<em>By Rebecca Bearman, Lead Keeper/Birds &amp; Program Animals
Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, GA</em>

<strong>Introduction</strong>
Animal welfare has been a hot topic for as long as animals have been under human care.  In 1900, the Cruelty to Wild Animals Act outlawed tormenting zoo animals, shortly before Carl Hagenbeck chose positive reinforcement training (PRT) over traditional training methods to manage his animal collection (Mench and Kreger, 1997).  Today, we know PRT is a successful tool for improving the welfare of animals in captivity.

PRT provides tools to: improve husbandry through cooperation between keeper and animal; improve social management through increased affiliation and decreased aggression (Prescott and Buchanan-Smith, 2003); increase overall activity (Waitt, Buchanan-Smith &amp; Morris, 2002); desensitize animals to potentially stressful environmental factors; and increase accessibility (Laule and Whittaker, 2007).

PRT has been shown to decrease stress (Basset, Buchanan-Smith, McKinley, et. al., 2003) and stereotypical behaviors (Bloomsmith, Marr &amp; Maple, 2007), while increasing communication and trust between caretakers and animals, enhancing overall well-being of captive animals, and assisting in husbandry, veterinary, and research procedures (Lambeth, Hau, Perlman, et. al., 2006).  According to Lambeth et al (2006), staff also benefit from decreased stress as animals learn to cooperate.  PRT training sessions allow zoo goers to see animals up close, performing natural behaviors on cue; ask questions after training sessions; and enjoy increased learning opportunities (Anderson, Kelling, Pressley-Keough, et al., 2003).

Although benefits of PRT have been clearly demonstrated, there are circumstances in which caregivers choose not to employ it.  Training animals in groups can lead to aggression between cage mates; or less dominant animals may refuse food from a trainer in the presence of a more dominant animal (personal observation).  To eliminate the need to separate animals for training, this study addressed methods for training select individuals housed within large social groups.  Through trial and error, an effective protocol for training individual animals within a larger group was developed.

<strong>Methods</strong>

<em><strong>Location and Study Animals</strong></em>
The 49.56.20 Anubis baboons (Papio anubis) involved in this study were housed in a two-acre enclosure at Six Flags Wild Safari in Jackson, New Jersey, USA.  All males, with one exception, were castrated.  While Wild Safari is a drive-through park, the baboon habitat is closed off from the road.  Six males were initially selected to participate in the study over seven days of ad libitum observations of the entire group (Altmann, 1974); an additional individual that regularly approached during training sessions was added (see Training Methods).

The training area was along the exterior fence in an employee-only area.  Participant baboons were selected based on perceived dominance level (mid- to high-ranking), curiosity (high), fearfulness (low) and desire for reinforcement (high) (Mellen and Ellis, 1997; Savastano, Hanson &amp; McCann, 2003; Laule and Whittaker, 2007).  These criteria suggest that an animal will be interested and successful in a PRT program (Bloomsmith, Marr &amp; Maple, 1998; McKinnley, 2003).

<strong>Training Methods</strong>
Via protective contact through a chain-link fence, 123 training sessions were conducted over 51 days, each averaging 4.8 minutes in duration.  Animals were trained during normally high activity periods to increase likelihood of success (Ramirez, 1999).  Two to four individuals were trained per session, during two training sessions per day.  Behaviors trained are listed in Table 1. A variable training schedule was introduced to avoid session anticipation, a potential cause of frustration, which might have led to aggression (Ramirez, 1999).  The trainer chose a focal animal at the start of each session based on which animals showed up and had not been trained in previous sessions.  Systematic rotation was not used because not every focal animal was present at every session.  Initially, sessions were kept to approximately five minutes, due to increased aggression observed during longer sessions; duration increased slowly over five weeks, up to 15 minutes per session without any contact aggression.  The focal animal was reinforced for the chosen behavior by the lead trainer, while other nearby animals were fed by training assistants, and reinforced for non-interference with the focal animal and trainer.

<em><strong>Step 1. Approaching the Trainer</strong></em>
Initially, focal animals were reinforced for approaching the trainer with a regular keeper present, then reinforced for approaching the trainer without the regular keeper present. Once a relationship was established, a focal baboon was selected for each session.  The trainer worked with the focal while assistant trainers reinforced surrounding animals for allowing the focal to receive reinforcement (Schapiro, Bloomsmith &amp; Laule, 2003; Laule, Thurston, Alford, et al., 1996).  Initially, more dominant animals were reinforced before subordinate animals (Schapiro, Bloomsmith &amp; Laule, 2003) or at the same time.  Once dominant animals allowed subordinate individuals to receive food, this policy was no longer strictly followed.  During the project one monkey, Face, was incorporated into the program after consistently interfering, and was trained to allow subordinate monkeys to receive food in his presence.

<img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1744" title="baboon_training" src="http://aecetia.net/gws/aazk/wp-content/uploads/baboon_training.jpg" alt="baboon_training" width="692" height="519" />

<strong>Photo 1: </strong>Trainer hold target unique to a particular animal to test its recognition of the target as being its own. <em> (Photo by Laura Fischetti)</em>