Skip to main content
Log in

Animal Welfare

Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Animals that roam over a large territory in the wild do not take kindly to being confined.

Abstract

Some species — ring-tailed lemurs and snow leopards, for example — apparently thrive in captivity, whereas others, such as Asian elephants and polar bears, are prone to problems that include poor health, repetitive stereotypic behaviour and breeding difficulties. Here we investigate this previously unexplained variation in captive animals' welfare by focusing on caged carnivores, and show that it stems from constraints imposed on the natural behaviour of susceptible animals, with wide-ranging lifestyles in the wild predicting stereotypy and the extent of infant mortality in captivity. Our findings indicate that the keeping of naturally wide-ranging carnivores should be either fundamentally improved or phased out.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1: Natural ranging behaviour and welfare of species from the order Carnivora in captivity.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mason, G., Cooper, J. & Clarebrough, C. Nature 410, 35–36 (2001).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dawkins, M. S. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20, 209–225 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Robbins, T. W., Jones, G. H. & Wilkinson, L. S. J. Psychopharmacol. 10, 39–47 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis, M. H., Gluck, J. P., Bodfish, J. W., Beauchamp, A. J. & Mailman, R. B. in Stereotyped Movements (eds Sprague, R. L. & Newell, K. M.) 37–67 (Am. Psychol. Assoc., Washington DC, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Clubb, R. E. The Roles of Foraging Niche, Rearing Conditions and Current Husbandry on the Development of Stereotypies in Carnivores (Thesis, Univ. Oxford, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Meier, J. in Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine (ed. Fowler, M. E.) 842–851 (Saunders, Philadelphia, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shepherdson, D. J., Mellen, J. D. & Hutchins, M. (eds) Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals (Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington DC, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gittleman, J. L. & Harvey, P. H. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10, 57–63 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gittleman, J. L. J. Mamm. 67, 23–36 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Purvis, A. & Rambaut, A. Comp. Appl. Biosci. 11, 247–251 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L. & Purvis, A. Biol. Sci. 74, 143–175 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bahr, N. I., Pryce, C. R., Döbeli, M. & Martin, R. D. Physiol. Behav. 64, 429–437 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. Science 280, 2126–2128 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgia Mason.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clubb, R., Mason, G. Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. Nature 425, 473–474 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/425473a

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/425473a

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation