Cetaceans in captivity and the future of zoos

[DavidBrown]

I personally know someone who has worked with Sea World (in publicity) for years, and he told me Sea World felt badgered and forced to make this horrible decision.

Does anyone actually think Sea World will do better when they have no more orcas? Orcas are the brand animal of Sea World, going back to the 1960s.

Their market share in the theme park industry was getting battered and they were in very bad economic condition. They went through several leadership changes. Some of that at least was due to the orca situation. Some of it has to do with being locked into a theme park market share war with Disney, Universal, Six Flags, etc. without having pop culture IPs to build attractions around.

The current leadership seems to be turning things around with the decision to (eventually) move on from orcas, so their answer to your question is objectively "yes".

 

[Brum]

In this situation, I'll take the Spanish politicians over those from Canada and California.

Really? I suggest you have a look in the Barcelona Zoo forums and then see if you have the same opinion!

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Obviously you don't get it!

I may be more-or-less half your age, but I'm not exactly unacquainted with British pop culture from decades past whereas your reply makes it painfully obvious that you are utterly oblivious to the British sense of humour from the present moment, and that it was you that "obviously [didn't] get it"......

In this situation, I'll take the Spanish politicians over those from Canada and California.

So you think that politicians pushing (more or less successfully) to close a zoological collection down entirely due to an anti-zoo stance is preferable to politicians pushing an anti-cetacean stance?

I repeat my above jest - you could have ended your prior quote three words in

 

[CGSwans]

What right-wing talking point? My point is not at all nonsense. Sure, animals can feel pain and have health needs, and who better to address those needs than zoo people, not stupid politicians! Why are you defending idiot politicians in Canada, California, and elsewhere who are imposing animal bans on zoos?

Consider this, what if suddenly Donald Trump decided he wants to "make zoos great again" and used executive orders to impose HIS ideas on zoos? Would you honestly be fine with that? What if a bunch of Hancocks disciples got politicians to outlaw carousels and trains in zoos? Or what if some equally idiotic politicians imposed a law that zoos cannot be legal without a train ride, a carousel, and a dolphin show?

How about you start trying to make your argument without stupid logical fallacies? None of your admittedly ‘idiotic’ scenarios above are ever going to happen.

Your argument is essentially that zoos should not be subject to political intervention in their operations. While it is obviously desirable that decisions be made by experts in the relevant field, to suggest they do so without any political oversight is plainly and simply anti-democratic, and ignores the influence of ideology on ‘experts’, with potentially disastrous consequences when that ideology produces bad advice:just look at what the EU and IMF did to Greece.

It is entirely legitimate for elected officials to create and enforce laws relating to animal welfare within their jurisdiction. You might not like those laws, to which my answer is that you need to get involved in the process and try to shape them yourself.

The idea of democratic accountability and technocracy is a political debate as old as time. Obviously zoo’s should not be outside the realm of political regulation but those decisions are best left to experts in that field (aka civil servants and the like) rather than politicians who have little experience in that sector.

Of course they are, that’s not in dispute. It also applies to virtually everything: climate change policy is best determined by climate scientists, health experts should run health policy, and so on. But all such decisions need to be ultimately subject to guidance and direction from elected officials who can ensure that policy-making remains in step with community values and expectations. And there’s simply no good reason why zoos would be an exception to that.

 

[Batto]

Spanish politicians are great, look at Barcelona Zoo for example...

CATALANIAN politicians, please; huge difference

 

[ANyhuis]

There are also a great number of good, decent, sincere people, trying to do a good job, trying to make the world a better place - and that includes people on all sides of the political spectrum

I completely agree with your point, Sooty, and I hope I haven't given you the impression that I'm labeling all politicians "idiots". I'm NOT some Trumpian anti-government type who just wants to tear down the whole system! Take a look at this article about Canada:
Senate passes bill that would ban whale, dolphin captivity in Canada
The "idiot politicians" are those, especially from the Green Party, who voted for this horrible bill. Note that there were some Canadian senators who opposed the bill -- they are definitely not idiots!

It is entirely legitimate for elected officials to create and enforce laws relating to animal welfare within their jurisdiction.

Again I agree! But banning certain species from zoos and aquariums is NOT "animal welfare". It's just a power-grab to tell zoos what they can and cannot display due to silly propaganda such as the "Blackfish" movie. Elected officials also have a legitimate responsibility to ensure that zoos are safe for both visitors and keepers. This was the issue back in 2008, when politicians were considering shutting down the San Francisco Zoo due to "unsafe conditions" related to the Christmas tiger escape which ended with the death of one visitor. Yes, I would agree that elected officials had a legitimate role in making sure the Zoo was safe and there would be no more similar tragedies.

 

[m30t]

The "idiot politicians"

What qualifies these politicians as idiots in your opinion? Simply that they took a policy stance that you disagree with?
I find that both troubling, and as a Canadian, offensive. It is one thing to debate the merits of a piece of legislation. To label those who vote in favour of the legislation as idiots is really not conducive to conducting engaging or information discussion in my opinion.
Since you feel informed enough on Canadian politics to label so many federal politicians here as idiots, I should probably point out that there are zero Canadian Senators associated with the Green Party. There are two Members of Parliament (MP) from the Green Party, but given that there are 338 MPs in total and a majority need to vote in favour of legislation for it to pass, signalling those two out seems rather pointless.

 

[ANyhuis]

This is a really interesting discussion and although it has become off topic, it would be a shame if it was deleted. Could the admins perhaps start a new thread?

I agree with is off topic, and I'm tired of arguing it. IF you personally love having politicians sticking their noses into the zoo world and other areas out of their expertise, then more power to you. I just disagree and will defend zoos worldwide whenever crazies come attacking them. If you want another example of such "crazies", look up the Los Angeles Zoo's "Elephants of Asia" exhibit and the battle that both (idiot) celebrities and LA City Council members have waged to first keep the exhibit from opening in 2010, and the continuing battle to shut it down. I personally was involved in this battle, back in 2009, so maybe that's why this issue is personal to me.
Jack Hanna announces his support for the L.A. Zoo's controversial elephant exhibit
But I will say no more about this topic. If you love nosy politicians, God bless you!

 

[Simon Hampel]

Note that I'm happy for people to discuss the impact of political process on zoos - but any posts which turn to discussions about broader policy (beyond zoos and animal conservation) or about political ideology, are considered off topic for ZooChat and will be removed.

 

[Cat-Man]

I agree with is off topic, and I'm tired of arguing it. IF you personally love having politicians sticking their noses into the zoo world and other areas out of their expertise, then more power to you. I just disagree and will defend zoos worldwide whenever crazies come attacking them. If you want another example of such "crazies", look up the Los Angeles Zoo's "Elephants of Asia" exhibit and the battle that both (idiot) celebrities and LA City Council members have waged to first keep the exhibit from opening in 2010, and the continuing battle to shut it down. I personally was involved in this battle, back in 2009, so maybe that's why this issue is personal to me.
Jack Hanna announces his support for the L.A. Zoo's controversial elephant exhibit
But I will say no more about this topic. If you love nosy politicians, God bless you!

I wasn’t disagreeing with you - we are on the same side of this argument! I hate nosey politicians.

I would be interested to hear more about your personal experiences.

 

[ANyhuis]

I wasn’t disagreeing with you - we are on the same side of this argument! I hate nosey politicians.

I would be interested to hear more about your personal experiences.

OK, only because you're asking. Back in 2009, when the Los Angeles Zoo was still working on their upcoming "Elephants of Asia" exhibit, the anti-zoo folks (PETA, IDA, Hancocks) were pushing the LA City Council to deny the Zoo the necessary permits to continue construction and the permission to bring in more elephants for the exhibit. They had a number of Hollywood celebrities (Cher, Lily Tomlin, Bob Barker, and others) testify before the Council. They even brought in former zoo director (and now radical anti-zoo zealot) David Hancocks, flying him in from Australia to testify. In response, the LA Zoo had a number of much more qualified zoo and animal welfare experts testify, either in person or with a written statement. Jack Hanna was just one of the pro-zoo experts to testify. The LA Zoo's Public Relations director knew me and my coauthor, and since our book (America's Best Zoos) had just come out the year before, and it was the only real travel guidebook to American zoos, we were asked to submit a written statement in support of the Zoo, giving our confidence in the design of the upcoming exhibit. Our statements were read into the record at the LA City Council hearings on the matter. Thankfully, the City Council ruled favorably for the Zoo and "Elephants of Asia" opened the following year, in 2010, to much fanfare. This was a huge victory for zoos nationwide and worldwide!

 

[ANyhuis]

What qualifies these politicians as idiots in your opinion? Simply that they took a policy stance that you disagree with?
I find that both troubling, and as a Canadian, offensive. It is one thing to debate the merits of a piece of legislation. To label those who vote in favour of the legislation as idiots is really not conducive to conducting engaging or information discussion in my opinion.
Since you feel informed enough on Canadian politics to label so many federal politicians here as idiots, I should probably point out that there are zero Canadian Senators associated with the Green Party. There are two Members of Parliament (MP) from the Green Party, but given that there are 338 MPs in total and a majority need to vote in favour of legislation for it to pass, signalling those two out seems rather pointless.

I'm NOT continuing my debate on this, but I DO want to apologize for my ignorance of Canadian politics. I got my idea that the Green Party was behind the idiotic anti-zoo bill from the following statement (in the above news article):
S-203 — first introduced by now-retired Liberal senator Wilfred Moore in December 2015, with the backing of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May — would ban keeping and breeding these marine mammals in captivity through amendments to the Criminal Code.
Sorry, but that sounded like the Green Party was big behind the stupid bill.

 

[Coelacanth18]

I'm not against governments passing legislation that promotes and furthers animal welfare, but only if that legislation is the result of well-informed advice from respected scientists and animal care professionals... and that is not always the case. A good example can be seen in the Circus Cruelty Protection Act passed in California, explained and referenced in this thread: California’s Circus Cruelty Protection Act. It would have had quite a negative impact on using animals for educational outreach offsite. Fortunately, after receiving public feedback and meeting with representatives of affected institutions the legislature amended it to only apply to circuses, the initially intended target. Government intervention is sometimes necessary, but needs to stem from cooperation with legislated institutions, not from misinformation campaigns produced by a vocal minority.

To contribute to the more general debate: zoos are not going anywhere anytime soon, although certain species (like cetaceans, and perhaps elephants in the future) might experience a different fate. Zoo support is high; additionally, while I've had several friends and colleagues who are skeptical or disapproving of zoos, they are far from radicals, most have outright said they don't support PETA and consider them sensationalist, most have admitted that zoos serve an important conservation role for some species, and they generally feel much more strongly about factory farming and puppy mills than about zoos. Some of the evidence they offer for their positions is dubious, and they have generally been receptive to my counterarguments. I agree fully with @Batto that persuading the general public through outreach and education will be far more effective than giving oxygen to radical organizations.

 

[Cat-Man]

I'm not against governments passing legislation that promotes and furthers animal welfare, but only if that legislation is the result of well-informed advice from respected scientists and animal care professionals... and that is not always the case. A good example can be seen in the Circus Cruelty Protection Act passed in California, explained and referenced in this thread: California’s Circus Cruelty Protection Act. It would have had quite a negative impact on using animals for educational outreach offsite. Fortunately, after receiving public feedback and meeting with representatives of affected institutions the legislature amended it to only apply to circuses, the initially intended target. Government intervention is sometimes necessary, but needs to stem from cooperation with legislated institutions, not from misinformation campaigns produced by a vocal minority.

To contribute to the more general debate: zoos are not going anywhere anytime soon, although certain species (like cetaceans, and perhaps elephants in the future) might experience a different fate. Zoo support is high; additionally, while I've had several friends and colleagues who are skeptical or disapproving of zoos, they are far from radicals, most have outright said they don't support PETA and consider them sensationalist, most have admitted that zoos serve an important conservation role for some species, and they generally feel much more strongly about factory farming and puppy mills than about zoos. Some of the evidence they offer for their positions is dubious, and they have generally been receptive to my counterarguments. I agree fully with @Batto that persuading the general public through outreach and education will be far more effective than giving oxygen to radical organizations.

I think this is pretty spot on. Most people care about putting fuel on the table, getting the kids to school on time and getting away for a week every year. They don’t care about zoo’s enough to get behind radical legislation.

 

[ANyhuis]

I'm not against governments passing legislation that promotes and furthers animal welfare, but only if that legislation is the result of well-informed advice from respected scientists and animal care professionals... and that is not always the case. .......

To contribute to the more general debate: zoos are not going anywhere anytime soon, although certain species (like cetaceans, and perhaps elephants in the future) might experience a different fate.

Not much to disagree with at all! But I do hope you're wrong in the potential that cetaceans, and perhaps elephants "might experience a different fate" -- that is, they might be banned. I subscribe the the "domino theory" on this, where if we let the anti-zoo radicals succeed in banning ANY zoo species, they will just move on to the next species, and then the next, and then the next. Thus, if they can get cetaceans banned, not just in Canada, but in the USA and European Union, they will next try to get elephants banned, then polar bears, then great apes, then rhinos and hippos, and then ..... until eventually our beloved zoos will just be city parks with only ducks and squirrels.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Not much to disagree with at all! But I do hope you're wrong in the potential that cetaceans, and perhaps elephants "might experience a different fate" -- that is, they might be banned. I subscribe the the "domino theory" on this, where if we let the anti-zoo radicals succeed in banning ANY zoo species, they will just move on to the next species, and then the next, and then the next. Thus, if they can get cetaceans banned, not just in Canada, but in the USA and European Union, they will next try to get elephants banned, then polar bears, then great apes, then rhinos and hippos, and then ..... until eventually our beloved zoos will just be city parks with only ducks and squirrels.

I think the domino theory you suggest is a possibility, but I also think it's too early to know if it'll play out that way. Public opinion on keeping whales and dolphins in captivity took a radical shift after Blackfish released; even if many people objected to it before the documentary, a large percentage of the population who weren't tuned in suddenly were and not in a pro-captivity way. The same thing could happen at any time for elephants, or great apes, or something else... but on the other hand, it could just as easily never happen. Cetaceans could be the beginning of a pattern or a mere aberration (as seems to be the case currently).