The Dynamics of Kea Behaviour and Interpretive Signage on Visitor ...

putting up the device during the duration <strong>of</strong> the visitors stay time at Franklin Zoo, this was not
included in the data collection, as keeper presence added a whole auditory <strong>and</strong> social interaction
component to the visitors stay which could confound the results. However, these observations
could imply that either specific manipulative exploratory behaviours are more interesting to the
general visitor, that the visibility <strong>and</strong> proximity <strong>of</strong> the kea to the visitor (due to the placement <strong>of</strong>
the devices at the front <strong>of</strong> the enclosure) increased interest, or a combination <strong>of</strong> both factors.
Alternatively it could support the view that any keeper interaction during the visit is the main
factor affecting interest in this particular situation in line with Broad & Weiler (1998); Povey &
Rios (2002); <strong>and</strong> Anderson et al. (2003) findings. However, the effect remained apparent on
those visitors at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo that approached the enclosure after the keeper had finished
putting up the device <strong>and</strong> left the area, supporting the former rather than the later. In addition, a
fairly large number <strong>of</strong> individuals to both the enclosures were noted to call the <strong>Kea</strong> towards them
if the <strong>Kea</strong> were out <strong>of</strong> view or towards the back <strong>of</strong> the enclosure, with phrases such as ‘come up
here’, ‘let me see you properly, ‘come see what I’ve got’, or ‘come <strong>and</strong> say hello’. In many
instances individuals were seen to pull keys out <strong>of</strong> their pocket or h<strong>and</strong>bag <strong>and</strong> jangle them in
front <strong>of</strong> the barrier in combination with these verbal interactions. This suggests that either
visibility/proximity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> to the visitor, human-animal interaction, or a combination <strong>of</strong> both
may play a large factor in visitor interest in the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibits as a whole, <strong>and</strong> warrants further
investigation.
In consideration <strong>of</strong> these observations, findings in Orr-Walker et al. (2005) study that evaluated
the incidence <strong>of</strong> stereotypies in relation to management practices <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> held in New Zeal<strong>and</strong>
institutions, warrant mention. As enclosure naturalism <strong>and</strong> complexity increased, there was a
significant decrease seen in the proportion <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent actually out <strong>of</strong> view. This finding
was most apparent in walk-through aviaries, <strong>and</strong> furthermore <strong>Kea</strong> were seen to actively interact
not only with the environment but also with the visiting public. <strong>The</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> a naturalistic
40