Perception of the ethical acceptability of live prey feeding to aquatic species kept in captivity.

Lucy Marshall*, Wanda McCormick, Gavan Cooke

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Previous research into public perceptions of live prey feeding has been focused on terrestrial animals. The reasons for this likely relate to the difficulty humans have in being compassionate to animals who are phylogenetically distantly related. In order to test these assumptions, the general public (two groups; one who had just visited an aquarium; and one group who had just visited a zoo), aquarium professionals in the UK/US and terrestrial zoo animal professionals (UK) were investigated to see how they would differ in their responses when asked about feeding various live aquatic animals to one another. Likert based surveys were used to obtain data face to face and via online social media. Demographics in previous research identified a lower acceptance of live prey feeding by females, however in aquatic animals this was not reflected. Instead, separations in perception were seen to exist between participants dependent on whether they had just visited a zoo or aquarium, or worked with animals.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-17
    Number of pages17
    JournalPLoS ONE
    Volume14
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 22 Aug 2019

    Fingerprint

    Animals
    aquariums
    animals
    zoos
    Zoo Animals
    public research
    Social Media
    zoo animals
    social networks
    Research
    demographic statistics
    Demography
    testing

    Keywords

    • Zoo
    • Aquarium
    • Enrichment
    • Live feeding
    • Welfare
    • Public perception

    Cite this

    @article{d07855f2b7ac4aeea2e55beee7971ac2,
    title = "Perception of the ethical acceptability of live prey feeding to aquatic species kept in captivity.",
    abstract = "Previous research into public perceptions of live prey feeding has been focused on terrestrial animals. The reasons for this likely relate to the difficulty humans have in being compassionate to animals who are phylogenetically distantly related. In order to test these assumptions, the general public (two groups; one who had just visited an aquarium; and one group who had just visited a zoo), aquarium professionals in the UK/US and terrestrial zoo animal professionals (UK) were investigated to see how they would differ in their responses when asked about feeding various live aquatic animals to one another. Likert based surveys were used to obtain data face to face and via online social media. Demographics in previous research identified a lower acceptance of live prey feeding by females, however in aquatic animals this was not reflected. Instead, separations in perception were seen to exist between participants dependent on whether they had just visited a zoo or aquarium, or worked with animals.",
    keywords = "Zoo, Aquarium, Enrichment, Live feeding, Welfare, Public perception",
    author = "Lucy Marshall and Wanda McCormick and Gavan Cooke",
    year = "2019",
    month = "8",
    day = "22",
    doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0216777",
    language = "English",
    volume = "14",
    pages = "1--17",
    journal = "PLoS ONE",
    issn = "1932-6203",
    publisher = "Public Library of Science",
    number = "8",

    }

    Perception of the ethical acceptability of live prey feeding to aquatic species kept in captivity. / Marshall, Lucy; McCormick, Wanda; Cooke, Gavan.

    In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 14, No. 8, 22.08.2019, p. 1-17.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Perception of the ethical acceptability of live prey feeding to aquatic species kept in captivity.

    AU - Marshall, Lucy

    AU - McCormick, Wanda

    AU - Cooke, Gavan

    PY - 2019/8/22

    Y1 - 2019/8/22

    N2 - Previous research into public perceptions of live prey feeding has been focused on terrestrial animals. The reasons for this likely relate to the difficulty humans have in being compassionate to animals who are phylogenetically distantly related. In order to test these assumptions, the general public (two groups; one who had just visited an aquarium; and one group who had just visited a zoo), aquarium professionals in the UK/US and terrestrial zoo animal professionals (UK) were investigated to see how they would differ in their responses when asked about feeding various live aquatic animals to one another. Likert based surveys were used to obtain data face to face and via online social media. Demographics in previous research identified a lower acceptance of live prey feeding by females, however in aquatic animals this was not reflected. Instead, separations in perception were seen to exist between participants dependent on whether they had just visited a zoo or aquarium, or worked with animals.

    AB - Previous research into public perceptions of live prey feeding has been focused on terrestrial animals. The reasons for this likely relate to the difficulty humans have in being compassionate to animals who are phylogenetically distantly related. In order to test these assumptions, the general public (two groups; one who had just visited an aquarium; and one group who had just visited a zoo), aquarium professionals in the UK/US and terrestrial zoo animal professionals (UK) were investigated to see how they would differ in their responses when asked about feeding various live aquatic animals to one another. Likert based surveys were used to obtain data face to face and via online social media. Demographics in previous research identified a lower acceptance of live prey feeding by females, however in aquatic animals this was not reflected. Instead, separations in perception were seen to exist between participants dependent on whether they had just visited a zoo or aquarium, or worked with animals.

    KW - Zoo

    KW - Aquarium

    KW - Enrichment

    KW - Live feeding

    KW - Welfare

    KW - Public perception

    U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0216777

    DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0216777

    M3 - Article

    VL - 14

    SP - 1

    EP - 17

    JO - PLoS ONE

    JF - PLoS ONE

    SN - 1932-6203

    IS - 8

    ER -