solo Website Average Percentage of SUP Practices in = a a ee Average Percentage of SUP Practices in Palce B Aquarium © No Aquarium Figure 4: SUP Practices at Aquariums vs Zoos Without Aquariums May 2020 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 153 SUPs. For non-aquarium facilities, the practice with the highest percentage — (88.9%) was eliminating plastic straws. = 7% Additionally, the proximity of facilities E 60% to the ocean in relation to their E SUP practices showed a significant o 50% correlation between an institution wi being located in a state or province 5 8 40% that touches the ocean and having & a better SUP practices (see Figures 5 5 30% and 6). Ocean-adjacent facilities were Pa participating in an average of 79.1% o 30%, of the SUP best practices, while the © average participation from inland 2 10% institutions was 71.1%. Although this is only an eight percent difference, it on does represent a Statistically significant Touches Ocean Inland difference with a p-value of 0.0047. The average level of participation in Figure 5: Overall SUP Activities Related to Distance From Ocean SUP best practices for ocean-adjacent facilities was 72.3% as compared to 58.4% for inland locations. Being plastic straw free had the highest level of participation of any potential action for both institution location categories, and being bottled water-free had the lowest. While still selling water in plastic bottles was the action with the least amount of participation for both ocean-adjacent and inland facilities, the percentage of ocean-adjacent parks that | | | } | F | | | I have eliminated plastic water bottles is Programing SUP Signage NoLlids NoStraws No Bottled Mo Plastic MoPlastic Refill SUP on more than twice that of inland parks; Water Begs Cutlery = Stations «= Website 34.9% versus 15.9% respectively (see B Touches Ocean inland Figure 6). m GER RRSIZETE Percentage of Facihties Boing Action Figure 6: Distance from Ocean and SUP Practices Another factor that had a significant impact on the level of best SUP practices was whether or not a facility was accredited by the most stringent governing body in the region; AZA in the US or CAZA in Canada. With a p-value of 0.0005, there is a statistically significant correlation between being accredited and having higher levels of participation in SUP best practices, with the average participation level for accredited facilities being 66.2%, compared to 53.4% for non-accredited institutions (see Figures 7 and 8). While being plastic straw-free had the highest Average Percentage of SUP Practices in Place oJ z level of participation of any potential 20% action for both accredited and non- accredited organizations, and being 10% bottled water-free had the lowest, it was the unaccredited parks that had a higher O% average of being plastic straw-free Accredited Non-Accredited with 90.3% of those surveyed having eliminated plastic straws and 86.8% Figure 7: Overall SUP Activities and Accreditation Status of accredited parks not having plastic 154 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM straws (see Figure 8). The percentage 100%. of facilities not offering plastic bottled BOK 70% 60% 50% 0% 20% 10% O% ; water was similar between accredited and non-accredited at 26.6% and 27.0% respectively (see Figure 8). When looking at the size of the facility, there is a statistically significant correlation between small facilities having lower levels of SUP best practices as compared to medium (p-value of 0.00002) and large Average Percentage of SUP Practices in Place facilities (p-value of 0.0088), but when Programing SUP © WNolLids No Straws No Bottled No Plastic No Plastic SUP on comparing medium institutions to large i bids = same san = ones there is no statistical difference, BAccrediied = NomAccredited with a p-value of 0.1452 and they were equally likely to be participating in SUP Figure 8: SUP Activities and Accreditation Status best practices (see Figures 9 and 10). Medium parks had the highest average levels of participation in SUP best 80% practices with 71.6%, followed by large parks at 65.5% and small parks with = OM the lowest average participation in best . SUP practices at 57.2% (see Figure 9). 60% No longer selling plastic bottled water was the action that facilities of all sizes 50% had the lowest level of participation in, with 26.2% of smalls, 33.9% of mediums and 18.8% of larges having = gone plastic bottled water-free (Figure 30% 10). The action with the highest level of participation was different for large 20% facilities, 91.7% having water bottle refill stations, as compared to the small 10% and medium facilities whose highest sins level of participation was for being Small Medium plastic straw-free at 85.5% and 91.5% respectively (Figure 10) Figure 9: Overall SUP Activities and Size of Facility Average Percentage of SUP Practices in Place S # Discussion The results of this inquiry highlight some of the areas in which the industry Figure 10: SUP Activities and Size of Facility is doing well both educating the public about SUPs and leading by example, as 100% well as ways in which we can become better environmental stewards. No single action had 100% participation from any group of institutions, and aside from the 20 institutions that were already doing all the best practices for SUPs, every facility has at least some areas on which to improve. The practice with the greatest potential for 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% more environmentally friendly action ee 0% is reducing the sale of plastic bottled Programing SUP No Lids NoStraws No Bottled No Plastic No Plastic Refill SUP on water, which is still being sold by 142 Signage Water Bags Cutlery Stations Website of the 193 surveyed facilities. There were a couple main factors that were repeatedly cited by facilities as to the reason they were still selling water in plastic bottles to guests despite an 90% 80% Average Percentage of SUP Activities in Place Small Medium Large Figure 10: SUP Activities and Size of Facility 155 | ANIMAL KEEPERS’ FORUM May 2020 | Vol. 47 No.5 | 155 Seahorse sculpture at the Greensboro Science Center. Photo by Lindsey Zarecky. understanding of the environmental impact of this action. Most of the institutions surveyed are non-profits, and all of them, regardless of this status, have a bottom line to think about and need to generate revenue. Bottled water is a product highly demanded by visitors, making it a significant source of income. Eliminating the sale of bottled water would do away with a steady stream of revenue. An additional hurdle for many institutions that would like to eliminate the sale of bottled water is being in contracts with beverage vendors such as Pepsi or Coca-Cola or having their food and beverage operations run by outside companies. Many of the organizations in these situations expressed the desire to move away from bottled water and work with their vendors to find alternate solutions. Luckily water is now available to be sold in cardboard boxes as well as aluminum cans so hopefully future contracts can be negotiated to include these more environmentally friendly vessels for water. In contrast to bottled water, eliminating disposable plastic straws was the action with the highest level of participation with 160 of the 193 facilities surveyed, having completely eliminated this option for their guests. Of the 33 facilities where plastic straws are still offered, some of them have begun transitioning away from them by only offering plastic straws to guests upon request, which is a good first step, but still not the best practice. Perhaps eliminating plastic straws has the highest level of institutional participation because unlike eliminating bottled water, it doesn’t take away a revenue stream, but rather is a cost savings action by no longer needing to purchase them. Or perhaps no longer offering plastic straws is the most common practice because of the amount of attention this action has received in the past several years as a very recognizable environmental action by many visitors. For every action other than eliminating bottled water, more than half of the facilities are doing the best practice, but there remains lots of room to improve for nearly every institution, aside from the 20 surveyed that were participating in all SUP best practice actions. As far as the trends between the different categories of institutions, it is perhaps not surprising that aquariums, ocean adjacent facilities, accredited organizations and larger parks have higher levels of SUP best practices. The SUP issue aligns directly with the entire animal collection of most aquariums, while in general the issue may not have as obvious or immediate of a connection with some of the land inhabiting animals at zoos. As conservation organizations there are numerous important environmental issues on which to focus. Perhaps zoos are more heavily directing their energies toward other issues that they may see as more relevant for their animal collections. Similarly, proximity to the ocean may make the issue of SUPs feel more tangible or pressing for visitors to ocean-adjacent institutions, despite its importance across the continent. It can be challenging to find ways to help visitors truly see the impact of their actions and choices, so being physically closer to the ocean may allow these facilities to better make the connection about the negative impacts SUPs have on marine life, and thus they may choose to allocate more resources toward the issue as compared to inland organizations. Although there are several non- accredited facilities that are participating in some of the SUP best practices set forth in this paper, the higher rate of participation by accredited facilities may be due to the standards set forth by the accrediting bodies, such as the 2020 AZA Accreditation Standards that state that “Green practices and education programs emphasizing the institution’s and community’s role in ecosystem conservation and stewardship of natural resources should inspire conservation action with measurable outcomes both at the institution and in the community/ society-at-large to address the causes of species endangerment.” For any of the SUP best practices that may require more resources to execute, financial or otherwise, it makes sense that small facilities are less likely to be practicing them. A single filtered water bottle refill station costs on average between $1,400 - $3,000 to purchase and install (Agua, 2016), so this is something that may not be feasible for smaller organizations with more limited budgets. Additionally, SUP cutlery and lids may be cheaper than the eco-friendlier alternatives in some cases, and smaller facilities may have a more difficult time budgeting to switch to more expensive non-SUP options as compared to larger facilities. The results of this inquiry show that while many facilities are already educating their guests about the issue As far as the trends between the different categories of institutions, it is perhaps not surprising that aquariums, ocean adjacent facilities, accredited organizations and larger parks have higher levels of SUP best practices. of SUPs in the environment in some capacity, others are not. Perhaps there are resource hindrances or other factors preventing the implementation of formal programming or signage. I am in the process of creating an activity station about SUPs that any zoo or aquarium could use and set up a table and educate visitors on the topic. The activity station is geared toward children because they are such an important demographic to capture in regards to making environmental changes for the future. The activity station will have several options for crafts that kids can make from various used plastic items including making piggy banks, bird feeders, refrigerator magnets and dog toys. There will also be an activity visitors can participate in where they will wear vision impairment goggles to simulate the vision of a sea turtle and see if they can tell the difference between a floating plastic bag and a jellyfish. The activity kit will also include a variety of photos of plastics in nature and animals negatively impacted by SUPs that kids can relate to, but that also aren't too graphic, as well as SUP facts that are phrased to be easily processed by a younger audience, such as how scientists think that 8.8 million tons of plastic winds up in the ocean every year—that’s as if you stacked up five plastic grocery bags full of trash on top of each other on every foot of coastline in the world (Shaw, n.d.). The kit will also contain information about how to sign up for the National Geographic’s Kids Versus Plastic Pledge. I will be testing out the activity station at a future event at the Kansas City Zoo and making any adjustments or improvements to the kit for other facilities following this trial run. For further information or for the details of the activity kit please contact me at amysarno@fotzkc.org. Conclusion With researchers estimating that by 2050 there will be more plastic in the oceans than fish by weight, (National Geographic, 2019) the issue of the negative impacts of SUPs on the environment is clearly a dire one. It is however important to note that there are numerous other environmental issues of importance that require the attention of zoos and aquariums such as climate change, sustainable seafood and deforestation fueled by palm oil plantations. It can be challenging to reach visitors with meaningful messaging about environmental issues when there are so many complex topics to discuss and there are limited resources, time and real estate to relay messaging. Research into the most effective way to reach visitors might better help these organizations prioritize how their resources are allocated to deliver the most effective messaging for guests. Perhaps as an industry we need to spend more time collaborating on creating effective messaging for all these issues and finding ways to connect the topics that facilitate understanding and action from guests. In addition to increasing educational messaging and no longer providing SUPs for visitors, facilities could take other actions to inspire change such as offering financial incentives for SUP- free actions such as giving discounts on beverages when guests bring a reusable cup, or in the gift shop when they bring, or buy, a reusable bag. Research shows these types of financial incentives are often very powerful motivators for behavioral change, frequently more so than educational efforts alone (Schnurr, et al., 2018). Additionally, encouraging guests to bring various SUP items to their facilities to recycle them could be an effective strategy. Institutions could either provide a discount or prize for SUP items brought in to recycle or by simply offering a place to recycle some SUP items that cannot be single-stream recycled such as cereal bags, deodorant containers and toothbrushes by partnering with TerraCycle. Many facilities stated that they were not where they wanted to be in regards to their SUP practices, and numerous organizations shared that they have plans in place to phase out some of the SUPs they currently offer to guests. Hopefully if this same survey were to be conducted each year for the next several years the trend of more participation in best SUP practices would continue to grow. As the industry continues to improve its practices surrounding SUPs, it is important to acknowledge and honor the role zoos and aquariums have as conservation leaders in the community. Educational programming on reducing the use of SUPs will have limited effectiveness if visitors can walk away from a presentation or sign and walk over to a restaurant and purchase water in a plastic bottle, use disposable plastic silverware, drink out of a plastic straw or take home their souvenirs from the gift shop in a plastic bag. Zoos and aquariums need to set the bar high in this, and all environmental arenas, and lead by example, demonstrating best environmental practices to their visitors, while continuing to educate about the importance of individual choices for the environment. {"* Author’s note: Data are current as of 11.20.19 id A Pare Wiciel” yi Pore | Golf cart, completely customized by A Thru Z, including design, fabrication, and installation. Innovative, multi-functional, emergency response vehicle for Reid Park Zoo. Secure, animal/keeper transport. 8620 E. Old Vail Rd., Ste. 100 Tucson, AZ 85747 re | Gy Ph: 520.434.8281 | Fax: 520.434.0151 Email: info@athruz.net | Website: http://www.athruzcad.com Manufacturing the best animal enrichment available since 2004. Happy, healthy animals are our passion. 2401 Phoenix Ave NE Albuquerque NM 87107 Ph: 866.793.0376 www.wildlifetoybox.com E-mail: sales@wildlifetoybox.com WildlifeToyB OXeCO i) A Proud Product Line of Desert Plastics 8476 E. Speedway Blvd. Suite 204 Tucson, AZ 85710-1728 U.S.A. ; pA, ' AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of ZOO KEEPERS “Dedicated to Professional Animal Care” bs facebook.com/AAZKinc @AAZKinc Central Nebraska Packing, Inc. offers: Classic & Premium Frozen Carnivore Diets * ALSO AVAILABLE = HORSE SHORT LOINS / HORSE & BEEF BONES MEAT COMPLETE WITH TAURINE (RAN MEAT SUPPLEMENT FOR ALL CARNIVORES) 877.900.3003 | 800.445.2881 P.O. Box 550, North Platte, NE 69103-0550 MEMBER: AZA1! AAZV | AAZK info@nebraskabrand.com - nebraskabrand.com FELINE & SENIOR FELINE | BIRD OF PREY | CANINE | SPECIAL BEEF FELINE :