Tourism wildlife interactions are controversial, the debate hinging largely on the compromised welfare of the animals used. Despite this, lion cub (Panthera leo) interactions are popular, and there is a need to understand what motivates interactors to participate in the activity, their perceptions and expectations. We surveyed the attitudes of 300 visitors to three lion cub interaction facilities in South Africa. Whilst 38% of interactors were aware of the controversy around lion cub interactions, 69% desired the experience regardless. It is widely assumed that lion cub interaction opportunities are big attractions, yet 74% of respondents said that they would still have visited if lion cub interactions were not offered. Whilst 84% of interactors felt that their expectations were met, 61% said that the interaction had no impact on them. Several of those interviewed interacted with multiple species, and 34% determined that their favourite engagement was with animals that interacted back voluntarily. Most of those interviewed chose the interaction for their children (69%). Whilst 58% felt the experience was educational, only 2% of these had learnt about the plight of lions in the wild. When asked to reflect on the welfare of the lion cubs they had interacted with, ‘Freedom from discomfort’ was seen as the most important factor, as well as ‘Freedom to express natural behaviour’. Interactions were viewed with a variety of emotions and generated a range of beliefs. We conclude that the findings can be used by facilities to better prepare visitors for the experience, ensuring that interaction animals are better able to serve in their role as ambassador representatives.

Animal agriculture employs approximately one-eighth of world’s human population and results in the slaughter of over 160 billion animals annually, representing perhaps the most extensive intertwining of human and animal lives on the planet. In principle, close, intersubjective relationships (involving shared attention and mental states) between humans and the animals in agriculture are possible, though these are infrequently studied and are unlikely to be achieved in farming, given systemic constraints (e.g. housing and management). Much scientific research on human-animal relationships within agriculture has focused upon a fairly restricted range of states (e.g. reducing aversive human-animal interactions within standard systems, toward improving productivity and reducing injuries to workers). Considering human-animal relations along a continuum, we review scholarship supporting the rationale for expanding the range of relationships under consideration in animal welfare research, given the impacts these relationships can have on both animals and stockpersons, increasing consumer demand for humane food products, and the goal of providing animals under our care with good lives. Looking toward traditions that encourage taking the perspective of, and learning from non-humans, we provide entry points to approaches that can enable animal welfare research to expand to investigate a broader range of human-animal relationship states. By showing the potential for close mutually beneficial human-animal relationships, this line of research highlights pathways for understanding and improving the welfare of animals used in agriculture.

US and Canadian caregivers (n = 6,529) of two domestic cats (Felis catus) were recruited to participate in an online cross-sectional questionnaire to assess: (1) knowledge of inter-cat behaviour; (2) the frequency of positive and negative cat-cat interactions in the home; and (3) factors associated with positive and negative cat-cat interactions in the home. The questionnaire included ten videos (five negatively valenced, five positively valenced), in which participants scored: the overall cat-cat interaction; cat 1’s experience; and cat 2’s experience, using a Likert scale. Participants were also asked to report how often they see each interaction in their own two cats. Cat behaviour experts (n = 5) were recruited to rate their interpretations of the videos using the same Likert scale as the cat caregiver participants. Overall, our results suggest that overt positive interactions (allo-grooming, co-sleeping) were more likely reported if cat dyads were related or spent more time living together, were neutered males, indoor-only, and/or had a single feeding area. Overt negative interactions (fighting, striking) were more likely reported if dyads were older or had a larger age gap, showed animal-directed aggression, were declawed, and/or had a single litter-box. Participant versus expert ratings of the videos were similar, however caregivers reported certain affiliative behaviours more positively than experts. Caregivers appeared to have a good understanding of their cats’ overall relationship, as this aligned with reported cat-cat interactions. These results increase our understanding of the cat-cat relationship in two-cat households, which may be used to inform cat adoption strategies, in-home management, and promote a positive cat-cat relationship.