A basic study on the animal welfare evaluation in Korean zoos

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "A basic study on the animal welfare evaluation in Korean zoos"

Natalie Hall
6 years ago
Views:

1 ª ª (2009) 49ƒ 1 Korean J Vet Res(2009) 49(1) : 91~99 ü sƒ w» Á Á½{ Áw Á½ 1 œ œ, ƒm w 2 w, 3 w w w, w w 3R 4 ( : ) A basic study on the animal welfare evaluation in Korean zoos Kyung Uk Cho 1, Byung-In Choe 2, Hwi Yool Kim 3, Jin Soo Han 4, Jin Suk Kim 3, * 1 Children's Grand Park, Seoul Metropolitan Facilities Management Corporation, Seoul , Korea 2 College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul , Korea 3 Veterinary Science Research Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine, Konkuk University, Seoul , Korea 4 Institute for the 3Rs, College of Veterinary Medicine, Konkuk University, Seoul , Korea (Accepted: February 25, 2009) Abstract : The concept about zoo is changing from the animal exhibition which simply contained the animals to the ecological zoo which has the function of preserving the animal species. At the central point of maintaining such role, the basic principle called the animal welfare lies obviously. Korea has applied the animal welfare principles such as carrying out the enrichment in the zoos since 2003, but there has not been any institutional device to evaluate and examine the application of the animal welfare so far. This study aims to confirm the level of animal welfare in Korea and suggest a developmental direction. For the purpose of the study, 12 zoos in Korea were evaluated according to 68 evaluating categories. Five Principles of Animal Welfare in the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice were selected and carried out as the evaluation categories, and the result, from the highest to lowest score given, was provision of food and water, provision of protection from fear and distress, provision of health care, provision of an opportunity to express most normal behaviours, and provision of a suitable enrichment with the overall score of the entire Korean zoos being 2.86 (± 0.56). It was also confirmed that in order to improve the animal welfare of the Korean zoos, the animal management system must be standardized and organized. The evaluation and feedback, the active practice of animal welfare and its legislative support should be provided to establish an effective institutional device as well. Keywords : animal welfare evaluation, enrichment, five principles, Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, zoo animal welfare ù , w y ü ww twõ y w š Ö ù y (83.8%) [1]. w l y y w ƒ e ywš, w w w w w ü, w. z ƒ w š *Corresponding author: Jin Suk Kim Veterinary Science Research Institute, College of Veterinary Medicine, Konkuk University, Seoul , Korea [Tel: , Fax: , jskim@konkuk.ac.kr] 91

2 92 Á Á½{ Áw Á½., z» wù ƒ ü x 2009 û xz(south East Asian Zoo Association, SEAZA) z š y v š. ü w, 1970 z œ» sw l š w [2]. ù y wš x» [2] w n z ƒ jš š. z œ w k (2002 )w v p y t y(enrichment) v (2003 ) w. w» e (2005 )w wš w txw» w. v w œ w ü k w š w ù, y Á p š w k e ëš. w w,, w,, y swwš, š w t x ƒ w wš, wš w y š w kƒ w t wš [11]. p š [11], k š w sƒw š [5]. sƒ w» w ƒ w w v ƒ, ƒ» š x» (The Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, SSSMZP) ƒ e (five principles) ƒ ùkù [10] y t (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA) w, z Á w ƒ (five freedoms) m y w [10]. sƒ w, y w, x k w, w q w w» š. SEAZA y w sƒw wš w w jš [3]. ü x w. w sƒ ü w k sƒ w ü d w. sƒ ü sƒ w DEFRA w Findings at Inspection [6], Animal Husbandry and Welfare Check List [7], Animal Welfare Assessment Process [7] k ü sƒ. sƒ ƒ e» w š, ƒ w sƒw w 68 w sƒw. w ü. 1. œ Provision of food and water(9 w) 1-1. ³x š v w š ƒ? 1-2. wƒ? 1-3.» ƒ? 1-4. w š ƒ? 1-5. w ( û sw) w š ƒ? 1-6. š w š ƒ? 1-7. x w š ƒ? 1-8. x š w ƒ wƒ? 1-9. w w ƒ? 2. w y œ Provision of a suitable environment(10 w) 2-1. y Á ƒ? 2-2. w œ œwš ƒ? 2-3. z ( Á y) y œwš ƒ?

3 ü sƒ w» 93 y üá w œ š ƒ? mt 2-6. ( ) » (substrate/gj p, š p,,, q, ù Ë, ) p š w ƒ? w (shelter)ƒ ƒ? 3. œ Provision of health care(14 w) 3-1. wš ƒ? 3-2. š k ƒ? 3-3. w» wš ƒ? 3-4. e w š ƒ? 3-5. (e, z, ) y ƒ? 3-6. w x y w ƒ? 3-7. e w wƒ? 3-8. e w v ƒ? 3-9.»» wš ƒ? 3-10.» w» š ly ƒ? w w r wƒ? wƒ?(» r,» ) w» wš ƒ? t(tag, band, rings )ƒ ƒ ƒ wƒ? 4. ƒ w txw»z œ Provision of an opportunity to express most normal behaviours(22 w) 4-1. p w txw r š ƒ? 4-2. y t y(environmental enrichment) w wš ƒ? 4-3. t y(enrichment) w w l œw š ƒ? 4-4. w txw» w» z ƒ x ƒ? 4-5. w (Foraging behaviour) ùš ƒ? 4-6. w ùš ƒ? 4-7. ö ƒ? 4-8. ƒ (ù, ö» ) ùš ƒ? œs w œ š ƒ? w w wš ƒ? w ( e ) ww» w w wš ƒ? w š ƒ? w / w (Stereotypies/Anticipatory behaviours) w(self injurious) w l (Excessive grooming) (Failure to mate) ü œ (Abnormal aggression within species) (Feeding disorders) k w (Escape behaviours) ö»/ w(killing of offspring/infanticide) w (Displacement behaviours) (Apathy) w»(begging from/interaction with visitors) 5. œs šm l y Provision of protection from fear and distress(13 w) 5-1. w w š ƒ? 5-2.» w w v ƒ? 5-3. w w yw ƒ? 5-4. ( ü, ) w w wš ƒ? 5-5. p š w sz wš ƒ?

4 94 Á Á½{ Áw Á½ 5-6. w w š ƒ? 5-7. œ wƒ? 5-8. ƒ w ù w (y, ƒ, y )wš ƒ? 5-9. y (,» ) m wwš ƒ? ( ƒ, y, k ) m wwš ƒ? ü y w œ ù ƒ? (rq) d š š ƒ? ww ww ƒ? sƒ w xz(korea Association of Zoos and Aquariums, KAZA) ƒ 12 [Ÿ e,, œ,, œ, œ,,,, y,, l (ƒù )] s w. sƒ sƒ kx 68 w 3 sƒ [sƒ 1( ), s ƒ 2( ), sƒ 3( w )]ƒ sƒ ww. sƒ 1, 2 w 3 w w, r w» w sƒ w ü g. sƒ» l 8 21 ¾ x w sƒ ww, sƒ w sƒ ƒ z (97.22%). w sƒ (Best) 1, (Good) 2, m (Average) 3, (Poor) 4, (Worst) 5 5 w ƒ û w sƒw [3]. m SPSS 11.5 w sƒ, š z Agoramoorthy [3] ww x x(general linear model) (analysis of variance) Duncan multiple range test w y, w. w SEAZAƒ sƒw k 3 (Khao Kheow Zoo, Nakhon Ratchasima Zoo, Dusit Zoo) sƒ ƒ e,, v 7 w sƒ» ù [3] ü w» w ƒ e 5 w sƒ» wš m w w (Tables 2 and 3). sƒ ww k sƒ w» w SEAZAƒ w k sƒ 4 w ü sƒ w w. SEAZA w s (executive board of SEAZA) 2 w ü sƒ w ƒ sƒw, z(committee of SEAZA) 1 ƒ ƒ, ƒ (each local zoo) 1 ƒ ƒ sƒw. Table 1. Average Scores for Category 1 Through 5 in Korean Zoos (N = 35) Zoo Evaluator Average Score SD A B C D E F G H I J K L Mean * 2.82 ± ± ± ± 0.56 The evaluation categories are divided according to the five principles of animal welfare, and the score area is 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G(poor), and 5G(worst). The evaluator 1,G2, and 3 each is zoo veterinarian, zoo keeper, and study operator, and the 12 zoos are recorded in the alphabetical order and evaluated without being open to public. * Mean ± SD.

5 ü sƒ w» 95 Table 2. Average Scores for Category 1 Through 5 in Thailand Zoos Evaluator Zoo Average Score SD Khao Kheow Nakhon Ratchasima Dusit Mean * 2.36 ± ± ± ± ± 0.41 Categories 1 through 5 are described in the text. Based on scale ranging from 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G(poor), to 5G (worst). Evaluator 1 and 2 from the executive board of SEAZA, Evaluator 3 from the committee of SEAZA and Evaluator 4 from each local zoo. * Mean ± SD. Cited from reference No. 1. Table 3. Animal Welfare Evaluation Overall Score in Korean and Thailand Zoos Category Korean Zoos Thailand Zoos Mean SD Mean SD Mean * 2.86 ± ± 0.41 Categories 1 through 5 are described in the text. Based on scale ranging from 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G(poor), to 5G (worst). * Mean ± SD. Cited from reference No. 1. sƒ w w ü 2.86(± 0.56) (Table 1). ü Fm 6.04 š y (p < 0.05) ƒ. sƒ, sƒ (± 0.47), sƒ (± 0.64), sƒ (± 0.55) sƒ ù sƒ ƒ sƒ w e (p > 0.05). k 2.14(± 0.41) š ƒ û sƒ 2.55, ± 0.46(Dusit Zoo) (Table 2). k Fm 7.08 š y 0.026(p < 0.05) ƒ. sƒ sƒ (± 0.46), sƒ (± 0.23), sƒ (± 0.61), sƒ (± 0.58) sƒ ù(table 2), ü ƒ sƒ ƒ sƒ w e (p > 0.05). ƒ e w sƒ ü ƒ e w sƒ œ(w 1), œs šm l y(w 5), œ(w 3), ƒ w txw»z œ(w 4), w y œ(w 2) (Tables 3 and 5-9). w k w 3, 2, 4, 5, 1 (Table 3). ü w 1 ƒ ƒ 2.55 (± 0.52), w (± 0.58), w (± 0.7) š, w 4 ü 2.97(± 0.54), š ƒ û w (± 0.81) sƒ. k w (± 0.35) ƒ û š w ± 0.57, w (± 0.47), w (± 0.54), š w 3 ƒ 1.86(± 0.26) sƒ. š w sƒ l x l w ã w š [4, 14]., sƒ e ƒ w [15],

6 96 Á Á½{ Áw Á½ Table 4. Average Scores for Category 8 in Thailand Zoos Evaluator Zoo Average Score SD Nakhon Ratchasima a Khao Kheow b Dusit c Mean * 3.15 ± ± ± ± ± 0.77 Categories 8 = single exhibit/species evaluation. Based on scale ranging from 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G(poor), to 5G (worst). Evaluator 1 and 2 from the executive board of SEAZA, Evaluator 3 from the committee of SEAZA and Evaluator 4 from each local zoo. a Asiatic black bears, elephants, small cat complex, lions. b Sun bears, arabian camel, marmoset/tamarin, barasingha. c Gibbons, bears, nocturnal house, waterfowls. * Mean ± SD. Cited from reference No. 1. Table 5. The evaluation score of category 1 (N = 35) Score SD The category 1 is provision of food and water. The score area is 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G(poor), and 5G(worst), and each zoo is recorded in the alphabetical order and evaluated without being open to public. Table 6. The evaluation score of category 2 (N = 35) Score SD The category 2 is provision of a suitable environment. The score area is 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G(poor), and 5G(worst), and each zoo is recorded in the alphabetical order and evaluated without being open to public. sƒw Animal Welfare Assessment Processƒ [7]., sƒ z, w l y, v w w wš s sƒw š. ü sƒ k w s w w. k sƒ w sƒw, ƒ w ƒ sƒ ƒƒ kw sƒw (Table 4) [3]. p (cortisol) SSSMZP ƒ e(the five principles of animal welfare in a zoo environment) sƒw [10]. ù p cortisol ÁœsÁ ùe p sƒ y w w»ƒ» [10, 12] z sƒ». SEAZA 1998 l sƒ w v wš 2000 k sƒ w [3], ù 1970 z š 2003 v p y t y v ƒ y» w. sƒ» y w» w m w ù sƒ ƒ w j w. ù sƒ r w sƒ s sƒw kƒ sƒ kw sƒ ƒ š q» w ƒ. w» š, y w ù»ƒ kƒ, w y ƒ». w, sƒ ƒ q» sƒ r w ƒ š w.

7 ü sƒ w» 97 Table 7. The evaluation score of category 3 (N = 35) Score SD The category 3 is provision of health care. The score area is 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G(poor), and 5G(worst), and each zoo is recorded in the alphabetical order and evaluated without being open to public. Table 8. The evaluation score of category 4 (N = 35) Score SD The category 4 is provision of an opportunity to express most normal behaviours. The score area is 1G(best), 2G(good), 3G(average), 4G (poor), and 5G (worst), and each zoo is recorded in the alphabetical order and evaluated without being open to public. Table 9. The evaluation score of category 5 (N = 35) Score SD The category 5 is provision of protection from fear and distress. The score area is 1G (best), 2G (good), 3G (average), 4G (poor), and 5G (worst), and each zoo is recorded in the alphabetical order and evaluated without being open to public. w w sƒ 3 r, sƒ w sƒ 1, 2ƒ zw ù, ww û sƒw ƒw (Table 1). sƒ e e w w k ƒ w r (Table 2). sƒ ƒ sƒ w e, s ƒ ƒ w w ù(table 2 Table 4 evaluator 4) w k É sƒw sƒ ùe r œ t [3]. s ƒ sƒ œ wš z ww w œ» wš w» k w. sƒ w» w sƒ» ww sƒ w w. sƒ mw ü ƒ š œ w y w. ù ú w šm š ƒ» wš» w j š. ù šm» w š» [11]. k w sƒ ƒ ƒ û, w w» ƒ» š q w w. œs šm l y w sz p š w w w sƒw sƒ ƒ q. sƒ w 3 w w» k w š sƒw w. k sƒ w w w» q w ƒ w wƒ y w. w v š x Á,», w n, w, w yw» sw [11],» w k y q w w w wš. w ƒ q w w wš [13]. w, ü

8 98 Á Á½{ Áw Á½ k ƒ š wš. û sƒ ƒ w txw»z œ w y œ ü Á» y w œ œ, ww» (substrate), w œ w w. ü w œ» e x q wš. w w œ w w e w œ œwš y e e w w. k w y œ ƒ w t xw»z œ sƒ y š. ù v z k wš ew eƒ. mw jš j š. x w x w wwš, xz sww e w wwš. y ƒ xz mw wš, û sƒ w. w w jš. SEAZA sƒ mw wwš, jš y w w w w wš, w j wš. t, sƒ ƒ û ƒ úš x w Dusit Zoo k š w m w. p, y šm ù w ww w ƒ» mw w»¾ w [3]. ù ü sƒ» ( ) w z w w w v w. ü sƒ x w, mw ü w. ƒ k w w» kw sƒ ƒ.» e» z, y y» w š. ü sƒ w sƒ wwš w» v wš sƒ w w yw š yw yƒ v w. w ù p». w sƒ w óù sƒ z w, y w v l w w. mw sƒw». w sƒw y w w wš w wš [8, 9]. sƒ wš w w w. w sƒ mw y š yw»ƒ ¼. sƒ ww wš w h š w ü w w w w ½, w g k f q ù p Ì. š x 1. w. y w š. p. 13, w,, w z. w 50. p. 548, w z, û, Agoramoorthy G, Harrison B. Ethics and animal welfare evaluations in south east asian zoos: A case study of Thailand. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2002, 5, Baxter MC, Baxter SH. How to delineate the sow's welfare needs? Ann Rech Vet 1984, 15, Dawkins MS. Behaviour as a tool in the assessment

9 ü sƒ w» 99 of animal welfare. Zoology 2003, 106, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. pp , DEFRA, London, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Zoos Forum Handbook. pp , , DEFRA, London, Duncan IJH. Thirty years of progress in animal welfare science. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 1998, 1, Fraser D. Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the "Inextricable connection". Anim Welf 1995, 4, Jordan B. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: wild and captive animals. Rev Sci Tech 2005, 24, Kohn B. Zoo animal welfare. Rev Sci Tech 1994, 13, Lindley S. While Rome Burns: A Report into Conditions in the Zoos of Ontario. p. 5, World Society for the Protection of Animals, Toronto, Maple TL. Toward a science of welfare for animals in the zoo. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2007, 10, Taylor AA, Hurnik JF, Lehman H. The application of cost-benefit dominance analysis to the assessment of farm animal quality of life. Soc Indic Res 1995, 35, Wielebnowski N. Stress and distress: evaluating their impact for the well-being of zoo animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003, 223,

A Study on Dental Hygiene Students' Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior towards the Elderly in Busan

e w w k w w x w e A Study on Dental Hygiene Students' Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior towards the Elderly in Busan Hyun-Kyung Kang Department of Dental Hygiene, Dongju College, Busan 604-715, Korea "#453"$5