To encourage students to complete the Bodleian Reader Survey this year, a prize was offered to the college from which the most students responded to the survey – a visit from one of: an ice cream van, welfare alpacas, or welfare penguins. This offer generated a buzz, and we saw students expressing their hopes that their college would choose the penguins. Following a letter from ourselves and others in the Biology Department, the Library decided to remove penguins as a prize option and committed to not using wild animals in this capacity again. But what’s the problem with welfare penguins? And where does such an idea come from in the first place?
The concept of welfare animals is not new, with dogs, goats, and alpacas being the staple of many student union events across the UK. Penguins, on the other hand, are a less typical choice of animal for this role. Heythrop Zoological Gardens, however, regularly provide Humboldt penguins for ‘welfare’ visits to sites across England including universities, care homes, hospitals, shopping centres, ice rinks, and to Harris Manchester College in 2024. Three penguins were held on a small, fenced square of astroturf with a tent for cover and a paddling pool for water, while students loomed above them.
A letter from members of the University condemning the action was met with a response from the College stating that Heythrop had the appropriate licences to undertake such activities, and that “these particular penguins are used to human contact”. However, considering the welfare of the penguins, as Zoologists we believe that these reasons are inadequate. Animal welfare is a complicated subject, as most animals cannot express their needs, and we frequently misinterpret their behaviour. Currently, the Five Domains model is the best-established model for assessing animal welfare. The framework accounts for both positive and negative welfare effects, and by assessing the animal’s nutrition, physical environment, health, behavioural interactions and mental state we can assess how well their needs are being met. This means that animals require not only food, water, and shelter but also environmental enrichment and the potential for social interactions with their own species.
The situation at Harris Manchester will likely have resulted in an overall negative impact on the welfare of the penguins for several reasons. Studies have shown that penguins respond slightly more positively to bigger spaces, room to ‘escape’ from humans, and access to larger water bodies but have elevated stress levels when humans get closer than 2m to their enclosures. This is particularly true for Humboldt penguins, who may perceive humans as potential predators. As seen in social media coverage of the event, these conditions were not met for the Heythrop penguins at Harris Manchester.
It could be argued that penguins can become habituated to human contact, and to some extent this is possibly true. Some zoos have designed penguin-visitor interactions, with neutral or even slightly positive responses from the penguins, but these encounters were carefully controlled. Penguins had the option to leave the area with humans at any time, were provided with enrichment such as laser pointers, and the humans sat quietly on a bench, did not interact directly with the penguins and did not take photos. This is a far cry from what the Heythrop penguins experience when they are handled by many unfamiliar people. Furthermore, the penguins must endure the stress of transportation between these locations, with birds known to be very sensitive to noise disturbance.
Heythrop Zoological Gardens, when contacted for comment, stressed that the penguins were trained and used to human company, and have become “gradually desensitised to any possible stress” from these interactions. They said the penguins were in a temporary enclosure for “a maximum of three hours”, that they are familiarised with transport, and that all handling is through experienced penguin trainers. Heythrop argued that such experiences help conservation and “a sense of connection with nature”.
We argue that this exploitation of animals by Heythrop Zoological Gardens is completely inappropriate and results in poor welfare for the animals. Welfare opportunities for humans do not need to come at the expense of animals. Contact with nature provides multiple benefits for human health and wellbeing. This could involve visiting a nature reserve, tree planting, or outdoor meditation, all of which are more immersive than ogling at some fenced-in penguins.
We commend the Bodleian Library’s decision to remove the penguin ‘prize’ as an option. If the wider University and colleges truly care about welfare – both human and animal – then a policy should be developed ensuring that the needless exploitation of animals for student’s entertainment no longer occurs on campus.
Have an opinion on the points raised in this article? Send us a 150-word letter at [email protected] and see your response in our next print or online.
