The Growing Pain of Animal Welfare Weaponization: Get the Ghost Out of the Machine

Managing for positive animal welfare is recognized as a fundamental zoo and aquarium practice. Indeed, many zoo and aquarium associations now have expectations that their members demonstrate achievement of some level of positive welfare for their charges. These organizations encourage the consideration of animal welfare outcomes in all forms of decision making, from those directly influencing individual animals - such as relocations and breeding recommendations, to those that may or may not have downstream effects on animal welfare - such as evening events or business hours. Perhaps driving these expectations, animal welfare science has begun to develop a deeper understanding and emphasis on the role of emotion in animals' lives. Welfare is now widely considered to be synonymous with emotional state. We have noticed though, that there are occasions when presumed animal welfare concerns may reflect caretakers' own emotionally driven perceptions of how certain decisions may impact animals' welfare. These "gut felt" impressions are generally not supported with data, often do not reflect best practice, and appear to be based on assumptions that reflect personal feelings. They also seem based on the supposition that current welfare is good welfare and tend to imply that changes in welfare are to be avoided, though they do not recognize that welfare can, at times, be different but equal or less but still positive. In short, the looming ghosts of animal welfare, past, present, and future appear to drive decision-making about animal welfare even when tangible, reliable data suggest alternative courses of action.