Born Free USA Blog
Yesterday I attended a legislative hearing regarding educational aspects of public display of marine mammals. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the validity of educational programs that currently exists at facilities which publicly display marine mammals, and whether further regulations need to be implemented.
While I was seated in a government building witnessing this formal process, I could have almost mistaken it for an eye-gripping tennis match. The heated debate over whether gigantic animals leaping in the air and splashing the audience has worthwhile educational value was fueled by the strong opinions of panelists, including Naomi Rose, Ph.D., senior scientist for Humane Society International, Louie Psihoyos, Executive Director of the Oceanic Preservation Society and Director of the documentary film The Cove, and Julie Scardina, curator for SeaWorld.
There were representatives from the captive community including Sea World, the Alliance of Marine Mammal parks and Aquariums, and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), who argued that providing public displays of live animals leaves a lasting impact on its visitors, inspiring them to take action for the species. That may be the case, but take action how? Does it inspire people to protect the future of the species as a whole, or act on behalf of the benefit of the animal? Or rather, is it simply a phenomenon that encourages people to keep paying a lot of money to see whales and dolphins jump around in their suffocating concrete pools, performing unnatural behaviors?
Theme parks are big business. Sea World exploits their animals to perform, yet claims to be key players in marine mammal conservation by educating their visitors and donating a portion of admission costs to the SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund. It is interesting that they do not tell you how much is donated and to what conservation project. With regard to their educational program, Dr. Rose pointed out how SeaWorld misleads its visitors with not only contradictory facts about their natural history, but also fails to distinguish these facts between animals in the wild versus captivity. Dr. Rose was also clever with her correction of Ms. Scardina’s assertion that tragic events like the recent death of their own trainer, Dawn Brancheau, by their resident killer whale, Tilikum, is a rare occurrence, noting that actually 10% of its killer whales have caused human injury or death. Would you consider this a rare occurrence? Scardina also commented how seeing these massive animals achieve the great acrobatic feats they showcase inspires people to reach their own goals. I am not so confident that any one of their marine residents would agree. My confusion lies in how these shows are protecting marine mammals in the wild, ensuring their natural habitats and wild populations will exist for future generations?
Paul Boyle, Senior Vice President for Conservation Education for the AZA, boasted how AZA accredited institutions employs over 100,000 people at present. The Subcommittee did not meet to discuss the economic gains from facilities with marine mammals on display, but rather to re-evaluate what educational benefit the public is receiving from visiting them.
Louie Psihoyos aptly asserted his disgust with theme parks exploiting animals in performance scenarios, and how there is something quite wrong if we need to enslave these creatures for our entertainment in order to protect them as a species. He wisely illustrated the analogy of how we do not drive students to a desert or a forest to teach them geography, so there must be other ways to do the same in the case of conservation education – such as going outside and being in nature.
I couldn’t agree with him more.