Wellspring

Wellspring
Volume 15, Issue 1
Winter 2015
Committee Chairs
Board of Directors
Table of Contents
President
Margaret Rousser
Oakland Zoo
Page 1
President’s Corner – Margaret Rousser
Page 2-12
Page 2-4
“Training Without the Trainer”
Through
Enrichment Tools and the Application of the
Balance Index (IB) on Enrichment Use František Šusta
Past President
Heather Samper
Mutts With Manners
President-Elect
Nicki Boyd
San Diego Zoo
1st Vice President
Annette Pederson
Copenhagen Zoo
Page 13-15
Animal Art: How Do They Do It? – Juliann
Breeding
Page 16-29
Fire Hoses Do More Than Fight Fires!- Micala
Teetzen, Sedgwick County Zoo
nd
2 Vice President
Scott Trauger
Lowry Park Zoo
Chief Financial Officer
Susie Ekard
San Diego Zoo Safari Park
Back Inside Cover
Parting Shots
Back Cover
2014 ABMA Conference Award Winners
Behavior
Management Fund
Michelle Farmerie
Genevieve Warner
Conference
Kirstin Anderson
Hansen
Conference Content
Advisory
Christine McKnight
Conference
Proceedings
Jennifer Hickman
Samantha Smith
Education
Missy Lamar
Government Affairs
Justin Garner
Secretary
Cinnamon Williams
Kansas City Zoo
Honors & Awards
Scott Trauger
Membership
Amy Schilz
Directors
Christa Gaus
National Aviary
Merchandise
Susie Ekard
Jennifer Hickman
Denver Zoo
Nominations &
Elections
Heather Leeson
Missy Lamar
SeaWorld San Antonio
Public Affairs
Margaret Rousser
Jay Tacey
Busch Gardens
Williamsburg
Page 18-19
Publications
Heidi Hellmuth
Research
&Evaluation
Darren Minier
Site Selection
Kelly Elkins
Sponsorship
Cathy Schlott
Website
Heather Samper
‘Enrichment Eggstravaganza’ in the Primate House at the
Saint Louis Zoo – photos by Joe Knobbe
ABMA Wellspring - Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015
Wellspring
The Source of
Behavioral Management Information
Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015
President’s Column
What a great year for the Animal Behavior Management Alliance! Our membership is more diverse than
ever before, with members on different continents from all over the world. 2015 brought ABMA’s first
European conference in Denmark! Cohosts Copenhagen Zoo and Odense Zoo have planned an amazing
week for us and I must give a shout out to Annette Pedersen and Kirstin Anderson Hansen for all of their
hard work putting together the program.
In 2016, ABMA will be heading to Tampa, FL. Cohosts Tampa’s Lowry Park Zoo and Busch Gardens,
Tampa are looking forward to our visit and they have some great things planned for us while we are there,
so save that date! We will be “Breaking down Barriers” to find New Possibilities in Animal Welfare.
We will kick off the conference with a Keynote from Dr. Susie Ellis, the executive Director of the
International Rhino Foundation. Our team on the ground in Tampa also has some new innovative ideas
for this conference, so you won’t want to miss it!
While conferences may be one of our favorite member benefits, they are far from the only ones. We are
adding new content to our website all the time and keeping up with CollaborNation! Our team is
vigilantly preparing new resources for our members. And let’s not forget the member benefit of
AnimalProfessional.com! Even if you can’t make it to the conference every year, you can still see and
access all of the amazing presentations just a few weeks afterwards with your ABMA membership.
As I finish up my presidency, I am proud of this organization and honored to have served you! It has
been my privilege to be your president and as I pass the baton on to our next president, Nicki Boyd, I feel
confident that the ABMA will continue to realize its vision of being a global leader in animal welfare.
Sincerely,
Margaret Rousser
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 1
“Training Without the Trainer” Through Enrichment Tools and the Application
of the Balance Index (IB) on Enrichment Use
František Šusta
Abstract:
Enrichment and animal training are very powerful tools for helping to ensure animal welfare.
Although for many of us they mean two separate activities, there are many scenarios when the training
is enriching and enrichment can be used as training. Furthermore, understanding the principles of
behavior management very often makes it more effective for us when using enrichment to solve
behavioral concerns, At Institution 1 we manage a number of groups of animals. Aggression is natural
behavior, however not something we wish to increase as a result of our presence during public
presentations or shows, or as a result of our introducing enrichment.
We have developed an analytical method which evaluates an individual animal’s potential to succeed
in a training session. This has been used with great success particularly in our lemur shows. Recently
we have used this method during enrichment. This has enabled us to effectively decrease aggression
between conspecifics in a gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) group, lemur group, and increase our ability to
manage feeding and medicating in a group of coatis (Nasua spp).
Managing groups of animals is not easy. Keepers are often pressured to achieve this with little insight.
When understanding the natural dominance over food resources of each group member, we can
effectively manage behavior through elaborate enrichment tools, without losing keeper time or the
necessity to separate the group members. To illustrate this principle, we use examples of a gorilla´s
feeding time, ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) show, and an experiment on a coati group enrichment.
Introduction:
Teaching behaviors to the animals in groups without the possibility of separating them is a very
challenging job. In Institution 1 we have developed an analytic method called Balance Index (IB),
presented at the ABMA conference in 2012, which helps us to maintain social harmony during
training with a particular focus on individual animals without them being disturbed by others. But, this
training still needs the active presence of an experienced trainer. Keepers are not always experienced
enough to manage these scenarios, and their lack of time is also a compromising factor. For these
reasons we decided to test the principles of group training using the IB model in the enrichment
program. We would use specially prepared enrichment tools that had the potential for us to modify
their difficulty relative to the needs of the individuals in the group in question.
The IB model, described in “Methods” and in Susta (2011), is a mathematical model to analyze social
situations in any group during training. The model determines the probability of the animal doing any
behavior according to four variables.
Two variables increase probability of the behavior occurring:
K (does animal KNOW the behavior?)
R (expected REWARD).
Two variables do decrease probability:
D (DIFFICULTY)
PA (Potential “to be ASSAULTED” or aggressed towards)
The formula is as follows: IB = (K×R)/(D×PA).
From the six basic rules of the IB model, published in Susta et al. (2013), the important rules for
potential enrichment use are:
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 2
1) The balance index (IB) for group behaviors can only be used for the groups where the
dominance status of each member is clear to all other members – the group is stable (ideally
the group members do live together). This can also be used only for situations when the group
members compete for the same resource (such as food, the trainer, etc.).
2) All behaviors of individual animals in group must be understood as a part of a complex
group behavior.
3) For each behavior in every moment, we have to manage the group so that the IB is the
highest for the most dominant animal and decreases for the rest of group with their decreasing
hierarchy status. Another situation will probably lead to less effectively maintained group
behavior.
(For a more detailed explanation see Susta (2011).)
Dominant group members naturally tend to have the highest IB in all situations. This can be ensured
by the highest level of K (the dominant animal Knows the behavior best), the highest R (expects a
high level of Reward), the least D (tends to perform the easiest – least Difficult - behavior) or least PA
(tends to choose the safest station or behavior, least Potential for Assault/aggression). When the
dominant animal is assured of the highest IB, the rest of group members choose their behaviors
relative to their hierarchy status – the IB of each member decreases in accordance with the decreasing
status of that individual.
At Institution 1, we respect and maintain the natural tendency of the group and always ensure the
highest IB for the dominant group members. We have had success with this approach in that it has
reduced stress in the group and enabled us to succeed in training behaviors for husbandry and shows
with our groups of animals.
We have recently successfully integrated this approach into our enrichment program. Here are three
examples:
GORILLA ENRICHMENT – Scent Target
The problem we were facing was that
when food enrichment was used with our
gorilla group, we noted that the maximum
time for the stimulation was 20 minutes;
and the food enrichment also often resulted
in high levels of aggression. After some
simple “training through enrichment” we
have increased the enrichment stimulation
time to an hour of peaceful activity. This
was done by teaching gorillas a “scent
message”.
Dominant gorilla male working of complicated puzzle feeders made of knotted
fire hoses. Before using the “scent target” technique, the gorillas did not react to
A variety of puzzle feeders were used.
these feeders at all, after using the “scent target” they spend about one hour with
of calm activity with these scented feeders
Puzzles with food in them were scented
with artificial almond scent. Puzzles with
no scent had no food in them. More dominant animals were taught what message this almond scent
meant and through this how to use the more difficult puzzle feeders. So their K variable was high
which lead to high IB. Puzzle feeders were distributed throughout the enclosure, and feeding
territories of the various animals were taken into account to determine where the more difficult
puzzles would be placed.
Before this approach was adopted, gorillas would try and steal all the puzzles and protect them while
working them out, which is where the aggression initiated. After initiating this new approach, the
gorillas were more engaged in choosing and working out the puzzles. It was also noted that they
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 3
worked out the easiest puzzles (those with the highest IB) first. This included the fact that they also
searched the more difficult parts of the exhibit last (highest D)
LEMUR ENRICHMENT
We also directly used the IB model in our application of enrichment devices to a group of lemurs
during their show. We developed a puzzle feeder for a dominant member of ring-tailed lemur group.
The objective was to keep the animal on the ground during our exhibit shows. Over time, we were
able to increase the complexity of the puzzle device. Initially it was very simple and when we gave it
to the group, the dominant member naturally gained control of this food resource. Later we increased
the difficulty more and more and the dominant member naturally became the only one in the group
who was able to succeed (his variable K for this concrete behavior became the highest from the entire
group). As a result he spends a long
time on this puzzle feeder during the
show and is thus engaged and so does
not challenge or attack other group
members during their feeding and
training. We even noted that when we
added new physically stronger lemurs
of a different species, there was no
problem for this lemur during show
time, because these new dominant
animals did not know how to open this
feeder and so they did not attack him
The dominant ring-tailed lemur Pancho works on his puzzle feeder during show. At the
on the ground. It must be highlighted
same time he allows the submissive lemurs to cooperate with the trainer and is not
that more submissive animals in a
afraid of attack by the potentially aggressive brown lemur on the ground next to him
group of lemurs would naturally head
up higher. The ground is reserved for more dominant, confident animals.
Because of the success of using the IB method of enrichment we designed an experiment to assist us
to answer the following question: Are we able to control the food and medication of individual group
members without direct feeding or separation?
Objective:
The objective of our experiment was to test the possibility of using enrichment tools and the IB model
to address concrete food or medication to concrete animal group members without separation of
individuals or necessity of direct feeding. Positive result would be very helpful for managing shy
animal groups where separation or direct feeding of individuals by keeper is not possible.
Method:
The experiment has been done in INSTITUTION 1,
Europe, in July to August of 2012. The group of
South American coatis (Nasua nasua) consisted of
four individuals (2.2): Ďinďa (1.0; born July 2009,
Prague, castrated), Stromovka (1.0; born April
2005, Prague, castrated), Anička (0.1; born July
2009, Prague), Smrž (0.1; born April 2001, Zoo
Stutgart, mother of all the other individuals).
We have prepared four similar puzzle feeders
known to us as ‘desks’. These were constructed out
of wood and plastic bins. They are 40x20x25 cm in
The puzzle feeder experiment with coatis
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 4
size. The objective of the puzzle feeders was for coatis was to get the food out of a food bin between
the two desks from a hole in the upper desk. Ten levels of difficulty are possible because of a series of
wooden pickets situated between the two flat wood pieces that make up the desk.
As first the hierarchy status of each individual was identified using the following methods:
a) Dominance index (DI),
b) Clutton-Brock Index (CBI)
Ad a - The Dominance Index (DI) has been counted from the ratio of wins minus defeats to all
decisive interactions defined by Bowen and Brooks (1978).
DI= Σ (win+defeats/win-defeats)
This index ranges from −1 (absolutely submissive) to +1 (absolutely dominant).
Ad b - The Clutton-Brock Index was originally designed for use with red deer stags, Cervus elaphus.
It measures an individual´s rank according to the ranks of his opponents and is based on the number of
individuals an individual defeats, or is defeated by, adjusted by the number of individuals those
individuals defeated, or are defeated by (Clutton-Brock et al., 1979).
Clutton-Brock Index (CBI) for each member, i, of a group was calculated with the formula:
CBI = (B + Σb + 1) / (L + Σl + 1)
B represents the number of individuals that i defeated in one or more interactions, Σb represents the
total number of individuals (excluding i) that those represented in B defeated, L represents the number
of individuals by which i was defeated and Σl represents the total number of individuals (excluding i)
by which those represented in L were defeated.
After identifying the hierarchy status of each individual, and following the IB model, a prediction of
how coatis will share daily food given them in sequence in four dishes, each one second after another,
has been estimated and then simply compared with results of observation in real.
The variables “number of attacks”, “number of escapes”, and “order of the food dish gained by the
animal during daily feeding” has been tested by ANOVA. The attacks, escapes, and other
dominance/submission interactions were recorded one hour before and after the normal daily feeding,
when these interactions are mostly frequent.
The normal daily feeding routine of the coati group using the four
dishes. Each one takes one dish and we can see the hierarchy
positions of each individual when sharing these food resources
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 5
After identifying the hierarchy status of individuals we provided the four puzzle feeders on a variety of
difficulty settings and gave these feeders to the group many times. Following IB model we made
predictions “which coati will take which feeder” and we statistically compared them with observed
results. The values for all the four variables of IB model were the same as we use when assessing
animal training scenarios (see below).
During training we assign a numerical value based on the IB variables. This is only relevant for the
behaviors we actually ask at any particular moment. For example if we want one animal to jump and
the rest of the group just to sit and wait, we assign values of variables for “jumping” for one and for
“sitting” for the rest of group.
Variable 1: K - Does animal KNOW the behavior?
0 – does not know at all
1 –it knows only some basic steps
2 – it knows the full behavior, but not under stimulus control
3 – the desired behavior is under stimulus control
Variable 2: R (expected REWARD) – the reward which is expected by the animal.
0 – no reward
1 – food reward, but not the favorite food
2 – ordinary food (ordinary used in normal daily feed ration, not in training)
3 – ordinary reward (not standard part of the daily feed ration, but the most frequently used during training
4 – “bonus” ( like a “weak jackpot”, for example a few more pieces of food used as rewards)
5 – “jackpot” (extra big reward)
The value 4 or 5 we assign only when the animal has a good reason to expect it (for example because
of reinforcement schedule).
Variable 3: D (DIFFICULTY, also control over resources)
How difficult is the behavior for the animal. From the animal’s point of view, this can be also
understood as control over resources (food), because the behavior is the way to reach the reward – to
get control over it. For example when animals are sitting around the trainer, the highest control over
resources and so the smallest level of D can be found by the animal sitting nearest the pocket with
rewards – the animal has the highest control.
1 – no difficulty (high control)
2 – small difficulty (high, but not maximum control)
3 – middle (middle control)
4 – high (small control)
5 – extremely high or impossible (no control over resources)
Variable 4: PA – (Potential “to be ASSAULTED” or aggressed towards)
For example with lemurs, the PA increases when the submissive animal is located right under the
branch where a dominant aggressive animal is sitting. The designated values of these categories
depend on the species ethology, as well as trainers knowledge of the animals.
1 – no potential (animal is not threatened by anyone in the group. May be the dominant animal)
2 – the potential would be real only when conditions will change (for example dominant primate sitting under the
submissive one could be under threat only if it´s hierarchy will change)
3 – actually exists, but at a low level
4 – actually exists on high level
5 – “deadly endangered”
The formula is IB = (K×R)/(D×PA) and the basic rule is “highest IB for the dominant group member
and decreasing IB with decreasing hierarchy status each animal” (for other rules see above in
Introduction and Susta (2011), Susta et al. (2013).
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 6
For different situations of inserting the four puzzle feeders to the group, (see picture 5) we predicted
the following IB for different puzzle feeders and different coatis. The K (Knows) stayed always the
same (value 2). For R (expected Reward) the value was always 3, because the rewards in the puzzle
feeder remained the same and coatis can smell them. The D changed for different puzzle difficulties
according to the previous success of the individual on that difficulty level: value 1 if the individual
already successfully reached the food from that difficulty level, value 2 if the difficulty level is just a
little above the one which coati already reached and value 3 if the difficulty level of the puzzle is more
than one level above the last
successful level.
For PA (Potential to be
Assaulted) we assigned values
according to the hierarchy status
of the individual – value 1 for
the most dominant, value 2 for
the second dominant and value
The insertion of puzzle feeders during the experiment (in regular use
3 for the submissive animals,
the distance between them was bigger)
always endangered from the
attacks of the others during feeding together. The PA must also be high for the entire group when the
new enrichment is inserted, because this food resource will probably be understood as a potential
danger. This is why the situation of first insertion of a new device has a different prediction way then
the insertion of known devices.
Example of doing prediction for a normal situation: We inserted four different feeders on difficulty
levels c<d=d<e. According to the IB rules, the most dominant animal will choose first the feeder with
highest IB for this individual. If this individual already knows from previous insertion how to reach
food from difficulty level c, its D=1 for level c and D=2 for level d (which is only one level above the
c), and D=3 for level e (two levels above the c). So for level c, his IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)=
(2×3)/(1×1)=6, and for level d the IB= (2×3)/(2×1)=3, and for level e the IB= (2×3)/(3×1)=2.
The dominant animal naturally chooses the level c since this one has the highest IB for him, and the
rest of feeders remain for the other individuals. The second animal will choose from d=d< e, but for
him they can have different values then for the first one, because this individual had another
experience before. If he is already able to reach level f, levels d and e (with difficulty below the f)
have D=1 for him and their both IBs are equal, IB= (2×3)/(1×2)=3.
The PA=2 for the second animal, because he is potentially endangered from the first one when feeding
together. This individual will probably take the feeder the furthest distance from the first one, not
depending on difficulty level, because for him they are all the same. And there are two remaining
feeders which submissive animals can use and their prediction we will do the same way, according to
their experience and abilities known from previous feeders insertion (influences D) and their hierarchy
status and proximity from dominant animals during feeding time (influences PA). Influences of the
two, only changing variables D and PA, have been tested by contingency tables.
Results:
Hierarchy status of each individual:
Dominance index (DI):
(in DI the less number means higher hierarchy status of the individual)
Ďinďa: 0,2
Stromovka: 0,9
Anička: impossible to calculate
Smrž: impossible to calculate
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 7
Clutton-Brock Index (CBI)
CBI -=(B+ Σb+1)/ (L+ Σl+1)
(in CBI higher number means higher status)
Ďinďa: 4,4
Stromovka: 1,25
Anička: 0,03
Smrž: 0,14
Both indexes do show that Dinďa is the most dominant animal of the group and Stromovka is the
second one. Both females have lower hierarchy status, which were able to be calculated only by CBI
index, and both are very low. Because of it we give them both the status 3-4.
Prediction for sharing daily food dishes:
When we give the group four food dishes with the same food, in sequence, with a one second delay
between each one; it is clear that the first dish gives the dominant coati highest control over food
resources (lowest D=1), then the second one has D=2 and so on due to their delay in time . All the
other variables stay the same due to the same food, kind of bins, and others. So the IB status of each
food dish is:
IB of the first bin is : IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)= (2×2)/(1×1)=4
IB of the second bin is IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)= (2×2)/(1×2)=2
IB of the third bin is IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)= (2×2)/(1×3)=1,33
IB of the last bin is IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)= (2×2)/(1×4)= 1
Graph 1. The relationship between hierarchy status of
the individual and orrder of the food dish the individual took
According to the laws of IB model and
according to the hierarchy status of each
individual identified above, the prediction for
sharing food dishes is, that the most dominant
animal Dinďa will take always the first present
dish, Stromovka the second, Anička and Smrž
will share the rest.
6
5
Number of events
The results are shown in graph 1. Dinďa, when
present, always used bin number 1, Stromovka
mostly number 2, and females really shared the
rest of bins. If Dinďa is not present during
feeding (two times), his dish is taken by
Stromovka, and then the other individuals takes
the nearest free dish with the highest IB
according to the hierarchy status of that
individual. So these results agree with our
prediction.
7
4
1 - Dinďa
2 - Stromovka
3-4 Anička
3
3-4 Smrž
2
The ANOVA test for variables “number of
attacks”, “number of escapes”, and “order of
the food dish gained by the animal during daily
feeding” has been found significant for all the
three variables.
1
0
1
2
3
Order of the food dish
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 8
4
Table 1: The ANOVA test for variables “order of the dish”, “attacks”, “escapes
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
Dishes
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
22,403
3
7,804
25
Total
30,207
28
Between Groups
36,844
3
21,875
28
Total
58,719
31
Escapes Between Groups
12,250
3
4,083
Within Groups
29,250
28
1,045
Total
41,500
31
Within Groups
Attacks
Within Groups
7,468
F
p
23,924 YES
>0,001
0,312
12,281
15,720 YES
>0,001
0,781
3,909 YES
>0,01
Predictions for sharing the puzzle feeders:
First insertion: For the first introduction to the group of a new, potentially dangerous food resource,
with which the group has no previous experience, the PA must be very high at the beginning. The IB
model predicts that all the variables (K –Know, R – expected Reward, D – Difficulty, PA – Potential
to be Assaulted) are the same for all the group members. All the group members can know only basic
steps (K=1) if the puzzle is easy enough. The expected reward is the same for all of them (R=3), the
difficulty as well (D=2 if it is on the basic level) and all of these three variables stay the same all the
time. But the PA, potential to be assaulted, decreases with time and with the habituation and
desensitization of the animals. Then finally they will find this is not a danger and the PA decreases to
PA=1 (no danger is expected from this new device).
The numeral prediction for new food resources:
IB for the feeder when first time inserted: IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)= (1×3)/(2×5)=0,3
IB for the feeder after short habituation: IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)= (1×3)/(2×3)=0,5
IB for the feeder after full habituation: IB = (K×R)/(D×PA)= (1×3)/(2×1)=1,5
It means that with decreasing PA during the habituation process, the IB increases over time. And
because we know that dominant animals do naturally work on high levels of IB and submissive
animals on lower values, the submissive animals will naturally tend to come first to potentially
dangerous food resources, and the dominants will wait longer for better desensitization and lower PA,
with respect to their higher IB. So the prediction for our group, according to previously found
hierarchy status of individuals; is that Anička and Smrž will come first, later Stromovka, and the last
one will be Dinďa - so the opposite order of their hierarchy status.
Results: The order the coatis came to new feeders in this first meeting time was 1) Smrž, 2) Anička, 3)
Stromovka 4) Dinďa . The situation is shown below. This result agrees with our prediction, but it can
not be statistically proven once it was only one time (n=1´).
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 9
The first insertion of the new device into the
exhibit. The dominant group members stay a safe
distance on the rope and wait for habituation
Consecutive insertions: After the
group has been desensitized to
the new devices, our prediction
for each situation has been done
as described above in Methods.
The observed results have been
found to agree with the
predictions in most events, and
the differences were only when
some of coatis did not come to
feeders due to their activity in
another part of exhibit.
But
always, if any coati was absent,
the next one on lower hierarchy
level took his place.
The
relationship
between
variables
“occurrence
of
predicted behavior” and “designated PA” for each individual is shown in graph 2. Analysis by
contingency tables shows that predicted behavior occurred in 73,3%. The results show that coatis with
lower PA show more predicted behavior. By Chi-Square Test the χ2=0,002, the same as Symmetric
measures, which both means significant relationship between variables.
Graph 2. Occurence of predicted behavior in relationship
with PA of the individual
25
Occurence of predicted behavior
20
15
The predicted behavior
did not occure
10
The predicted behavior
occured
5
0
1
2
3
PA
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 10
The
relationship
between
variables
“occurrence
of
predicted
behavior”
and “designated D of
each puzzle feeder for
the individual” are
shown by graph 3,
which shows that more
expected behavior is
shown on feeders with
lower
values
of
variable D for the
concrete
animal
working on the feeder.
By contingency tables,
the predicted behavior
occurred in 73,3%. The
results do show that
coatis with lower PA
do
show
more
predicted behavior. By
Chi-Square Test the
χ2=0,003, the same as
Symmetric measures,
which both means
significant relationship
between variables.
Discussion:
Knowing the hierarchy status of a group or at least identifying the dominant animal in a group is very
important information. By knowing and respecting this status, the keeper is able to more effectively
manage the group without less aggression and potential for injury. Scientifically identifying the status
of each animal by official methods following number of attacks and escapes is near impossible for a
lot of keepers due to lack of time and difficulty of these methods. More effective ways of ascertaining
the hierarchy that keepers can use is their noting individual animals’ dominance over food resources
whenever keepers feed. Our results show that this way of identifying natural hierarchy in the group is
possible and this can be effectively used without a great deal of a keeper´s time.
When we put the new device into the exhibit, we found that the submissive animals used that food
resource first, while dominant animals came to that potentially danger food resource last. This event is
not surprising. This also fits with the prediction done by IB model rules and this is also known from
the first steps of training new animal groups with positive reinforcement. Susta (2008) shows similar
example on ring-tailed lemurs, red-ruffed lemurs and barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) in
INSTITUTION 1. This is why this first moment of meeting new, potentially dangerous devices could
be used in animal groups as a way to give the concrete food (or medicine) to a submissive animal. The
only trouble is that we can never predict how much the new device is understood by the animals as
“potentially dangerous” (how high the PA is). With frequent use of different devices, the group will
also desensitize for a variety of new things, and with good desensitization the potential danger of the
new device is minimal – then the PA=1 for all the individuals from the first insertion and the dominant
group member will take it first.
Using the IB variables D and PA when planning the use of puzzle feeders for animal groups has the
potential for success to ensure that food and medication intake per individual is controlled without
having to resort to separating animals, especially when individuals are shy and not able for hand
feeding and separation. This would be managed as follows: The distance between each animal’s
puzzle feeder would large enough to minimize the PA of submissive animals (potential to be assaulted
by dominant group member).
The actual abilities of each animal to solve the puzzle feeder would be known by keepers. All the
individuals will have the same access to all the puzzle feeders at the beginning – the same distance
between them, so the actual value of D for each animal on each feeder depends only on the previous
experience of the individual with the tool and not on the distance from this resource.
However this last requirement, together with requirement of large enough distance between puzzle
feeders to minimize PA, is a big challenge in practice. So, to deliver food to the submissive group
members, the effect of the first experience with new device described above, where submissive
animals come first, gives us a better chance (the same D for everyone and changing PA in time). For
dominant animals on the other hand, giving the concrete food to individuals is much more likely as a
way of controlling the D variable and giving it through feeders after previous desensitization and
training history.
We also have to note that this one experiment is not enough and for rigid conclusions, more
experiments will have to be done.
Conclusion:
In the gorilla scenario, while enriching the animals at the same time as using the IB variables, we
effectively decreased aggression and increased enrichment stimulation time.
In the lemur example, we use enrichment during our daily shows. The IB principles are employed in
these scenarios and have enabled us to maintain harmony and productivity in these scenarios.
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 11
In the experiment with the coatis, we noted how much we can control the puzzle feeder scenario,
ensuring that different animals stay at predicted feeders. This was done to see whether we could
control the food and medication intake. We noted that with the application of the insight from the IB
model, we can effectively predict and apply this system to achieve our goal. However this method,
which could be useful for management of shy animal groups, needs more experiment and development
to be rigid enough.
References:
Bowen, D.W., Brooks, R.J. (1978). Social organization of confined male collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus
Traill). Animal Behavior, 26(4),1126 –1135. In Langbein, J, Puppe, B. (2004). Analysing dominance relationships by
sociometric methods — a plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals. Applied Animal Behavior
Science, 87,293 – 315.
Clutton-Brock, T. H, Albon, S. D, Gibson, R.M., Guinness, F.E. (1979). The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in
Red deer. Animal Behavior, 27(1),211 – 225.
Šusta, F. (2008). (Displays of hierarchy inside Ring-Tailed Lemurs group during training). Gazela, Zoo Praha, 35, 135156
Šusta, F. (2011). Balance Index for Group Behaviors – A Mathematical Way of Finding “Where is the Trouble”.
Wellspring, 12 (3, 4), 24-31.
Šusta, F.; Drábová, J.; Holubová,, K.; Kamasová, K., Vodičková, K. (2013). New contexts for IB model- a mathematical
way for group behaviors
management. First international animal training conference, Twycross ZOO.in Press
Key of Authors:
František Šusta, Animal Training Specialist, Prague Zoo, Czech Republic, Europe
Jana Drábová, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Agriculture, Czech Republic, Europe
Kateřina Holubová, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Czech Republic, Europe
First author´s contact: RNDr. František Šusta, PhD. Animal Training Specialist of Prague Zoo, U Trojského zámku 120/3,
Praha 7, Trója, 170 00, Czech Republic, Europe, susta@zoopraha.cz; +420 737 208 994
Key of institutions:
Institution 1:
Prague Zoo, U Trojského zámku 120/3, Praha 7, Trója, 170 00. Czech Republic, EUROPE
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
One of the core values of the ABMA states that: The sharing of knowledge and new
ideas is fundamental to advancing animal behavior management. We do this in many
ways, such as through our conferences, publications, and social media. Our written
publications feature many fascinating and thought-provoking papers and articles. Some
you may agree with, others may challenge your perceptions and ideas. And while the
content that you read reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent
the feelings of the ABMA or the board of directors, we think that the diversity of subjects
and viewpoints represented by our members, at our conferences, in our publications,
and via our social media outlets is one of the strengths of this organization. We
encourage you to take in all that you read with an open mind, because you might be
surprised by what you learn. Thank you and enjoy the publication!
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 12
Animal Art: How Do They Do It?
Juliann Breeding
Editor’s Note: This article is reprinted with permission from ZooNews – The Docent Newsletter for the
Columbus Zoo Volunteer Community – Volume 45, Number 1 – Jan/Feb 2015.
At Members’ Night at Wildlights, we played a guessing game. We asked the children and other members
to guess who had created the animal paintings we had for sale. It was great fun to guess which animal
might have made them and then try to figure out how they had done so. You may have played that game
yourself, so here is a little more information about the processes the keepers go through with various
animals.
Artwork by Chris Lutmerding
First though, a little history lesson: In 2005, keeper Alicia
Shelley (North America) took notice that a zoo was having
their animals paint, so she proposed that our animals and
keepers try it. It took a few years to get it approved. Our first
foray into animal painting was done by walking ponies and
goats through paint and over a canvas board. Cher the swan
painted the same way once, only for smelt. After that it was
tried with other animals, using several techniques.
Two main methods are used: One method is making a foot or
handprint of an animal that is not easily handled, while it is under anesthesia for a medical procedure.
Siamangs, gibbons, grizzly bear and kangaroos paint in this manner and several of our apes did early on.
The second method is using food to motivate an animal to paint. The majority of our animals now paint in
this way. Many animals move through the paint and then onto canvas, while some more purposely and
actively paint; all usually with a food reward.
Keepers try to use routines that are already part of the training or animals’ regular behavior. For example,
Foli is our tiger who paints, and tigers are accustomed to transferring through the chute in the old lion
building. Keepers gradually added the painting in small steps, such as first placing canvas on the floor of
the chute, then paint and canvas. After the tiger was comfortable with walking through the paint and on the
canvas once, the next time they asked him to transfer more than one time over the paint and canvas.
Modifying a regular behavior is less scary for the animals than
learning a whole new method. Amanda Schaffner (Asia Quest
keeper) surmised Foli probably thought the keepers were a
little crazy asking him to repeatedly transfer a few times. She
related that as with any training, both the keepers and animals
need to be comfortable before asking the animals to do a
behavior, and it helps if the routine is already familiar.
Of course the animal has to be in the mood to do so and
sometimes the use of a snack such as a fish for an otter or seed
for a cockatoo helps. Other animals that paint in this way are
Photo of “Hanna’s Art” Courtesy of Grahm S. Jones
red panda cubs, sun bears, red river hogs, Indian-crested
porcupine, penguins, groundhog, prairie dogs, mountain lion, timber wolf, reindeer, and many of the
snakes except one named Hanna. With Hanna the paint is placed on her scales and the canvas is stamped
on her because she doesn’t move much.
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 13
The keepers try to take advantage of a normal behavior in an exhibit, but sometimes that doesn’t work, as
with the kiwi. Dana Lintner (Australia keeper) mentioned that the kiwi generally walks the perimeter of
the exhibit in the nocturnal building. So the keepers placed paint and canvas along the walls and the kiwi
walked everywhere but where the paint and canvas were placed.
Sometimes the keepers have to get very creative. When the keepers clean the feathertail gliders’ exhibit in
the Roadhouse, they place the animals in a smaller enclosure. They placed paint and canvas on the floor of
that enclosure. Ta-da! With the smaller space, many of the feathertail gliders walked across the paint and
canvas to create a group painting.
For painting with the polar and Alaskan brown bears, maintenance welded a special frame into which the
keepers could place a canvas and paint which they could slide under the mesh, hoping the bears would put
their feet on it but not pull it from the frame. Brutus and Buckeye and the polar bears did use it to paint
without destroying it.
The bats paint but don’t know it. The keepers set up the scale for a bat to climb down to, which is a
regular training behavior. The other bats “know” they are supposed to let that bat alone to train. The
keepers place a paint brush through a suet feeder and place a piece of fruit on the handle end of the paint
brush. As the bat eats the fruit, it moves the brush loaded with paint and the keeper moves the canvas.
Dude the Grand Cayman iguana and the Aldabra tortoises really seem to enjoy painting, Tara Archer
(Shores keeper) thinks. They actively paint by moving through paint or pressing their feet, tails, or bodies
in paint and against canvas boards held by keepers.
When it comes to mandrills, vervet monkeys, and
gorillas, they actively paint and make color choices.
Within the gorilla group for example, Colo has definite
color preferences and seems to like bright colors. Nia
and Mo’ana are two of our best gorilla artists. Anakka
likes just a few colors and licks the paints at first.
Generally for these dexterous animals the paint and
canvas are slid under the mesh and the animals use their
fingers to trace through the paint and onto the canvas.
Rosie and Kulinda black rhinoceros also paint. Rosie
Photo of “Colo’s Art” Courtesy of Grahm S. Jones
learned years ago at Zoo Atlanta. Mindi Scott
(Pachyderms keeper) said that Kulinda has been trained to do so in the past year and she explained how it
is done. These ladies use their pointed prehensile upper lips to paint. The rhino is asked to present her lip,
the keeper applies the paint to it, and the keeper holds the canvas and gives a command to paint. Then the
rhino moves her lip against the canvas and gets an apple chunk. The keeper washes the color off the lip
and applies another color, using usually two or three colors for each painting. These artists have different
styles, as the gorillas do. Kulinda is slow and methodical, making short broad strokes. Rosie is
enthusiastic and moves both her lip and head, making longer strokes.
Why do the keepers do this? Painting is an enrichment training event which helps the animals stay
mentally active. To paint with the animals, first the keepers must have the time. It generally takes two
keepers to create a painting, especially when an animal is moving and the canvas is manipulated, or if one
keeper offers a treat and the other tends to the painting. The animal must also be in the mood as the
keepers never force a behavior nor do they wish to stress any animal. The animal has to feel comfortable
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 14
with the keeper’s request, so baby steps are taken in training. The animals seem to enjoy the one-on-one
attention and the keepers enjoy being able to have time with the animals.
Photo of “Flamingo Art” Courtesy of Grahm S. Jones
What do they use? Since many “painters” have sharp nails
and teeth, canvas boards are used, which are less
expensive and not as easily destroyed as canvas.
Black background and burlap canvas are being tried
but the colors don’t seem to show as well as on the
white. Non-toxic kids’ paints and even glitter paints
are used. The colors are chosen that don’t usually
combine to make a brown color for obvious reasons.
Also red is not used so visitors won’t think an animal
is bleeding if every bit of color has not been washed
off. After the paintings are completed, they are
finished off with a clear spray to keep colors from
running. Then a certificate is glued to the back. The
certificate has a picture and name of the artist and
some general biographical information about that
animal. This touch was something one of our keepers
noticed at a workshop in Los Angeles and thought would be nice to add. This great touch enabled us to
play our guessing game with the children which in turn caught the interest of many parents.
When are paintings sold and where does the sales money go? The funds raised by rhino paintings go to
Bowling for Rhinos and Rhino Conservation. The funds raised at Wine for Wildlife go to the conservation
project that is chosen for Wine for Wildlife that year. The paintings are also sold during Enrichment Day,
Fall Fest, the last docent region meeting
of the year, Members’ Night during
Wildlights, and at the Business Office
during December. Those funds go to
the Jean Dixon Enrichment Fund which
pays for many enrichment items for the
animals.
So as you can see, these activities
benefit our animals and our Zoo in
many ways. Stop and play our guessing
game the next chance you get.
Many thanks to the following people
who helped provide information for this
article:
Enrichment
Committee
Members Dana Lintner, Australia and
Tara
Archer,
Shores;
Amanda
Photo of “Cougar Art” Courtesy of Grahm S. Jones
Schaffner, Asia Quest; Mindi Scott, Pachyderms;
Samantha Frohlich, Heart of Africa; Alicia Shelley, North America.
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 15
Fire Hoses Do More Than Fight Fires!
Micala Teetzen, Sedgwick County Zoo
Enrichment Uses
1. Fire hose animals: Make heavy “carcasses” for predators such as large cats to carry
around. Instructions are attached.
2. Fire hose hoops: Instructions are attached.
3. Boondoggles: These fire hose boondoggles stretch over time creating perfect places to
hide treats, hang browse, etc. This was made using the "square stitch" (first you need to
start with a “starter square stitch”). Visit www.boondoggleman.com for stitches.
4. Haynet: This is an elephant-size version that holds an entire bale of hay.
5. Spinning fire hose barrel: A simple enrichment device made by running a piece of fire
hose through a hole in the bottom of an open-ended plastic barrel and tying a knot on
each end. The fire hose should be a foot or two longer than the length of the barrel, so
that the animal can grab either knot and run with the barrel spinning behind them.
Fire hose animal
Boondoggle
Fire hose hoop
Haynet
Spinning barrel
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 16
Furniture Uses
1. Hammocks: Fire hose hammocks can be made in a
wide variety of shapes and sizes. For example, there are
tight-weave hammocks, loose-weave hammocks, square,
rectangle, or triangle-shaped hammocks. Here are some
of our unique designs:
a. Papasan hammock: To create this hammock, the
woven pieces are looped around the support
section of hose so that they can slide (as opposed
to attached in place along the cross piece). This
allows them to sag together creating a comfy
Papasan-like chair.
b. Branch hammock: These have a slightly more natural appearance. Simply weave
the hammock into a Y-shaped branch. This is perfect for smaller mammals such
as lemurs, but can also be done on a larger scale for apes or cats.
c. Helpful hint: PVC pipe can be inserted in the “arms” of hammocks to stiffen them
if entanglement is a concern. This was done in our black bears’ (Ursus
americanus) well-loved hammocks. Our male LOVES to play with his hammock
and would potentially get his leg wrapped up in the long arms of his hammock if
we hadn’t stiffened them with PVC.
Triangle hammock
Hammock with PVC in arms
Branch hammock
Slide PVC inside fire hose
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 17
2. Beds: Fire hose can be woven on a
wood, metal, or PVC frame for a lightweight
and comfortable bed.
3. Woven paths/vines
a. Wide-width fire hose pathway: This is essentially
a very long narrow hammock attached in several
places along the length to create a rolling
pathway. Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) use it for
locomotion and napping.
b.
Woven vine path: This vine is made by
weaving one fire hose back and forth in a figure eight
between two straight fire hoses.
c. “Browse hanger” weaving: This is an
extended version of the “browse hanger
weaving” developed by Keoni Pappas of
Honolulu Zoo. Four full-length rolls of fire hose
were used to create each section. Practice your
weaving skills with ribbon or strips of paper.
Instructions are attached.
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 18
d. Vines with leaves: Short pieces of fire hose
are cut into leaf shapes and attached to the vine
with a bolt, leaving the bottom side of the
leaves open. The fire hose is then twisted to
make it look more like a vine. Treats or diet
items can be hidden inside the leaves to
encourage foraging and/or they will randomly
fall out when the vines are moved.
Other Uses
1. Strip doors: Similar to refrigerator strip doors that keep the cold air in walk-in freezers,
strips of fire hose are hung in doorways to off-exhibit holding areas. Weights can be
added to the bottom of each strip to keep them taut. We bolt scraps of metal just inside
the bottom of each strip for this purpose. These can be used with a variety of doors types
(guillotine, sliders, Dutch doors, etc.). It is also easy to customize the strip doors
depending on the size of the door opening and the species you are making it for. For
example, we have tiny 30 cm x 30 cm doors into our heated Tammar wallaby (Macropus
eugenii) houses that have strip doors made from lightweight fire hose.
These strip doors serve numerous purposes including:
• Keeping heat or cool air inside the buildings when the animals have access
• Deterring birds or waterfowl from getting inside and eating grain or meat diets,
building nests, or just leaving behind a mess
• Fly spray can be sprayed on the strips to help keep flies out and the fly spray will also
rub on the animals as they enter/exit through the strips.
You will need to monitor new animals as they are introduced to strip doors to make sure
they are comfortable entering the holding area. You may need to remove a few of the
center strips until they are accustomed to the strip doors.
Metal scrap weights
Guillotine door
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 19
Slider door
Dutch doors
2. Another way Sedgwick County Zoo uses fire hose is as a drain pipe to direct water away
from our holding buildings.
Tips for Working with Fire Hose:
1. A serrated knife cuts through fire hose like butter. It
is far easier and safer than using a utility knife or
sawzall and more practical than bandsaw.
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 20
2. A cordless drill is the easiest way to make holes in fire hose. However, it is very
dangerous to use a drill if you are making a hole in the last few inches of a piece. The
drill gets bound up and will wrench your wrist. For making a hole close to the end of a
section of fire hose, sandwich the fire hose between two scraps of lumber, stand on the
top of the lumber to hold it securely, then drill through the top piece (or a previous hole
in the top piece) and the fire hose. Alternatively, a pocket knife blade also works to make
a hole. Just make sure you have a blade that locks in position for safety.
3. You can “skin” double-layered fire hoses to remove the inner rubber layer. The
advantages of this include: it is easier to work with, you will end up with a product that
is much lighter in weight and it will prevent rubber ingestion in species where that is a
concern.
Steps to “skin” a fire hose:
a. Clamp to the outer cloth layer to a sturdy structure such as a door frame.
b. Use a second clamp to secure the inner rubber layer to the bed of a golf cart.
c. Drive forward slowly pulling the layers apart as you go.
A short piece of fire hose was used for demonstration purposes, but an entire 15.24 m roll
can be skinned in this manner, you just need to make sure you choose a location where
you can drive forward 30.5 m!
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 21
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 22
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 23
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 24
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 25
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 26
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 27
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 28
References
Pappas, K. (2005). Browse Hanger Weaving. Retrieved from http://www.honoluluzoo.org
Teetzen, M. & Teetzen, D. (2003). Firehose Animals. Animal Keepers’ Forum, 30(5), 212-16.
Weeks, D. (2010). Starter Square Stitch. Retrieved March 25, 2014,
from http://www.boondoggleman.com/prj_starting_square.htm
Weeks, D. (2010). The Square Stitch. Retrieved March 25, 2014,
from http://www.boondoggleman.com/prj_square_stitch.htm
ABMA Wellspring – Volume 15, Issue 1 – Winter 2015 – Page 29
Training & Enrichment at the Abilene Zoo
2014 Honors and Awards
++++++++++++++++++-+633333333
Behavior
Management Welfare Award: Recognizes achievements that enhance animal welfare through specific environmental
enrichment/conditioning techniques or programs – Fancy Footwork: Cheyenne Mountain Zoo’s Giraffe Herd Trains for Voluntary Farrier Work and
X-rays. Amy Schilz – Cheyenne Mountain Zoo
Behavioral Management Achievement Award: Recognizes an outstanding achievement in the application of behavior management techniques –
Never Too Old: Voluntary Injection Training with a Geriatric Amur Tiger. Vicki Hardstaff – Toronto Zoo
Behavioral Management Innovation Award: Recognizes an outstanding application of novel, unusual, or original behavior management
techniques – Training Voluntary Reproductive Assessments and Artificial Insemination with African Elephants (Loxodonta Africana) in a Protected
Contact Environment. Maura Middleton And Michael Burns – Tampa’s Lowry Park Zoo
Impact Award: This award is chosen by all delegates at the end of the last formal presentation. Delegates may cast a vote for any paper, poster, or
activity that they feel deserves special recognition – Training Voluntary Reproductive Assessments and Artificial Insemination with African Elephants
(Loxodonta Africana) in a Protected Contact Environment. Maura Middleton And Michael Burns – Tampa’s Lowry Park Zoo
Poster Presentation: Recognizes the best poster that represents an achievement in any of the award categories – “Stress Triangle” - The Four
Questions for Which Animal Needs to Have an Answer. František Šusta – Prague Zoo, Gabrielle Harris – South African Association for Marine
Biological Research, Tim Sullivan – Chicago Zoological Society – Brookfield Zoo
Sharing the Knowledge: Recognizes achievements in behavioral management education to enhance the knowledge of professionals and/or the
public to the benefit of animals in human care – Successful Reintroduction of a Beluga Whale and Calf Based on Observational Learning, Surrogate
Rearing and Husbandry Training Techniques. Steven M. Aibel, Mark Galan – SeaWorld San Antonio
Travel Scholarship Winner: A Tall List in Short Order: Developing a Positive Reinforcement Based Cheetah Training Program to Meet
Programming and Collection Management Goals. Justin Garner – Busch Gardens Tampa