If you give a turtle a toy...

      This blog is about reading I did from my wildlife behavior textbook. I read the chapter about playing; it opens with a story of a turtle named Pigface who would "play" with balls and hoops placed in his enclosure. This livened up his bland habitat and stopped Pigface from clawing his own face and limbs - something he did before toys were introduced. Animals playing is an understudied subject...it kind of goes along with the idea of animal intelligence - are animals really thinking and figuring things out? Are they really playing just because it is fun? It is also understudied because it seems to have no evolutionary function and it is unclear what its function really is. I am interested in animal play, especially when it comes to playing with humans. Do zoo keepers play with the animals in the zoo? Does this strengthen relationships? What purpose does it serve for the animals?
    The reading defines play as this - "all motor activity performed postnatally that appears to be purposeless, in which motor patterns from other contexts may be used in modified forms and altered temporal sequencing. If the activity is directed toward another living being it is called social play." I love how they can turn play into this dense, scientific sounding thing! But I guess it does make sense...an example I think of immediately is my cats wrestling with and chasing each other. They are playing, but the motor activities used in play could be used to take down a mouse. What makes play purposeless? (Can't it just be for fun?) The book lists three ways activity can be construed as purposeless - the observers just don't know what is going on and can't see what the immediate benefit of play is; the purpose and benefit of play might not be immediately forthcoming; the benefits may be multiple and confouding. So all of these deal with a benefit existing, just not being readily apparent. I guess play can't be just for fun...
    There are several types of play. Object play is playing with inanimate objects like sticks, rocks, balls, leaves etc. The book provided several examples of animals playing with objects...cheetahs, for example, seemed to benefit from playing in that they were more successful going after live prey released by their mother than cheetahs who did not play as much. So object play can teach animals to hunt and survive in the wild. In a zoo environment, where the animal does not have to hunt, why do they encourage playing? Do they encourage playing?
    Another type of play is locomotor play - this includes leaping, twists, jumps, shakes, whirls, somersaults. Yes, my textbook said whirls. Some benefits of this kind of play include better brain development in the part of the brain that controls limb coordination. This makes sense and would also benefit the animal when it came to hunting or fleeing predators. Another type of play is social play, or playing with others. This in particular applies to my project, because I want to know if zoo keepers play with zoo animals and how that affects/benefits both parties. There are three functions of social play - it can lead to forging of long-lasting social bonds; it provides necessary physical skills; and it may aid in the development of cognitive skills.
     Okay, so what really is the function of play? A general theory is that play "functions to increase the veratility of movements used to recover from sudden shocks such as loss of balance, etc...and enhances the ability of animals to cope emotionally with unexpected or stressful situations." So in a zoo, where the habitat is controlled, the food is provided, and unexpected situations are very rare, what is the purpose of play? I guess animals do have to deal with humans, which can bring some unexpected situations - visits to the vet, other health care procedures, interactions with zoo visitors. So there may be some unexpected situations an animal needs to be prepared for. Personally, I think animals need to play and develop those motor skills and brain skills even if they don't really need them. It is an interesting ethical question....People want to go to the zoo to see animals acting like they would in the wild - that is when it is exciting - so maybe just as a money making tool animals need to be allowed to play or given the opportunity to play in zoos. I want to add a question about play onto my interviews - does the zoo keeper play with or notice the animals in their care playing? Do they think playing is benefical to these animals, even though they live in an artifial and controlled environment? Is it important for animal welfare that they play and develop?

Anthropomorphism

     Dr. Smith is one of the professors that I am made a course contract with - he teaches the wildlife behavior classes on campus. When I was in his office talking to him about my project he suggested several books to read, books with the fun side of animal behavior, or the stories rather than the science. I recently started reading one of these books. It is called If a Lion Could Talk. In the introduction it talks about anthropomorphism - giving inanimate/non-human objects or animals human characteristics. This is something we do with animals all the time. It is interesting that we compliment or appreciate animals more when they behave like humans. We are extremely self-centered. But the author points out that animals are doing this too - dogs treat humans as they would other dogs. Some guy Xenophanes wrote this: "If cattle and horses, or lions, had hands, or were able to draw with their feet and produce works which men do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make gods' bodies the same shape as their own." So I guess we humans can't really be blamed for treating animals like humans. The author also brought up the point that sometimes it is just easier to describe something as if it had intention - a human characteristic. For example it is easier to say that giraffes grew longer necks to reach higher up in trees rather then going into the details of evolution and natural selection.
       Anthropomorphism is something I wanted to look at a little in my project - do zoo keepers give the animals in their care anthropomorphic traits? If they do, is that a bad thing? Or does it somehow help improve relationships? Does the zoo discourage giving human traits to animals? I mean we have already captured these animals, confined them, and forced them to act in ways that benefit man and not necessarily animal....So, we give animals human traits - partially in an attempt to understand them better. Animal conciousness is something that has more recently begun being seriously studied. A big motivation for these studies is a better understanding of animal welfare and animal rights - how should we treat animals? Thinking about it, I realize that my project anthropomorphizes animals right off the bat - they are developing relationships with humans. Aren't relationships a largely human realm? Maybe not, wolf packs and lion prides have hiearchies and relationships...so there is something that humans and animals share, the need for relationships, the need to work with other individuals for survival.
     Anyway, I want to be very aware of how I treat and talk about animals and see where I tend to anthropomorphize them...and if zoo keepers do the same.