Zoos and Aquatic Theme Parks: Are They Good or Bad For Wildlife Conservation? by Tyler Hubbard
Blackfish & SeaWorld
On October 24, 2013, CNN premiered a new documentary called Blackfish, which investigated the manner in which SeaWorld, Inc. obtains, treats, and trains orcas, more commonly known as killer whales. The film focuses on two related topics: the damage that captivity does to the animals, and SeaWorld’s efforts to cover-up the mistakes that led to three trainers being killed by SeaWorld orcas since 2000. Not only has Blackfish severely tarnished SeaWorld’s public image and caused its profits to drop by more than 60 percent, the film has reignited the debate over whether zoos, aquatic theme parks, and other socalled “collection institutions” (Miller 86) provide a net benefit for animals and wildlife conservation or simply degrade animals for the entertainment and commercial gain of human beings (Chatoo).
Zoos and Aquatic Theme Parks: Are They Good or Bad For Wildlife Conservation
Two Sides of the Argument
This paper examines the arguments advanced by the two opposing sides in this debate. The zoo advocates, for example, claim zoos and aquariums generate revenue that is then directed toward conservation efforts in the wild; and that zoos and aquariums conduct essential scientific research and bring humans into contact with wild animals, thereby generating a proconservation attitude among zoo visitors.
The zoo opponents contend that zoos and aquariums actually spend very little money on conservation; that their highly-touted captive breeding programs do very little in terms of achieving larger conservation goals; that putting animals on display in cages and enclosures deprives them of their essential “wildness,” leading to emotionally damage; that animals in captivity are a misrepresentation of the true animal and therefore give a false impression to human observers as to how the animals actually behave in the wild; and that zoos pay lipservice to conservation and scientific research only to hide their true mission, which is to make enough money to keep operating and growing their animal collections.
In the last section of this paper, I provide my own opinion on the subject, focusing on the distinction between the “instrumental” value of wildlife (as expressed by the pro-zoo group) and the “intrinsic” value of wildlife (as expressed by the anti-zoo group). I conclude with a few remarks regarding where the debate over zoos and aquariums is likely to go next.
The Pro-Zoo Viewpoint: Zoos and Aquariums Are Essential to Wildlife Conservation
Zoo advocates are quick to distinguish “good” zoos from “bad” zoos, and contend that the former are key to the long-term conservation of threatened species, while the latter should be shut down. On the issue of conservation, zoo advocates argue that many species would have gone extinct already had zoos not stepped in a rescued the remaining individuals and begun captive breeding programs (Hone). Zoos also point to their commitment to and investment in conservation efforts throughout the world. Increasingly, scientific research is another part of the modern zoo’s mission.
SeaWorld, for example, claims that its orca program has yielded scientific discoveries about killer whales that could not have been made without a captive population. “We have collected invaluable information about these animals that could not be obtained from observation in the wild,” says Michael Scarpuzzi, a SeaWorld trainer since 1975 (Scarpuzzi).
On the human side of the equation, zoo advocates argue that, for many people – especially children in urban areas – zoos provide the only venue for viewing and experiencing non-domestic animals (Goss). Zoos consider wildlife education one of their primary aims, and claim that they do an effective job of making humans more sympathetic toward wild animals and therefore more supportive of conservation efforts generally (Bekoff). In effect, the zoos believe they help to instill a conservation ethic within the hearts and minds of their visitors.
The Anti-Zoo Perspective: Zoos Exploit Animals for Entertainment & Profit, &Provide Few Actual Conservation Benefits Those who oppose zoos challenge the conservation claims made by the zoo advocates. For example, they point
to data showing that SeaWorld committed only 0.0001% of its profits to conservation efforts in the eight years leading up to the release of Blackfish (Onegreenplanet). Many zoos do a better job on this front, but most still dedicate only 10% of their operating revenue to conservation in the wild, which is much less than the 25% recommended by conservation biologists (Miller). Zoo opponents also contend that captive breeding programs and re-introduction efforts fail much more often
than they succeed and do not have a measurable effect on species health overall (Martindale). Opponents also question the claim that zoos promote a love of wild animals and a conservation attitude among
zoo visitors, especially the young. A team led by Dr. John H. Falk conducted a study of zoo visitors to determine whether their perspectives on wildlife and conservation changed or were enhanced by the zoo experience (Falk). According to the study, zoo visitors showed a stronger connection to wildlife and deeper commitment to conservation after observing the animals in their enclosures (Falk 3-4). Three years later, however, Lori Marino, et al. published an article in Society & Animals that eviscerated the
Falk study and showed it to be methodologically unsound (Marino 126-138). As of now, there is no consensus as to whether zoos do or do not encourage a conservation ethic among their visitors (Marino 137).
The Anti-Zoo Perspective: Zoos Exploit Animals for Entertainment & Profit, &Provide Few Actual Conservation Benefits
The real point of friction between zoo advocates and zoo opponents, however, is the effect of captivity on the zoo animals themselves. Zoo advocates claim that captive animals are rarely harmed when taken from the wild and actually enjoy safer, less stressful lives once placed in a modern zoo enclosure. They are free of the fear of predation; they are provided mates for reproduction; and receive regular, nutritious meals, as well as excellent health care. This is why, say the zoos, that animals in nurturing captive environments tend to live longer than animals of the same species in the wild. Zoos have even developed a new subfield, known as “animal welfare science,” which addresses the emotional/psychological needs of their animals (Whitham 247-260).
Trading “Wildness” for Profit
Opponents, however, argue that zoos rob animals of their essential “wildness” by placing them in
small (even if luxurious) enclosures and constantly exposing them to the eyes (and occasional taunts) of human beings. The problem is especially severe with regard to large roaming mammals, such as elephants and lions and whales, that need a lot of room to conduct their normal behaviors. Elephants, for example, travel 30 miles per day in the wild; in zoos, they are kept in pens or enclosures that measure no more than a few hundred yards (Carr). And, of course, many carnivorous animals – alligators and jaguars come to mind – are not allowed to hunt in zoos and so this part of their nature is lost.
In short, zoo opponents believe that zoos “greenwash” their real mission – which is making money
and/or expanding their animal collections – by claiming to support conservation, when in fact they merely put on display animals that no longer resemble what they were in the wild (Martindale). Consequently, even the “education” aspect of the zoo’s mission in compromised, because children who observe animals in the zoo are not learning about the real animal as they might exist in their natural habitat.
My Perspective: Zoos Sacrifice the Intrinsic Value of Wild Animals to Take Advantage of Their Instrumental Value
My stance on zoos: I think they weaken the species. Animals placed in captivity no longer have to fight to survive. They are fed twice per day like clock-work; they cease to be wild. The situation reminds of that line from Pink Floyd’s “Wish You Were Here” – “Would you trade a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?” In other words, isn’t it better to be a scared, hungry animal in the wild than a well-fed puppet animal in a zoo? Animals in captivity become weak in body and instinct. Predators lose their inherent ability to hunt and kill; prey species lose their inherent ability to hide and evade being taken as food. As a result, these once wild animals have been bred to be tame; and with each successive generation the survival skills of these species is genetically diluted. At a certain point, these animals can never be “re-wilded.” It’s like touching a robin’s egg. You ruin its nature by placing it in your hand. For these reasons, I am not surprised that only 1% of endangered species let back into the wild ever survive. Captivity makes them more like man, which is not good in the jungles of the Amazon or the savannahs of the Africa.
My Perspective: Zoos Sacrifice the Intrinsic Value of Wild Animals to Take Advantage of Their Instrumental Value
Orcas, for example, do not do “tricks” in the wild and then get fed a reward. The tricks are for entertainment purposes only; they are what drive the business model for places like SeaWorld. The welfare of the animal is important only to the extent that it affects the economics of the zoo or aquarium.
In the final analysis, most zoos and
aquariums do care deeply about the animals in their charge, but the concern is tied to the instrumental value that the animals provide for their human captors. These animals are not just entertainment, they are profit centers. We even use them for research directed at curing diseases that afflict only human beings. By their very nature, zoos and aquariums must suppress or eliminate those things that make wild animals wild – those inherent traits that make them interesting in the first place.
These are the intrinsic values that we
admire in wild animals, but are stolen from the animal once it is placed in a zoo or aquarium. And it is this exchange that also robs us of any true knowledge or understanding of the crocodile or hippopotamus, the hyena or the ram. At the zoo, we never see animals butting heads or fighting. We see depressed animals, slouching in the shade, awaiting their next regularlyscheduled meal. We learn nothing from this. And at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves: “Are they really even tigers?”
Conclusion: The End of Zoos and Aquariums As We Know Them
Blackfish has had a tremendous impact on public attitudes towards SeaWorld and “collection institutions” generally. More and more people are becoming skeptical of the role that zoos and aquariums claim to play in the overall global effort to conserve species.
My expectation is that some of the better zoos in the world, such as the San Diego Zoo, will continue to operate for many decades into the future, but that lesser-known zoos with fewer resources will disappear as pressure from the public begins to affect their budgets.
The trend, I hope, is toward large wildlife preserves where animals can roam freely and engage in natural behaviors, yet be protected from poaching and other human-caused threats. Such preserves allow some human contact with (or at least observation of) wild animals, but unlike zoos, the preserves do not damage the intrinsic value of those animals.
Works Cited Bekoff, Marc, Ph.D., “Most Animals in Zoos Are Happy: Really?,” Psychology Today, September 7, 2012. Web. June 23, 2016. Carr, Michele, “The Reality of Zoos,” PETA, October 23. 2013. Web. June 25, 2016. Chatoo, Caty Borum, “Anatomy of ‘The Blackfish Effect’,” Huffington Post, March 26, 2016. Web. June 24, 2016. Falk, John H., Ph.D., et al., “Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit,” Association
of Zoos & Aquariums, Silver Spring, MD. 2007. Print.
Goss, Jeremy, “Zoos: Good or Bad,” Africa Geographic, November 7, 2013. Web. June 23, 2016. Hone, Dave, Ph.D., “Why Zoos Are Good,” The Guardian, August 19, 2014. Web. June 24, 2016. Marino, Lori, et al., “Do Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study,” Society & Animals, 18(2),
126-138. 2010.
Print. Martindale, Victoria, “Why There is No Such Thing as a Good Zoo,” The Independent, Nov. 20, 2012. Web. June 22, 2016.
Works Cited (Cont.) Miller, Brian, et al., “Evaluating the Conservation Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens, and Natural History Museums,” Conservation Biology, Vol 18, No., February 2004, 86-93. Print. Onegreenplanet, “Does Conservation Justify Captivity? Examining SeaWorld’s Efforts to Improve Their Image,” date not given. Web. June 25, 2016. Scarpuzzi, Michael, “’Blackfish’ Film Ignores SeaWorld’s Benefits to Conservation,” Special to CNN, October 23, 2013. Web. June 23, 2016. Whitham, Jessica C. and Wielebnowski, Ndja, “New Directions for Zoo Animal Welfare Science, Applied Animal Behavior Science, 147 (2013), 247-260. Print.