How Macaque Troops are Managed for Tourism in Japan
In Japan, yaen kōen or "wild monkey parks" are popular visitor attractions that show free-ranging monkey troops to the paying public. Unlike zoos, which display nonhuman animals through confinement, monkey parks control the movements of the monkeys through provisioning. The parks project an image of themselves as "natural zoos," claiming to practice a more authentic form of displaying animals-in-the-wild than that practiced by the zoo. This article critically evaluates the monkey park's claim by examining park management of the monkeys. The article shows the monkey park's claim to display wild monkeys to be questionable because of the way that provisioning changes monkey behavior. Against the background of human encroachment onto the forest habitat of the monkey, the long-term effect of provisioning is to sedentarize nomadic monkey animals and to turn the wild monkey park into a megazoo.
The activity of wildlife viewing rests on an underlying contradiction. Wild animals are generally human-averse; they avoid humans and respond to human encounters by fleeing and retreating to cover. One would therefore expect human viewing of wild animals to be at best unpredictable, intermittent, and fleeting. Yet in recent decades, wildlife viewing has become a major recreational activity for millions of people around the world and has emerged as a thriving commercial industry. How can these two things—widespread wildlife intolerance of humans and large-scale human observation of wildlife—be squared? The answer is that wild animals are only viewed on this scale because they have been made viewable through human intervention. This article examines two kinds of intervention—habituation and attraction—that change wildlife behavior toward humans and render hitherto elusive animals susceptible to regular, proximate, and protracted human viewing.
Clarke A. Knight, Jocelyne M. R. Hughes and Tim Johns
Increasing colonization of non-native amphipod species in the River Thames, United Kingdom, has altered aquatic ecology and called existing management practices into question. We studied the distribution patterns of recent non-native (Dikerogammarus haemobaphes (Eichwald, 1841)), established non-native (Crangonyx pseudogracilis (Bousfield, 1958)), and native amphipod (Gammarus pulex (Linnaeus, 1758)) species, as well as habitat and human influences across 84 sites in the upper Thames catchment. Our findings showed widespread distribution and density of G. pulex relative to D. haemobaphes, suggesting that the full impact of the current spread has yet to be felt since its 2012 introduction. Different habitat utilization patterns are explained through habitat partitioning: both D. haemobaphes and C. pseudogracilis occupied vegetative habitats, not pebble/gravel habitats where the native G. pulex was most often found. The association between D. haemobaphes and boating presence implies that effective biosecurity would be best focused on boat traffic in the Thames and Cherwell rivers.