See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271725393

Tourism and Animal Welfare

Article in Tourism Recreation Research · January 2015

DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2013.11081757

CITATIONS READS

105 6,154

1 author:

David Fennell
Brock University
102 PUBLICATIONS 5,084 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Fennell on 04 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tourism Recreation Research

ISSN: 0250-8281 (Print) 2320-0308 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20

Tourism and Animal Welfare

David A. Fennell

To cite this article: David A. Fennell (2013) Tourism and Animal Welfare, Tourism Recreation
Research, 38:3, 325-340, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2013.11081757

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2013.11081757

Published online: 12 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 171

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20

Download by: [139.57.64.70] Date: 16 November 2015, At: 09:14

 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 38(3), 2013: 325-340
ISSN (print): 0250-8281/ISSN (online): 2320-0308
©2013 Tourism Recreation Research
http:/ jwww.trrworld.org

Tourism and Animal Ethics Series- V

Tourism and Animal Welfare

DAVID A. FENNELL
Abstract: Millions of animals are used annually in the tourism industry as captives for display
and entertainment, as porters and carriers, as quarry to be hunted and fished, as well as for
purposes of competition and sport. This paper investigates the extent to which the welfare of
animals is considered in tourism, both in theory and practice. The paper broadly examines the
concept of welfare from an interdisciplinary standpoint, including how it is defined and measured,
the importance of sentience, pain and suffering in understanding welfare, and methods of enhancing
animal welfare. The paper expands on animal welfare as it applies to tourism scholarship and
tourism industry practice. Zoos and sled-dog tourism are examples used to illustrate animal
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015

welfare challenges in tourism, and a number of key questions are included in an effort to move the
tourism and animal welfare agenda forward.

Keywords: tourism; animal welfare; zoos; sled-dog tourism; suffering.

Introduction The relatively few tourism studies that have

Phillips (2009) estimates that there are 120
billion animals that are used annually in all the
major animal sectors (labs, factory farming) whose
welfare is affected by human actions. Another 100
million animals are used as workers or for
entertainment, and approximately one million
animals are kept in zoos. A basic search of online
media sources provides scope into the welfare
concerns of animals used for tourism and
entertainment in places like Nha Trang, Vietnam
(Probert 2011), Jeju Island, Korea (Delroy 2011), and
Thailand (Komjaty 2011).
But while there is a large volume of academic
work on the welfare of animals involved in the major
animal sectors, there is much less work on animals
used for entertainment and even less in the tourism
field specifically. This is confirmed in examination
of the proceedings of the World Organization for
Animal Health's first conference on animal welfare
(OIE2004). Tourism wasnotoncementionedinover
300 pages of research on global animal welfare
issues. Tourism was also not a topic for discussion
at their second meeting in Cairo in 2008 (OlE 2008).
focused on welfare often use the concept in a general
manner (see for example Orams 2002; Lovelock
2003; and Burns 2004). Other studies discuss
welfare in the context of specific spedes or taxa.
Examples include Cohen (2008), Duffy and Moore
(2010, 2011)and Kontogeorgopolous (2009) on
animal welfare and elephant tourism in Thailand;
Hughes (2001) and Orams (2004) on tourism and
cetaceans; and Turley (1999), Catibog-Sinha (2008),
Tribe (2004, 2011), Wearing and Jobberns (2011),
and Ryan and Saward (2004) on zoos.
Missing from these studies, however, is a more
comprehensive treatment of animal welfare and
tourism. In the absence of such work, this paper
uses literature from outside the tourism field in
defining the nature of animal welfare, describing in
detail our moral obligations to animals in light of
sentience, pain and suffering, and methods to
enhance animal welfare. The paper then discusses
tourism welfare challenges using examples of zoos
and sled dog tourism. The paper concludes by
structuring a number of key questions regarding
next steps in the area of tourism and animal
welfare.

DAVID A. FENNELL is Professor at the Department of Tourism, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada.
e-mail: dfennell@brocku.ca
 Tourism and Artimal Welfare: Fennell
The present work is the fifth in a series of
papers designed to build a foundation of animal
ethics theory in tourism (Fennell 2012c; Fennell
2013; Yudina and Fennell2013). These papers build
upon earlier forays into the animal ethics and
tourismliterature,includingworkbyFennell(2000),
Hughes (2001), Garrod (2007), Shani and Pizam
(2008), Fennell and Nowaczek (2010), Fennell and
Sheppard (2011), Burns et al. (2011), and Fennell
(2012b). Cohen (2013) has recently added to this
emerging base of literature through his work on the
counternarrative that exists in Thailand's Tiger
Temple. Proponents position the temple as an
example of Buddhist compassion, when evidence
points more to the existence of animal abuse and
commercial exploitation.
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
A move towards linking tourism and animal
ethics is deemed essential in light of comments by
Hall and Brown (2006), who argue that there is
concern for the welfare of animals only in as much
as this welfare contributes to the viability of tourism
operations. Animals that are fit and healthy are,
quite simply, better for business. But this level of
concern is surely archaic. In keeping pace with other
animal use sectors, tourism scholars and tourism
practitioners must ask new questions about the
moral acceptability of using so many animals for
purposes of personal comfort and entertainment,
as well as the level or degree of care that should be
extended to these animals if they are to be used.
What is Animal Welfare?
Animal welfare is a family of perspectives that
deal with scientific and moral questions regarding
the use of animals. Minimally, it has been defined
as 'the state of an animal as regards its attempts to
cope with its environment' (Hill and Broom 2009:
532), and is typically measured on a scale of very
poor to very good. Dawkins (1990,1998) argues that
the two most pressing issues in the discourse on
animal welfare are what is meant by welfare, and
how to measure it Both of these issues are examined
below.
Animal welfarists maintain that it is morally
acceptable to sacrifice the interests of animals for
the benefit of humans (Gamer1993). As such, there
326
is concern over the quality of animals' lives, not
over whether animals should be used by humans
(Bekoff and Nystrom 2004). There are two important
points raised by Bekoff and Nystrom. First, is the
aspect of quality of life. If animals are doing well,
i.e., well fed, free of pain and hunger, etc., humans
are fulfilling their obligations to these animals.
Second, the question of whether humans ought to
use animals is a moot point. The pleasures, pain,
suffering and sometimes death that animals
experience is justified because of the benefits that
humans derive from this use. The prindpal concern
is that we should not use these animals badly (Kistler
2004) in the lab, on the farm, in zoos, or in other
endeavours. As Broom (2002) has shown, people
take the bad use of animals badly. For example, EU
Parliament members receive more letters on the topic
of animal welfare than on any other issue. And there
is a direct correlation between the level of concern
and exposure to these issues by the media. The more
animal issues are exposed in the media, the higher
would be the level of public concern (Broom 2010).
Sdentists usually measure animal welfare by
investigating behaviour, physiology, or both
together (Hill and Broom 2009; Barber 2009). Indeed,
there is controversy not only within sdence in terms
of how to define and measure animal welfare, but
also between scientists and animal ethicists (Fraser
1999; Knight et al. 2009). Hewson (2003) argues that
contemporary definitions of animal welfare should
take into consideration three aspects: natural living,
physiology, and feelings/ mental/behaviour.
The first measure of welfare, closely linked to
the feelings-based approach, below, is natural
living- allowing animals to perform the full range
of their natural behaviours. According to this view,
physical suffering such as being cold, food
deprivation, and emotional suffering, are acceptable
(see for example Lund 2006).
The second approach is the more conventional
physiological (health of skin and fur) and physical
environment measures (e.g., food and shelter).lf an
animal is healthy and producing well it is said to
have good welfare. The problem with this approach,
Hewson argues, is that genetics and environment
can produce acceptable physical outcomes even
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2013

though the psychology of the animal is affected.
Show dogs may show well at competitions, but be
overly anxious at home. Furthermore, some physical
measures like heart rate and cortisol are difficult to
interpret because they may elevate in the presence
of a predator or a potential mate.
The third aspect of welfare discussed by
Hewson (2003) is feelings. Using this metric, if an
animal feels well, it is faring well, and this can be
measured by behavioural outcomes. Bekoff (2008)
argues that animals do in fact express emotions, so
much so that the burden of proof has now shifted to
those who still believe that animals lack emotions.
Bekoff and Pierce (2009) site a landmark study by
Langford et al. (2006), who demonstrated that mice
became distressed when their conspecifics were
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
subjected to painful stimuli. Mice who witnessed
their cage-mates in pain (an injection of acetic add)
became more sensitive to pain themselves. Other
examples of mental/behavioural studies of welfare
include enrichment programs (Meehan and Mench
2007), hedonic theories of motivation used to
investigate pleasure and pain in animals (Fraser
and Duncan 1998), and the measurement of
preferences using demand analysis (Fraser and
Matthews 1997).
Other sdentists contend that the best way to
gauge the emotional state of an animal is to see if
they repeat an experience or not- to see if the prior
experience was positively or negatively reinfordng
(see Lusseau 2004). Reinforcement theory is thus a
powerful mechanism to understand positive and
negative emotional states in animals. For Dawkins
(2004), however, assessing emotional states is not
the only way to define welfare, 'because what
animals choose or will work for may not be good for
their health in the long run' (p. 941). People often
overeat and take drugs, and children may find the
dentist negatively reinfordng despite the fact that a
visit to the dentist is in their best interests long term.
As such, welfare ought to be defined according (1) if
animals have what they want (as above), and (2) if
they are happy (assessments of what is good for
their health long-term, through appropriate
measures related to disease reduction, deformity,
injury, and so on). Dawkins (2004) feels this two-
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No. 3, 2013
Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
step approach avoids the problem of having to
integrate so many behavioural, physiological and
biochemical measures and standards in the
assessment of welfare.
Previously it was observed that animal welfare
encompasses a constellation of different
perspectives. Kistler (2004) argues that this is
because animals can be used in so many different
ways, allowing for a wide spectrum of interpretation
(Garner 1993). This diversity has been highlighted
by Bloom (2008) in reference to the Australian
Animal Welfare Strategy, where animal welfare is
subject to shifting interests, including economics,
environment, governmental planning, human
health, and tourism and entertainment. The strategy
suggests that 'Realization of these other interests
will affect, and sometimes impinge on, realisation
of the interests of animal welfare (Bloom 2008: 17).
Second, the strategy reports that animal welfare
standards concerning a species are different for
different sectors. To this end:
A rabbit may be kept as a pet, far sale in a pet
shop, the subject of scientific research, raised for
its meat or fur in agriculture, transported by a
commercial enterprise, for sale in a livestock
market, killed at an abattoir, on display in a zoo,
used as part of a performance, or living in the
wild (this last setting not being an animal use
sector) (Radford 2001: 123).
Fennell (2012c) explored the shifting emphasis
between sectors in reference to Humane Sodety
International's (HSI) polides on animal welfare and
tourism in the Caribbean. HSI submits that because
animal-loving tourists often report discomfort
with seeing hungry, homeless, sick or injured
animals on their Caribbean vacations, the tourism
industry can benefit directly by improving animal
welfare in the Caribbean. Improved tourism
experiences for Caribbean visitors will lead to
a greater number of tourists spending more
money.
Sick animals need care, but one wonders if the
same level of care would be extended to these
animals in the Caribbean if tourism were not such
animportantindustry?Happytourists(beinghappy
means not having to see unhealthy animals in the
streets) contribute more money to the economy.
327
 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
Sentience, Suffering and Pain
A key criterion used in extending moral
consideration to animals is sentience, which has
been defined as 'the ability to perceive external
stimuli' (Midtlyng et al. 2011 ). It is noteworthy that
the European Union has recognized animal
sentience in the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), which
provides a clear indication for legal obligations of
the welfare requirements of animals. There is
recognition that animals show awareness of their
surroundings; are aware of emotions that relate to
sensations they feel or experience; are self-aware,
i.e., are aware of what is happening to them,
including experiences of pain, pleasure, hunger,
heat, cold; learn from experience; are aware of
relations with other animals, including humans;
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
and have the ability to choose between different
objects, animals and situations (Compassion in
World Farming 2011; FAO 2009). There is now
almost universal agreement that animals react to
stimuli in much the same way as humans. They
produce endogenous opiates, they sweat, their rate
of respiration increases, and they secrete adrenal
hormones (Gamer 2005).
Rollin (2011) suggests that the foundation for
having a direct moral obligation to another entity
lies in the belief that what we do to that entity matters
to it. If a being is sentient, it should be ascribed
intrinsic value because it cares about what happens
to it-even if others don't care or wish to treat it
instrumentally. When we remove or suppress an
animal's spedfic nature in zoos or labs, i.e., the traits
or powers that make each spedes unique, they suffer.
Rollin termed this 'negative mattering'. By contrast
'positive mattering' would include all those states
that are positive for the animal.
The emphasis on suffering is important
because we ought to do everything possible to ease
the suffering of animals we use. Suffering has been
defined as 'the subjective experience of unpleasant
emotions such as fear, pain and frustration that are
private and known only to the person experiendng
them' (Blackmore 2003, as reported in Dawkins
2008: 937). Other examples of suffering include
boredom, exhaustion, grief, thirst, and hunger-all
unpleasant enough for us to try to get out of them
328
(Dawkins 2008). Actions that relieve suffering are
positively reinfordng, as noted above, to the point
that the animal would practice the behaviour again
under similar circumstances.
Pain as a subset of suffering has also been
widely discussed in animal welfare. Pain has been
defined as 'a negative sensory and psychological
experience, where there is (1) tissue damage giving
rise to the sensation of pain, and (2) a negative
subjective experience or suffering (IASP 1979). Pain
is functional in that animals seek to avoid it for their
survival, and this provides an evolutionary
explanation for ascribing sentiency to human and
nonhuman animals (Gamer 2005). Bateson (1991)
argues that all of the non-verbal behavioural and
physiological signs of pain that are used in detecting
pain in humans can be used in detecting pain in
animals of similar construction to humans. These
include:
1. Possession of receptors sensitive to noxious
stimuli, located in functionally useful
positions on the body.
2. Possession of brain structures analogous to
the human cerebral cortex;
3. Possession of nervous pathways connecting
nociceptive receptors to higher brain
structures;
4. Possession of receptors for opioid substances
found in the central nervous system, espedally
the brain.
Criticisms
While it is not the purpose of this work to
provide a detailed account of animal welfare
criticisms, two issues are briefly examined: (1) the
shifting emphasis away from animal protection, and
(2) placement of value on economic rather than
animal interests.
The utilitarian scholar Peter Singer (2009)
argues that although we have an abundance of
animal welfare sodeties, these organizations have
yet to prevent cruelty towards animals. This is
because although they developed historically to
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No. 3, 2013

prevent abuse of animals, they have slowly changed
their practices in line with political and economic
pressures. As they grew in membership, wealth and
respectability, Singer adds, they slowly lost their
radical nature and became more a function of the
establishment- including dose ties with people of
prominence in government, research and industry.
The more these groups protected their own interests
(e.g., scientists working for the food industry, and
government protecting food industry interests), the
more they compromised their more stringent
prindples on the treatment of animals. Instead of
instigating broad campaigns against any type of
cruelty to animals, their mandate has switched to
an emphasis on safer activities, 'like collecting stray
dogs and prosecuting individual acts of wanton
cruelty' (Singer 2009: 218; Frandone 1996, 2007 who
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
argue that animal rights is now more strongly
aligned with the welfare platform).
Animal welfare is also constrained in practice
because of economic considerations. New welfare
standards mean changes to production systems and
other investments, and there are questions about
whether consumers are prepared to offset the costs
of producers. Consumers may value the welfare of
animals, but when it comes to actually paying for
animal products, price may take precedence over
ethics (Husu-Kallio 2008; see also Tsakiridou et al.
(2010) who argue that consumers express an
intention to pay more for food produced in
compliance of animal welfare standards). Bekoff
(2008) has found that violations of the US Federal
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) increased by 90% over
a five year period in the 2000s, with about 75% of all
research labs in the US in violation of the AW A at
one time or another.
Even the most environmentally progressive
countries show inconsistendes between policy and
practice, with more emphasis on marketing than
protection. Morris (2011) argues that the New
Zealand Animal Welfare Act (1999) allows animals
to be treated in inhumane ways according to
'exceptional circumstances', e.g., if improvements
in animal welfare result in increasing costs to the
producer. Animal welfare is compromised in these
cases because there is a disproportionate amount of
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No. 3, 2013
Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
power in the hands of the agricultural sector, which
has tremendous influence over government policy.
Enhancing Animal Welfare
Efforts to enhance the welfare of animals used
in research and factory farming have led to the
development of different models or approaches. I
focus on two approaches here, including the 3Rs
used mainly in research, and the farming sector's
five freedoms. I revisit these approaches later in the
paper.
The 3Rs approach includes the reduction of
animals used in research, refinement of procedures
used to minimize pain, and replacement of animals
with non-animal models where possible. Midtlying
et al. (2011) provide a good example of the 3Rs
approach in enhandng the welfare of fish used in
research. Replacement involves substituting in vivo
techniques (experimentation on whole, living
organisms) with in vitro (using mostly dead animals
or animal parts) methods. Reduction measures
include the elimination of many tests that are said
to be of doubtful value. Refinement involves
improved methodologies in invasive techniques,
which minimize pain and other adverse effects on
the life of animals. This might include the use of
anaesthetics, minimal exposure to air, and better
tagging techniques that minimize pain.
Uoyd et al. (2008) contend that the failure to
actively and consistently seek refinement leads to
conditions where experimentation techniques are
passed down through multiple generations of
sdentists with little change in the welfare of animals.
Refinement should follow a strategic pathway,
including (1) recognition of pain and poor welfare,
(2) diagnosis of problem, (3) selection of
improvement strategies, (4) implementation,
evaluation and dissemination of good practice, and
(5) critical evaluation of well-being and science.
The five freedoms approach to animal welfare,
developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council
(2009) of the UK, has been widely embraced not only
in agriculture, but also in other settings were animals
are used for human purposes. Proper animal welfare
329
 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
is a function of physical and mental well-being, with
a focus on the following conditions:
1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst: ready access
to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health
and vigour.
2. Freedom from Discomfort: providing an
appropriate environment including shelter
and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease:
prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour:
providing sufficient space, proper fadlities
and company of the animal's own kind.
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
5. Freedom from Fear and Distress: ensuring
conditions and treatment, which avoid mental
suffering.
If all of these conditions are met, animals are
said to be faring well. The failure to provide even
one of these conditions would compromise the
health of an animal.
An organization that has adopted the five
freedoms approach is The Brooke (2011). This not-
for-profit organization is dedicated to the welfare of
working equines through direct veterinary treatment
and community programmes for animal health and
well-being. The Brooke works in many lesser-
developed countries for the purpose of helping
millions of equines that labour long hours under
often extreme conditions for the purpose of
transporting tourists or carrying supplies to support
the tourism industry.
Although the five freedoms is widely
embraced, Korte et a1 (2007) view the sdence behind
animal welfare approaches as less sdentific, with
an overemphasis on anthropocentric thinking in
the absence of recent findings in physiology. They
favour an approach referred to as allostasis, or
stability through change, which moves away from
homeostasis as the core model of physiological
regulation. They argue that the five freedoms
approach is out-dated because these freedoms are
not representative of the relationship that exists
between an animal and its environment, as follows:
330
1. Having a daily and stable regimen of food is
not necessarily healthy for animals. Too much
food is perhaps more detrimental than too little
food, with the latter as part of a healthy
mammal's life.
2. Wild animals are more likely to want to
increase their genes in a population as
compared to captive animals, which are often
more docile. Behaviour, temperament and
physiology of animals is changed in the
process of domestication.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease is
utopian. Pain is a natural defence mechanism
that helps to protect animals from threats.
4. Health is not the outcome of natural selection,
but rather reproduction, and this is where
fitness and animal welfare depart. Something
can benefit reproductive success but involve
negative experiences for the individual,
causing poor animal welfare.
5. Freedom from fear and distress is a typical
anthropocentric idea. Both are normal in
appropriate natural situations, contributing to
survival and longevity.
Tourism-Welfare Challenges
The number of animals used in tourism as
captives for display and entertainment, as porters
and carriers, as quarry to be hunted and fished, as
well as for purposes of competition and sport is
difficult to quantify. Accordingly, there could be a
myriad of different case studies highlighted to assess
poor welfare in these various categories of use (see
Fennell (2012c) for a more detailed description of
these categories). In an effort to be comprehensive,
yet brief, I use zoos as a general example of welfare
challenges in tourism, and follow this with the 2011
sled-dog cull in British Columbia, Canada, as a more
specific example of tourism and animal welfare.
Zoos
One of the main challenges facing zoos is the
variation between species according to how they
fare in captivity. Some animals thrive in captive
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No. 3, 2013
 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell

environments, while others do poorly. The forest
duiker (Cephalophus spp.), for example, is highly
susceptible to stress, vulnerable to opportunistic
infections, and has high infant mortality rates. Even
closely related spedes show tremendous variation
(Mason 2010; see Table 1). Research illustrates that
the welfare of large predators is severely
compromised in captive settings. Oubb and Mason
(2003) investigated padng among predators, and
found that those predators that are most wide-
ranging show evidence of the highest degree of
stress in captivity. For example, a polar bear's zoo
enclosure is about one-millionth the size of its
minimum home range. Oubb and Mason argue that
zoos should hold only animals that fare well in
captivity, and stop housing animals, like large
predators, whose welfare is diminished by being
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
In an effort to move away from what might be
viewed as bad practice, at least from a Western
vantage point, accredited zoos are committed to
enhancing the welfare of animals through the
development of species specific standards. The
Association of Zoos and Aquariums is in the
process of developing 160 Animal Care Manuals
that would yield consistency in the welfare of
animals across their lifetimes. This requires the
development of an integrated framework that
incorporates enrichment, balanced diets, suitable
social environments, and correctly designed
enclosures (Barber 2009). Crane (2007; see also Rees
2009) has detailed what enclosure standards might
look like for the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus ):
• food dispersed in a way that causes elephants

held in captive settings. to have to search for it;

Table 1. Oosely Related Species with • objects to keep elephants mentally healthy;
Unexplained Variation in Captive Welfare • allowing elephants to engage in various forms
Species with Relatively Species with Relatively
of locomotion;
Poor Captive Welfare Good Captive Welfare • resting spots;
Orca (Orcinus orca) Bottle-nose dolphin
Annual mortality rates of (Tursiops truncatus) • access to sunshine and shelter;
4-6% in captivity, Annual mortality rates not
compared with 2-3% in significantly different from • water pools to bathe and swim in and drink
wild, a significant those in the wild, as long from;
difference resulting in an as recent data are used.
• mud wallows and dust baths;
expected lifespan of half to Reproductive rates can be
two-thirds of that faster than in the wild. • sufficient hard materials to abrade feet/ nails;
occurring naturally. The most common species
Although successfully kept of cetacean kept in • tree trunks and similar to rub skin and tusks
in captivity, the IUCN captivity; highly on;
describes this success as adaptable ... successfully
'Limited'. kept and bred in captivity. • play, as well as pushing and shoving;

Source: Adapted from Mason (2010) • getting away from aggressive herd members;

It is also the case that different zoos have
different practices. At Kuala Lumpur Zoo,
Malaysia, for example, elephants participate in daily
shows where they are required to perform
handstands and other tricks. Haque (2006) writes
that these types of unnatural behaviours require
hours of training, and poor conditions in the zoo
have contributed to passivity, overcrowding,
fighting for territory, injury, as well as depression
and stereotypic behaviours.
• being together and being alone;
• mating and birthing
Programmes of assessment are also being used
to measure animal welfare in zoos. Draper and
Harris (2012) write that the welfare of animals kept
in British zoos is assessed both internally and
externally. Zookeepers, curators and veterinarians
conduct internal assessments, while local
authorities and national government-appointed Zoo

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No. 3, 2ill3 331

 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
Inspectors (Zis) to conduct external assessments
every three years. These authors initiated the first
study of government-appointed inspections of a
sample of 192 British zoos between 2005-2008. One
of their general conclusions is that
the lack of clarity as to haw animal welfare in
British zoos is assessed by Zls, coupled with the
levels of non-compliance with both the inspection
process and conditions imposed on zoos, raises
significant concerns about the delivery of zoo
licensing and inspection systems (p. 524).
Agoramoorthy and Harrison (2002) developed
a methodology for the evaluation of Southeast Asian
zoos using surveys and data forms, and employing
four evaluators. Prior to evaluating the conditions
in which animals lived, evaluators examined
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
records on zoo management, nutrition, veterinary
care, hygiene, animal acquisition, transportation,
animal disposal, breeding, education, research,
safety, public health and funding. Individual
animals were assessed according to: (1) freedom
from hunger and thirst, (2) freedom from thermal
and physical discomfort, (3) freedom from pain,
disease and injury, (4) freedom to express normal
behaviour, (5) freedom from fear and distress, (6)
general management, and (7) conservation
programme finance and responsibility.
Of a range of problems, the following welfare
issues were discovered in Southeast Asia: elephants
were underfed, Asiatic black bears were not given
adequate shelter, not enough ropes were offered to
gibbons, sun bears had mouth tumours, some
exhibits had conditions that were unhygienic, and
an orangutan exhibit had no water and lacked
enrichment devices (see Almazan et al. (2005) for
results using the same methodology applied to zoos
in the Philippines). In a subsequent publication,
Agoramoorthy (2004) argued that zoo animal
welfare is compromised by the differing interests
held by zoo administrators, animal rights activists,
and conservationists. Because of the conflict
between these groups, Agoramoorthy (2004) stresses
the need to move from a top-down approach to zoo
management, to a bottom-up approach, where there
is more of a focus on compassion, justice, and equity
(see also Wickins-DraZ:ilova 2006).
332
In other related work, Chatkupt et al. (1999)
developed an animal welfare assessment tool for
elephants in Thailand. They assessed 81 elephants
and their handlers from Chang Mai, Bangkok,
Ayutthaya, and Phuket, according to work and rest
conditions (adequate shade, adequate food,
adequate sanitation, proper footing, hours worked,
and time of start and finish of work), as well as the
health status of elephants on the basis of (1) attitude
measured as bright, alert, responsive; quiet, alert,
responsive; or dull; and (2) the motion of trunk, tail
and ears (healthy elephants move these in a
rhythmic manner). Elephants with adequate shade
were more likely to be bright, alert, and responsive;
to more frequently move their ears, tail, and trunk;
and to maintain good body condition. Furthermore,
body condition was superior in elephants with
proper footing, and in elephants who started work
earlier and ended earlier in the day, and who worked
fewer hours of the day.
Melfi (2009) argues that zoo welfare continues
to be hampered because of an emphasis on
indicators that focus on poor welfare, i.e., if there is
an absence of poor welfare this must mean that the
animal is experiencing good welfare. Furthermore,
housing and husbandry of animals occurs
according to our own anthropocentric views. We
often view space and companionship as more
important than weather, and this takes place
because of our ignorance of the priority of weather
in the life of an animal. Finally, our knowledge on
what represents good welfare is restricted to a small
number of taxa. Knowing what is right for a
restricted number oflarge mammals does not mean
that the same applies to other spedes.
There is also the moral platform. Holding
animals captive in zoos can be challenged morally
on the basis of limited movement and paternalism
(Zamir 2007). Fordbly limiting the movement of an
animal or making it impossible for an animal to
exercise its right to move where and when it wants
is an extreme form of deprivation. Zamir argues that
we are being paternalistic by assuming that wild
animals are the same as domesticated animals. Farm
and companion animals might enjoy a give and take
relationship with humans, but wild animals live
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2013

successfully outside of human companionship (see
also Fennell2013).
Because of these concerns, a growing number
of theorists and practitioners feel that sanctuaries
are a better alternative for large animals like
elephants, because of more space, better care, more
things to do, the ability to interact with conspedfics,
and a focus on the welfare needs of animals first
over profit motives. Zoo proponents counter by
suggesting that sanctuaries are not accessible to
people who have less money and less opportunity
to travel, and because large enclosures make it less
likely to see animals up close (Cohn 2006).
Sled-Dog Tourism
The 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver,
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
British Columbia (BC), Canada, was, by many
accounts, a tremendously successful event. But not
unlike previous games, opposition was voiced over
several different issues. Some of these included
the displacement of low-income people,
marginalization of First Nations peoples, and calls
of colonial oppression concerning corporate
sponsorship. What was not antidpated was a
dispute less than one year after the conclusion of
the games over the culling of sled dogs (sled dog
tourism companies ramped up their capadty in
antidpation of a huge influx of tourists to the
Olympics).
Sled-dog tourism provides visitors with an
opportunity to experience how travel used to take
place in Canada among traditional people.
Unfortunately, interest in sled-dog tourism never
fully developed during and after the Olympics, and
operators were faced with decisions on what to do
with the surplus of dogs. Laying-off human workers
is a consequence of diminishing demand, but the
surplus of dogs in British Columbia was handled
quite differently. At the end of January 2011, a story
broke over the mass slaughter of 56 sled dogs owned
by Howling Dog Tours. Robert Fawcett, the man
responsible for killing the dogs (shooting and
stabbing), was charged and convicted of causing
unnecessary pain and suffering. He was fined CND
$1500, with no jail time (see Fennell2012a; Fennell
and Sheppard 2011).
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No. 3, 2013
Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
Soon after the cull, the BC government
assembled a task force for the purpose of developing
new standards of care for the sled dog industry
(Government of British Columbia 2011a). The task
force included members of government,
veterinarians, animal welfare sdentists, sled dog
tour owners, a member of the sled dog mushers
assodation, and a member of the BC SPCA (Sodety
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). By mid-
2011, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was
updated, with fines increasing to CND $75,000 and
jail terms of 24 months for the worst offenders
(Government of British Columbia 2011b).
Canada's first Sled Dog Code of Practice was
unveiled on January 30,2012 (Government of British
Columbia 2012), and included detailed sections on
best practice related to Health and Welfare,
Nutrition, Housing, Husbandry, Transportation,
and Euthanasia. In the section on Health and
Welfare (subsection Health Care), the code requires
that:
• Sled dogs must be provided with veterinary
care to meet their health and welfare needs.
• Sled dogs must receive prompt attention by a
practidng veterinarian, either directly or by
way of consultation, if they are experiendng
severe pain, suffering, deteriorating health or
serious injury.
Recommended best practice as regards to
dental care:
• Provide regular and routine examination of
teeth and gums
• Seek professional guidance if inflammation,
erosion of gums, and/ or broken teeth is
observed
In the section pertaining to Euthanasia, the
code requires that:
• Euthanasia must not be used as a means of
population control for healthy, re-homable sled
dogs, unless it is demonstrable that all options
of re-homing have been exhausted.
• Euthanasia must be carried out by a competent
person to ensure death occurs quickly and
333
 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
without unnecessary pain, suffering or
distress.
• Euthanasia by firearm must be performed
according to Guidelinesfor euthanasia ofdomestic
animals by firearms, unless an alternative
method can successfully be used to ensure
death occurs quickly and without unnecessary
pain, suffering or distress.
Recommended best practice as regard to
euthanasia:
• Ensure sled dogs are euthanized by a
practicing veterinarian using a barbiturate
overdose with prior sedation.
• In an emergency situation (ie., critical distress)
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
AND when a practicing veterinarian is not
available, euthanasia should be performed by
a competent person, and undertaken by a
single bullet of an appropriate caliber to the
brain.
Despite the efforts of the task force, other
welfare organizations took issue with the new
regulations and the code. One of these groups is the
Vancouver Humane Society (VHS), which issued a
pre-task force statement claiming that a total ban of
the industry was in order because it was impossible
to enforce standards of proper care given the remote
locations of these tours. The VHS also commented
that sled dogs are entitled to the same care as
companion animals, and it is only when dogs are
used for commerce that this standard of care
diminishes-especially during times of financial
hardship. Given the possibility that a total ban was
not recommended by the task force (and it was not),
the VHS offered a number of recommendations (see
VHS2011).
After the publication of the code of practice,
the VHS (2012) issued another statement that built
on their earlier recommendations. The VHS argued
that the task force had not gone far enough in their
efforts to safeguard the welfare of sled dogs, and
carried forward their wishes for a total ban on dog
sledding as well as concerns over their claim that
animals like dogs are put at risk if they are treated
like commodities. More specifically, they asked for:
334
• A ban on tethering, except for very specific
instances when away from the home base, and
only for a short time;
• A prohibition on shooting as a method of
euthanizing, and a requirement that dogs be
euthanized by a veterinarian, and only for
reasons of medical or quality of life issues;
• Zero tolerance for culling (killing) unwanted
puppies;
• A ban on cutting teeth of dogs to prevent
injuries during fights.
A review of examples of standards from the
task force shows that dogs may still be shot in remote
regions, and the practice of teeth cutting may still
continue. Tethering dogs for long periods of time-
most of the day- denies dogs the opportunity to
engage in normal behaviours and leads to
aggression, lack of sleep, and eating rocks. The VHS
contends that dogs will continue to suffer and be at
risk in this industry. In fact, a Montana-based sled
dog operator shot 50 of 60 dogs in 2011, under
similar circumstances to the B.C. situation described
above. Animals in zoos, circuses, rodeos,
agriculture, and as exotic pets, all have their lives
ended prematurely because they are part of a
business model that places finandal interests above
all else (VHS 2012).
An Emerging Ethic
Our attitudes towards animals are a function
of the values we hold concerning what represents a
good life (Fraser 2009; Stevens and McAlister 2003 ).
These values have been tested over the past few
decades. Fraser (2009) observes that in 1964, the
thought of killing an orca and using its carcass to
sculpt a life-like replica for the Vancouver Aquarium
was publicly acceptable. By the 1990s, the practice
of keeping wild-caught orcas in the Aquarium was
challenged by critics, visitors, and media to the point
that the Aquarium dedded to no longer keep orcas
at all (see Hughes 2001 regarding changing values
tied to dolphin tourism in the UK). In many cities
around the world, horse-drawn carriage use has
been banned because people's attitudes are
changing in regards to the use of horses (issues
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No. 3, 2013

related to poor welfare) in the tourism experience1•
Knowledge and education have been a catalyst for
change.
In support of the foregoing, Broom (2010)
argues that there is an ethic emerging in society that
suggests a system is morally unsustainable if it
contributes to the poor welfare of an animal. This is
because it is commonly accepted that humans have
a duty of care towards the animals they keep- pets,
sources of food, methods of transportation, and so
on. When we breach this duty of care with a
resultant decrease in the welfare of animals,
espedally in cases where this use is not essential to
us, these harms are felt to be unacceptable. The
media, again, has an important role in identifying
these harms.
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
An example of a non-essential use of animals
is entertainment. There are significant issues
surrounding the welfare of animals used for
research and food consumption, but these are not
the focus here. Some organizations such as Animals
Asia contend that animals kept for entertainment
purposes, e.g., bears, elephants, lions, tigers, are
used only to make money and are kept in the worst
possible conditions. Animals must endure hours of
transport, they are kept in small cages for most of
their lives, they are fed inappropriate foods with
little enrichment, and handlers have little or no
training in proper welfare. Animals Asia's stance
on animals used in the business of entertainment is
as follows:
Animals Asia believes that it is wrong to use any
animal for the purposes of public entertainment
or sport if it results in any compromise of the
health or welfare of the animal concerned, if it
requires the capture and/or confinement of the
animal from the wild, or if it projects the animal
to the public in a way which is humiliating or
contrary to the principles of promoting empathy
and respect (Animals Asia 2012).
In line with Animal Asia's stance, Knight et
al. (2003) investigated the disdain that the public
has for non-essential uses of animals. Interviewees
showed least support for the use of animals for
entertainment and personal decoration, while more
support was expressed for medical research and
teaching (see Bailey 2007 on the moral outrage of
the Spanish bullfight).
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2013
Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell
Other welfare-based organizations adopt
different perspectives. For example, the World
Society for the Protection of Animals is an
organisation that works locally and globally for the
purpose of (1) helping people understand the critical
importance of good animal welfare; (2) encouraging
nations to commit to animal-friendly practices; and
(3) building the sdentific case for the better treatment
of animals. It has as its vision a world where animal
welfare matters and animal cruelty is ended (WSP A
2013a). The WSP A (2013b) has developed the
following recommendations for the compassionate
traveller (Table 2). More broadly, Born Free
Foundation, in connection with the Assodation of
British Tour Operators, has developed Global
Welfare Standards for Animals in Tourism,
available in the latter part of 2013 (D. Turner,
personal communication, March 1, 2013).
Table 2. WSPA Recommendations for Animal
Friendly Tourism
1. Avoid roadside zoos, animal exhibits and petting
zoos, and circuses and theme parks that use
animals.
2. Don't visit aquariums and marine parks that hold
marine mammals such as whales and dolphins.
3. Never attend festivals or events that use animals.
4. Don't ride a wild animal, such as an elephant
5. Avoid riding on a horse, donkey or camel if you
have any concerns about the animal's welfare.
6. Be careful when buying souvenirs.
7. Never have your photo taken with a captive wild
animal.
8. Say no to eating exotic 'delicacies' made from
animals.
9. Be aware of what's on your plate.
10. Respect wild animals and their environment
Source: WSPA (2013b)
Conclusion
In moving the animal welfare and tourism
studies debate forward, possible next steps might
include investigations on how the 3Rs could be used
to alleviate animal suffering in tourism. Studies
could examine methods to reduce the number of
animals used for tourism (eliminating circuses that
use animals, as Cirque du Soleil has done); a
refinement of how animals are used in minimizing
335
 Tourism and Artimal Welfare: Fennell
stress, pain and suffering (e.g., better saddles for
donkeys); and replacement of animals, such as large
predators from zoos, with interactive models and
other innovative strategies, which emphasize
environmental education and the problems these
species have in captivity and in the wild.
Furthermore, scholars should become more
active in the area of tourism and animal welfare by
cooperating with organizations like Born Free
Foundation or WSP A. Research is also needed on
how tourists perceive the use of animals for
entertainment, and how these perceptions, values
and attitudes correspond to those of tourism
operators and welfare organizations. New
standards of care need to be developed for species
used in tourism, not unlike the standards of care
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015
developed by Born Free Foundation. And like zoos,
these standards should be species-spedfic. Different
species have different requirements, and these
requirements should be made available to operators,
tourists, and all other stakeholders involved in
tourism. In this context, tourism studies should also
take an interdisciplinary approach to understanding
the role that animals play in tourism. Studies on
physiology, behaviour, emotions, and natural living
should guide decisions on how or if animals ought
to be used in tourism. Furthermore, commerce should
not guide decisions on how animals ought to be
used in tourism, as identified by the VHS and
Animals Asia.
By placing value on the interests of animals in
tourism, and seeking to develop cooperative
relationships with animal welfare organizations,
we might begin to ask different questions about
practices that have been acceptable in the past, but
which are now outdated. When we start to ask if
animals have what they want or if animals are
happy, as Dawkins recommends, we may get a
different picture of how we ought to proceed. Sled
dogs would not want to have their teeth cut, be
tethered for most of the day, be excluded socially,
over-worked, or, least of all, shot because an operator
References
AGORAMOORTHY, G. (2004). Ethics and Welfare in Southeast Asian Zoo. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7(3): 189-
195.
AGORAMOORTHY, G. and HARRISON, B. (2002). Ethics and Animal Welfare Evaluations in South East Asian Zoos: A Case
Study of Thailand. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5(1): 1-13.
336
misjudged demand. Elephants would be housed
with their conspedfics and not kept in isolation, or
we may decide that a zoo is no place for an elephant
at all.
In the end, what is important for the tourism
industry, and this includes scholars and
practitioners, is the immediate need to initiate
programmes of research for the purpose of taking
more seriously the welfare needs of animals used in
tourism. At present scholarship is thin at best and
this scarcity exists despite the scale of the problem,
and in view of what many other disciplines have
done to date.
Endnote
1. The issue surfaces in review ofVictoria, British
Columbia's debate on whether to ban horse-
drawn carriage rides. There are health and
safety issues for horses, handlers and tourists.
Toronto, Beijing, Las Vegas, and London are
some of the cities that have banned this
practice. See:
http:/ I www. vicnews.com/ news/164916406.html;
http:/ /www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/10/are-
tourist-buggy-rides-inhumane/;
http:/ I www .victoriacarriage.com/ profession.asp;
http:/ I www .blog.govegan.net/wp-content/
uploads/ 2012/07 I sarahs-guide-to-
victoria.pdf;
http:/ /www.thevictoriavegan.com/ foa/ files/ foa-
carriage-leaflet.pdf;
http:/ /www.timescolonist.com/ news/local/ city-
seeks-higher-parking-fees-for-horse-drawn-
carriages-pedicabs-1.66815
Acknowledgement
With thanks to Val Sheppard for her comments
on this paper.
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2ill3
 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell

ALMAZAN, R.R., RUBIO, R.P. and AGORAMOORTHY, G. (2005). Welfare Evaluations of Nonhuman Animals in Selected
Zoos in the Philippines. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8(1): 59-68.
ANIMALS ASIA (2012). The Use of Animals in Entertainment. Available at http:/ fwww.animalsasia.org/
index.php?UID=PSQ3MOME7FG -Accessed on 21 February 2013.
BAILEY, C. (2007). Africa Begins at the Pyrenees: Moral Outrage, Hypocrisy, and the Spanish Bullfight. Ethics & the Environment
12(1): 23-37.
BARBER, J.C.E. (2009). Programmatic Approaches to Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare in Zoos and Aquariums. Zoo
Biology 28: 519-530.
BATESON, P. (1991). Assessment of Pain in Animals. Animal Behaviour 42: 827-839.
BEKOFF, M. (2008). Why "Good Welfare" Isn't "Good Enough": Minding Animals and Increasing Our Compassionate Footprint.
Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences. Available at http:/ /dx.doi.org/10.5016/1806-8774.2008.v10pT1- Accessed on 2
March 2011.
BEKOFF, M. and NYSTROM, J. (2004). The Other Side of Silence: Rachel Carson's Views of Animals. Zygon 39(4): 861-883.
BEKOFF, M. and PIERCE, J. (2009). Wild Justice: Reflections on Empathy, Fair Play, and Morality in Animals. Chicago. University of
Chicago Press.
BLACKMORE, S. (2003). Consciousness: An Introduction. London. Hodder and Stoughton.
BLOOM, G. (2008). Regulating Animal Welfare to Promote and Protect Improved Animal Welfare Outcomes Under the
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. Available at http:/ fwww.daff.gov.au/ _data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1041951/
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015

regulating-aw-geoff-bloom.pdf- Accessed on 24 January 2013.

BROOM, D.M. (2002). Does Present Legislation Help Animal Welfare? Landbauforsch VOlk 227: 63-69.
BROOM, D.M. (2010). Animal Welfare: An Aspect of Care, Sustainability, and Food Quality Required by the Public. Journal of
Veterinary Medical Education 37(1): 83-88.
BURNS, G.L., MACBETH, J. and MOORE, S. (2011). Should Dingoes Die? Principles for Engaging Ecocentric Ethics in Wildlife
Tourism Management. Journal of Ecotourism 10(3): 179-196.
BURNS, P. (2004). Tourism Planning: A Third Way? Annals of Tourism Research 31(1): 24-43.
CATIBOG-SINHA, C. (2008). Zoo Tourism: Biodiversity Conservation through Tourism. Journal of Ecotourism 7(2&3): 160-177.
CHATKUPT, T.T., SOLLOD, A.E. and SAROBOL, S. (1999). Elephants in Thailand: Determinants of Health and Welfare in
Working Populations. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2(3): 187-203.
CLUBB, R. and MASON, G.J. (2003). Animal Welfare: Captivity Effects on Wide-Ranging Carnivores. Nature 425: 473-474.
COHEN, E. (2008). Explorations in Thai Tourism. Bingley, UK. Emerald Group Publishing.
COHEN, E. (2013). Buddhist Compassion and Animal Abuse in Thailand's Tiger Temple. Society & Animals 21: 266-283.
COHN, J.P. (2006). Do Elephants Belong in Zoos? BioScience 56(9): 714-717.
COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING (2011). Compassion in World Farming: Resources. Available at http:/ /www.ciwf.org.uk/
resources/publications/ default.aspx - Accessed on 18 January 2012.
CRANE, M. (2007). Without the Wisdom of Solomon or his Rings: Setting Standards for Exhibited Animals in New South Wales.
Journal of Veterinary Behaviour 2: 223-229.
DAWKINS, MS. (1990). From an Animal's Point of View: Motivation, Fitness, and Animal Welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
13(1): 1-61.
DAWKINS, MS. (1998). Evolution and Animal Welfare. The Quarterly Review of Biology 73(3): 305-328.
DAWKINS, MS. (2004). Using Behaviour to Assess Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 53-57.
DAWKINS, MS. (2008). The Science of Animal Suffering. Ethology 114: 937-945.
DELROY, S. (2011). Does an Innocent Swim Promote Animal Cruelty? The Jeju Weekly (May 24). Available at http://
www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1583- Accessed on 21 February 2013.
DRAPER, C. and HARRIS, S. (2012). The Assessment of Animal Welfare in British Zoos by Government-Appointed Inspectors.
Animals 2: 507-528.
DUFFY, R. and MOORE, L. (2010). Neoliberalising Nature? Elephant-back Tourism in Thailand and Botswana. Antipode 42(3):
742-766.
DUFFY, R. and MOORE, L. (2011). Global Regulations and Local Practices: The Politics and Governance of Animal Welfare in
Elephant Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(4-5): 589-604.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO) (2009). Capacity Building to Implement Good Animal Welfare Practices:
Report of the FAO Expert Meeting. Rome. FAO.
FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL (2009). Five Freedoms. Available at http:/ /www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm- Accessed
on 20 February 2013.

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2013 337

 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell

FENNELL, D.A. (2000). Ecotourism on Trial - The Case of Billfish Angling as Ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(4):
341-345.
FENNELL, D.A. (2012a). Tourism and Animal Ethics. London. Routledge.
FENNELL, D.A. (2012b). Tourism and Animal Rights. Tourism Recreation Research 37(2): 157-166.
FENNELL, D.A. (2012c). Tourism, Animals and Utilitarianism. Tourism Recreation Research 37(3): 239-249.
FENNELL, D.A. (2013). Ecotourism, Animals and Ecocentrism: A Re-examination of the Billfish Debate. Tourism Recreation
Research 38(2): 189-202.
FENNELL, D.A. and SHEPPARD, V.A. (2011). Another Legacy for Canada's 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games:
Applying an Ethical Lens to the Post-Games' Sled Dog Cull. Journal of Ecotourism 10(3): 197-113.
FENNELL, D.A. and NOWACZEK, A. (2010). Moral and Empirical Dimensions of Human-Animal Interactions in Ecotourism:
Deepening an Otherwise Shallow Pool of Debate. Journal of Ecotourism 9(3): 178-189.
FRANCIONE, G.L. (1996). Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animals Rights Movement. Philadelphia. Temple University
Press.
FRANCIONE, G.L. (2007). Reflections on Animals, Property, and the Law and Rain without Thunder. Law and Contemporary
Problems 70: 9-57.
FRASER, D. (1999). Animal Ethics and Animal Welfare Science: Bridging the Two Cultures. Applied Animal Behavioural Science
65: 171-189.
FRASER, D. (2009). Assessing Animal Welfare: Different Philosophies, Different Scientific Approaches. Zoo Biology 28: 507-518.
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015

FRASER, D. and DUNCAN, I.J.H. (1998). Pleasure, Pains and Animal Welfare: Toward a Natural History of Affect. Animal
Welfare 7(4): 383-396.
FRASER, D. and MATTHEWS, L. R. (1997). Preference and Motivation Testing in Animal Welfare Assessment. In Appleby, M.C.
and Hughes, B. 0. (Eds) Animal Welfare. Wallingford, UK. CAB International: 159-173.
GARNER, R. (1993). Political Animals: A Survey of the Animal Protection Movement in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs 46(3): 333-
352.
GARNER, R. (2005). The Political Theory of Animal Rights. New York. Manchester University Press.
GARROD, B. (2007). Marine Wildlife Tourism and Ethics. In Higham, J. and Luck, M. (Eds) Marine Wildlife and Tourism
Management. Wallingford. CABI: 257-271.
GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (2011a). Premier Appoints Task Force to Review Dog Killings. Available at http://
www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2011PREM0006-000094.htm - Accessed on 28 February 2011.
GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (2011b). Premier Announces Canada's Toughest Animal Cruelty Laws. http://
www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2011PREM0030-000340.htm - Accessed on 28 February 2012.
GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (2012). Sled Dog Code of Practice. Victoria, BC. Government of British Columbia and
Ministry of Agriculture.
HALL, D. and BROWN, F. (2006). Tourism and Welfare: Ethics, Responsibility and Sustained Well-being. Wallingford. CABI.
HAQUE, A. (2006). Distressed Animal Behaviors and Some Recommendations for Improvements at the Kuala Lumpur Zoo,
Malaysia. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9(4): 333-335.
HEWSON, C.J. (2003). What is Animal Welfare? Common Definitions and their Practical Consequences. Canadian Veterinary
Journal 44(6): 496-499.
HIGGINBOTTOM, K. (2004). Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning. Altona. Common Ground.
HILL, S.P. and BROOM, D.M. (2009). Measuring Zoo Animal Welfare: Theory and Practice. Zoo Biology 28: 531-544.
HUGHES, P. (2001). Animals, Values and Tourism- Structural Shifts in UK Dolphin Tourism Provision. Tourism Management
22: 321-329.
HUSU-KALLIO, J. (2008). Animal Health and Animal Welfare - Is it the Same Thing? Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50(1): 52
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF PAIN (IASP) (1979). Pain, and a List with Definitions and Notes on
Usage. Pain 6: 249-252.
KISTLER, J.M. (2004). Introduction. In Kistler, J.M. (Ed.) Animals Are the Issues: Library Resources on Animal Issues. New York. The
Haworth Press: 1-6.
KNIGHT, 5., NUNKOOSING, K., VRIJ, A. and CHERRYMAN, J. (2003). Using Grounded Theory to Examine People's Attitudes
Toward How Animals are Used. Society & Animals 11(4): 307-327.
KNIGHT, 5., VRIJ, A., BARD, K. and BRANDON, D. (2009). Science Versus Human Welfare? Understanding Attitudes Toward
Animal Use. Journal of Social Issues 65(3): 463-483.
KOMJA TY, L. (2011). Wildlife Tourism in Thailand: Cruel and Exploitative? The Scavenger Oune 11). Available at http://
www.thescavenger.net/ animals/ wildlife-tourism-in-thailand-cruel-and-exploitative-735.html - Accessed on 21 February
2013.

338 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2013

 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell

KONTOGEORGOPOULOS, N. (2009). Wildlife Tourism in Semi-Captive Settings: A Case Study of Elephant Camps in Northern
Thailand. Current Issues in Tourism 12(5&6): 429-449.
KORTE, S.M., OLIVIER, B. and KOOLHAAS, J.M. (2007). A New Animal Welfare Concept Based on Allostasis. Physiology &
Behavior 92(3): 422-428.
LANGFORD, D. J., CRAGER, S. E., SHEHZAD, Z., SMITH, S. B., SOTOCINAL, S. G., LEVENSTADT, J. S., CHANDA, M. L.,
LEVITIN, D. J. and MOGIL, J. S. (2006). Social Modulation of Pain as Evidence for Empathy in Mice. Science 312(5782): 1967-
1970.
LLOYD, M.H., FODEN, B.W. and WOLENSOHN, E.E. (2008). Refinement: Promoting the Three Rs in Practice. Laboratory
Animals 42: 284-293.
LOVELOCK, B. (2003). International and Domestic Visitors' Attitudes as Constraints to Hunting Tourism in New Zealand.
Journal of Sport Tourism 8(3): 197-203.
LUND, V. (2006). Natural Living-A Precondition for Animal Welfare in organic Farming. Livestock Science 100: 71-83.
LUSSEAU, D. (2004). The Hidden Cost of Tourism: Detecting Long-term Effects of Tourism Using Behavioral Information.
Ecology and Society 9(1): 2.
MASON, G.J. (2010). Species Differences in Responses to Captivity: Stress, Welfare and the Comparative Method. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 25(12): 713-721.
MEEHAN, C.L. and MENCH, J.A. (2007). The Challenge of Challenge: Can Problem Solving Opportunities Enhance Animals
Welfare? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 246-261.
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015

MELFI, V.A. (2009). There are Big Gaps in Our Knowledge, and Thus Approach, to Zoo Animals Welfare: A Case for Evidence-
Based Zoo Animal Management. Zoo Biology 28: 574-588.
MIDTLYNG, P.J., HENDRIKSEN, C., BALKS, E., BRUCKNER, L., ELSKEN, L., EVENSEN, 0., FYRAND, K., GUY, A., HALDER,
M., HAWKINS, P., KISEN, G., ROMSTAD, A. B., SALONIUS, K., SMITH, P. and SNEDDON, L. U. (2011). Three Rs
Approaches in the Production and Quality Control of Fish Vaccines. Biologicals 39: 117-128.
MORRIS, M.C. (2011). The Use of Animals in New Zealand: Regulation and Practice. Society & Animals 19: 368-382.
NEW ZEALAND ANIMAL WELFARE ACT (1999). Available at http:/ /www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/
latest/DLM49664.html- Accessed On 2 May 2013.
OlE (2004). Proceedings of the Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OlE Initiative, Paris, France, February, 23-25.
OlE (2008). Proceedings of the Second OlE Global Conference on Animal Welfare: Putting the OlE Standards to Work. Cairo,
Egypt, October 20-22.
ORAMS, M. (2002). Feeding Wildlife as a Tourism Attraction: A Review of Issues and Impacts. Tourism Management 23(3): 281-
293.
ORAMS, M. (2004). Why Dolphins May Get Ulcers: Considering the Impacts of Ceteacean-Based Tourism in New Zealand.
Tourism in Marine Environments 1(1): 17-28.
PHILLIPS, C. (2009). The Scale and Intensity of the World's Animal Industries. In Phillips, C. (Ed) The Welfare of Animals: The
Silent Majority. Amsterdam. Springer: 149-172.
PROBERT, L. (2011). Vietnam Tourism Boosted by Animal Cruelty. Available at http:/ /www.nccorp.vn/vietnam-in-photo/
animals/2011/12/vietnam-tourism-boosted-by-animal-cruelty.html - Accessed on 5 March 2012.
RADFORD, M. (2001). Animal Welfare Law in Britain. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.
REES, P.A. (2009). The Sizes of Elephant Groups in Zoos: Implications for Animal Welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare
Science 12: 44-60.
ROLLIN, B.E. (2011). Animal Pain: What It is and Why It Matters. Journal of Ethics 15: 425-437.
RYAN, C. and SAWARD, J. (2004). The Zoo as Ecotourism Attraction - Visitor Reactions, Perceptions and Management
Implications: The Case of Hamilton Zoo, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(3): 245-266.
SHANI, A. and PIZAM, A. (2008). Towards an Ethical Framework for Animal-Based Attractions. New Zealand Management
20(6): 679-693.
SINGER, P. (2009). Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. Toronto. Harper Perennial.
STEVENS, P.M. and MCALISTER, E. (2003). Ethics in Zoos. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 94-101.
THE BROOKE (2011). Our Work. Available at http:/ /www.thebrooke.org/home- Accessed on 5 May 2011.
TREATY OF AMSTERDAM (1997). Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing
the European Communities and Related Acts. Available at http:/ /eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/119970/htm/
11997D.html- Accessed on 1 May 2013.
TRIBE, A. (2004). Zoo Tourism. In Higginbottom, K. (Ed) Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning. Altona. Common
Ground Publishing: 35-56.

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2013 339

 Tourism and Animal Welfare: Fennell

TRIBE, A. (2011). Zoos and Animal Welfare. Paper Presented at the International Animal Welfare Conference, AAWC 08.
Available at http:/ fwww.daff.gov.au/ _data/assets/ pdf_file/0020/1046720/78-andrew-tribe.pdf - Accessed on 25
January 2012.
lSAKIRIDOU, E., lSAKIRIDOU, H., MATTAS, K. and ARVANITI, E. (2010). Effects of Animal Welfare Standards on
Consumers' Food Choices. Food Economics 7: 234-244.
TURLEY, S.K. (1999). Conservation and Tourism in the Traditional UK Zoo. The Journal of Tourism Studies 10(2): 2-13.
VANCOUVER HUMANE SOCIETY (VHS) (2011). Submission of VHS to BC Sled Dog Standards of Care Working Group.
Available at http:/ f www. vancou verhumanesociety.bc.ca/ wp-content/ uploads/Sled-dog-task-force-submission. pdf -
Accessed on 28 February 2012.
VANCOUVER HUMANE SOCIETY (VHS) (2012). Time to End Sled Dog Cruelty. Available at http://
www. vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/ campaigns/ sled-dogs/ - Accessed on 28 February 2013.
WEARING, S. and JOBBERNS, C. (2011). Ecotourism and the Commodification of Wildlife: Animal Welfare and the Ethics of
Zoos. In Frost, W. (Ed) Zoos and Tourism: Conservation, Education, Entertainment? Toronto. Channel View Publications: 47-58.
WICKINS-DRAZlLOVA, D. (2006). Zoo Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 27-36.
WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (WSPA) (2013a). About WSPA. Available at http:/ fwww.wspa.ca/
whoarewe/Default.aspx - Accessed 21 February 2013.
WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (WSPA) (2013b). Animal Friendly Tourism. Available at http://
www.wspa.ca/helping/animalfriendlyliving/travel.aspx- Accessed on 21 February 2013.
Downloaded by [] at 09:14 16 November 2015

YUDIN A, 0. and FENNELL, D.A. (2013). Ecofeminism in the Tourism Context: A Discussion of the Use of Other-than-human
Animals as Food in Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 38(1): 55-69.
ZAMIR, T. (2007). The Welfare-Based Defense of Zoos. Society and Animals 15(2): 191-201.

Submitted: March 15, 2013

Accepted: May 6, 2013

340 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 38, No.3, 2013

View publication stats