Tilikum, a whale who has been held captive at a Sea World park in Orlando, Florida, killed an animal trainer yesterday. Let me make it clear right now that I don’t want to minimize the tragedy of the trainer’s death in any way. According the Washington Post, she loved her job, she loved the animals she trained, and she loved and was loved by many friends and family members. Her death is mourned by many. Nevertheless, the manner of her death raises a moral issue for me; I can’t find any justification for the human practice of capturing and enslaving other living beings for our entertainment.
Dawn Branchaeu is the third human being that Tilikum has killed in the past 19 years. Methinks that Tilikum may not be overly enamored with the species that has enslaved him and trained him to do cute tricks for our amusement. Now, the Sea World management doesn’t have a clue what to do with Tilikum. He doesn’t have the requisite skills to survive in the wild, so releasing him to the sea would be the equivalent of a death sentence. I don’t know whether capital punishment euthanasia is under consideration; if it is, the Sea World PR people are holding their tongues about it. One option the Sea World management is considering is transferring Tilikum to another diocese amusement park.
I don’t know how to resolve Sea World’s Tilikum dilemma. All I know is that this story has made me think, again, about the morality of keeping animals in zoos, aquariums and amusement parks so that human beings may be entertained for a few hours a day. In the past two years I’ve visited the San Diego Zoo and the Georgia Aquarium. On both occasions I was mildly uneasy about the fact that I was enjoying nature in starkly unnatural, artificial settings. That unease has prevented me from visiting the National Zoo just down the road from me in Washington, DC. Tilikum’s story has compelled me to take a position on this issue. As of this moment, I am putting a personal moratorium on visits to zoos, aquariums and the like. I don’t know if I’ll change my mind about this in the future. All I know is that, for the time being, I can’t justify holding other living beings captive for my amusement. I mourn both Dawn Brancheau’s lost life and Tilikum’s lost freedom. Both losses were senseless and unnecessary. That’s the real tragedy of this story.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times reports that “A SeaWorld official said Wednesday the animal would not be put down.”
– the chaplain
Mike aka MonolithTMA
February 25, 2010 at 11:43 am
“Dawn Branchaeu is the third human being that Tilikum has killed in the past 19 years.” I hadn’t heard that. You’d think the first two were newsworthy too. One of our local amusement parks used to have a really depressing zoo that eventually closed. One of the other zoos in our area has some nice open spaces that mimic the animals natural environments.
Tommykey
February 25, 2010 at 12:32 pm
When I read this story last night and how Tilikum is implicated in the deaths of 3 people, it got me thinking “This orca really must not enjoy being in captivity.” Because despite their more well known name “Killer Whale”, these animals are not known for killing people in their natural environment.
I get what you’re saying about zoos and aquariums. Sadly, for some animals that are losing their natural habitats and facing the possibility of extinction, zoos might offer the only chance of preserving these species from extinction. On another note, offering people the chance to see animals in the zoo, if done properly, can be a rewarding educational experience that can spur people to take an interest in preserving their natural habitats. Perhaps there is something to be said for seeing these creatures up close (or nearly up close) that helps us make a connection with them rather than just reading about it in a magazine or watching the Discovery Channel.
A few years ago I took my wife and kids to the Bronx Zoo. When we got to the gorilla viewing area, I remember watching the gorillas and noting how almost human they seemed in their mannerisms and facial expressions. I was thinking “How can someone look at them and deny the possibility that we are not related to them? It’s so friggin’ obvious!”
Titfortat
February 25, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I completely understand the pain and suffering her death will cause her family, but
I dont see it as a tragedy and though this comment may not be politically correct, upon reading the story all I could think was…..DUH, Killer whale kills another human. I think his moniker is pretty accurate.
Lorena
February 25, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Spoken like a real Canadian, Chappie.
the chaplain
February 25, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Mike:
Zoo design has changed dramatically in my lifetime. Nevertheless, zoos are little more than animal prisons that have had expensive makeovers. Fake habitats that mimic natural environments are still, when all is said and done, fakes. They look pleasant to those of us who are free to come and go at will; I’m pretty sure they’d lose their charm if we were on the other side of the enclosures.
Tommykey:
As I wrote this post, I thought about wildlife refuges for ill and injured animals. I’m okay with these sorts of habitats as long as the animals are returned to the wild when they are well. Your point about preserving species from extinction is one to consider, but I also know that some species don’t breed well in captivity. So, I’m not sure how well we’re doing with that task. As for educational value, perhaps we need to find creative ways to educate ourselves that are fair to other animals. Their freedom is a high price to pay for our enlightenment.
Titfortat:
Since when have you worried about political correctness? Is this a kinder, gentler side of you I haven’t seen before?
Lorena:
On a per capita basis, more Canadians than Americans may agree with the OP. Still, I’m sure that some Canadians would read it and think I’ve lost my mind.
ildi
February 25, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Slavery? Capital punishment? Those are some pretty inflammatory words, especially in light of this recent incident: UCSC researcher targeted in attack — animal activists believed to be behind home invasion.
ildi
February 25, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Sorry, that wasn’t the most recent. Wrong link.
the chaplain
February 25, 2010 at 9:29 pm
ildi:
Am I misunderstanding you? Are you connecting my position that, generally speaking, animals should be free to live as they evolved to live, with terrorism committed for the cause of animal rights (however such activists/terrorists define that cause)? Did I write something to suggest that people should do anything more violent than stop attending dog & pony shows if such shows make them uneasy, as they do me?
It happens to be the case that I don’t have a moral objection to using animals to conduct research. The reason for this is that the knowledge gained thereby has proven immensely beneficial for humankind and other animals. That’s a far different thing from forcing animals to perform circus tricks because people think such tricks are cute. Capturing animals, breeding them in confinement, forcing them to live in habitats of our choosing, and teaching them to perform on command for us are acts of enslavement. Period. It’s not okay for us to do those things simply because we’re homo sapiens and they’re not.
Kagehi
February 25, 2010 at 9:55 pm
There are zoos, and zoos. The Wild Animal park near Escondido in California has **huge** amounts of land, animals living, when possible, together, and when not, still fairly close to each other, and, for the most part, able to range over areas that are nearly as large as the ones they would have in their original habitat. Most zoos **do not have that kind of land**. For the most part, they are not trained to entertain people either, with the exception of some bird species, and maybe a few others, and then mostly as an “up close” sort of method of safe interaction, and only with those you can do that with. Its not like bloody Sea World.
That said, even in the case of Sea World, while some of the animals are born there, most are there due to injury, need for treatment, or other reasons. In the case of zoos, it can be a result of rescue, where the local area the animal came from **has been** lost.
Is it the best solution? Hell no. Should there be some serious rethinking of some of what gets done? Probably. Is it likely? Well… Some of it may be so much of a hold over from earlier decades, where no one bothered to even worry about such things, that removing it would be nearly impossible, while still keeping what they **do** do right operational.
Some of the species have so few in numbers, that if you closed the zoos they are trying to bread them in, 50% of the entire species would go extinct. Offer a better solution, then whine about how wrong it *always* is.
Temaskian
February 25, 2010 at 10:37 pm
I find it incredible that the whale was still being used after it had already killed 2 people. Profit over human lives?
the chaplain
February 25, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Kagehi:
I like the idea of protected wildlife ranges. Humans don’t need to hog every square inch of the globe. As I mentioned in my previous comment to Tommy, I’m also okay with some temporary or short-term human intervention to facilitate animal rescue, recovery from illness and so on, as long as the animals aren’t allowed to grow dependent on humans.
But, I’m not sure that humans should be intervening in species breeding to the extent that we do. I don’t trust any of us to play god. I’m all for prohibiting the hunting or capture of endangered species (except, perhaps, in cases in which an animal is injured and can be treated and released) and regulating such practices in general. Those are measures that regulate human activity. Those are quite different matters from taking control of animal reproduction, no matter how well intentioned such efforts are. I don’t want to see any species go extinct, but, the fact of the matter is, environments change for all sorts of reasons, some of which are related to human activity, some of which are not. Human intervention to preserve species that we’ve endangered is about assuaging human guilt as much as, if not more than, it’s about helping animals. It’s all (or largely) about us – again. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to control ourselves more, control other animals less, and – callous as it may sound – let nature take its course. If that’s whining, so be it. I needed a good whine today.
Larry Wallberg
February 26, 2010 at 2:21 am
Like you, chappy, I’d always been a bit leery of zoos. But my mind has been changed by the dozens of zoo employees I’ve interviewed over the years. They all care deeply about our fellow creatures, and do more for species preservation than you can imagine.
I met many zoo naturalists at a few American Zoological Conventions that I attended (at one of which I was a featured speaker). Cynic that I am, I questioned those men and women relentlessly. But I found that the people I encountered were committed champions of the animals they lived with on a daily basis. And almost all of those folks were able to rattle off a number of good reasons for “imprisoning” their pals.
For one thing, zoos are playing a large part in keeping endangered species from going extinct. (Some species, in fact, may soon be found only in zoos.) There are extensive inter-zoo breeding programs, in which precise genealogical records are kept. Today’s scientists studying endangered and threatened species get much of their data from zoos and from zoo-sponsored research.
Second, zoos have become leaders in the study of animal behavior. Many (not all, unfortunately) zoo environments are built to provide stimulation and “natural” challenges for the critters who are somehow enclosed. (“Caged” is becoming more and more obsolete.) In some instances, zoos are able to offer animals better habitats — simulated though they are — than those individuals would be able to find in the wild.
A third thing that zoos do extremely well is foster a desire for conservation among its visitors. A trip to the zoo excites youngsters and adults alike about wildlife in general, and encourages at least some people to feel a kinship with our fellow creatures. The animals act as living advertisements for the continued health of their species.
So, while your gut reaction is completely understandable, it’s simplistic.
desertscope
February 26, 2010 at 3:28 am
I posted recently on the Mexican Wolf. Unfortunately, most of the Mexican Wolves available for reintroduction into the wild are zoo-bred. I have seen Mexican wolves, despite the fact that there are known to be only 15 wild individuals in the 122,000 square miles of New Mexico. The reason is that some are kept in zoos, with active breeding programs.
Prettymolecules
February 26, 2010 at 5:55 am
This may sound a little strange but.. at least one of those people that Orca ‘killed’ was found dead from hypothermia and the resulting drowning. He was a crazy person who drifted about, invading homes, taking off his clothes and climbing into strangers’ beds. He was found naked in the orca tank after breaking and entering, draped across Tillikum’s back, dead from drowning after suffering hypothermia.
So the question is.. if a naked man climbs into an icy pool, suffers hypothermia and drowns, why does everyone blame the orca for his death? This just confuses me. The only connection I found between the man’s death and the orca being that the man died in the orca’s tank and that the orca was found trying to lift the corpse to the surface. (I’m not sure but don’t orcas and dolphins lift sick or dying members of their own species up that way to help them breathe?)
So the statement should be two confirmed murders, one possible murder (unverified), for accuracy.
Unless, of course, the ones making the claim know more than I do, which is quite possible.
desertscope
February 28, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Of course the press release said it was “hypothermia” or “drowning.” Can you imagine newspapers printing the phrase “cetacean rape?”
Larry Wallberg
February 28, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Cetacean rape? Is that like the song, sung — appropriately enough — by Fats Domino, called “Whale Lotta Lovin’”?
ildi
February 26, 2010 at 7:08 am
I don’t have much time now to go into detail until this weekend, but using words like ‘slavery’ and ‘capital punishment’ is the kind of rhetoric that these groups use. Your use of them seems to indicate that you think animals have the same moral worth as humans. This is the philosophical basis for animal rights activists.
What do you mean when you say that? Are you saying that evolution should freeze where it is now? Evolved to live in which environment? What if that environment is gone?
I’m glad to hear you are not keeping any animals in slavery. No dogs fetching frisbees, right? What about working animals? Guide dogs?
Mike aka MonolithTMA
February 26, 2010 at 8:17 am
Oh I agree. A pretty jail is still a jail.
PhillyChief
February 26, 2010 at 9:07 am
First, I think there’s a difference between simply being captive and being captive and expected to perform. Second, I think there are ways to have animals in captivity that can be beneficial, but it requires resources which most zoos don’t have. Imo, life confined in a small space and put on display is no life; however, if that space were large enough and it provided the opportunity to live as you would in the wild, then it might not be that bad (on a side note, I can think of many humans who are self-captive, rarely venturing beyond a very small area).
The problem is largely of human origin. The two main arguments for zoos are that the animals need to be protected because they’re endangered (due to human encroachment of their habitats and of course, hunting) and that if humans can see them, they’ll develop a fondness which might help prevent future harms to these and other animals which are caused by humans.
Ildi: I would say there’s a distinction between domesticated animals and captive wild animals. Now as far as the animal rights issue, well, I do think they deserve certain rights and people who abuse them should be punished (and need to be watched since that can be a marker for being a danger to other humans), but then some animals are very tasty.
cl
February 26, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Chaplain,
I agree, but this presumes the sole motive is entertainment. As many of your commenters have pointed out, that’s simply not the case.
So, enslaving animals is okay if it leads to something you deem beneficial? How can you justify that? How is that not an instance of the end justifies the means?
I agree, but your criteria for enslavement seems inconsistent. You seem to be saying that capturing animals, breeding them in confinement and forcing them to live in habitats of our own — for purposes of entertainment — constitutes slavery, but somehow capturing animals, breeding them in confinement and forcing them to live in habitats of our own — for purposes of testing everything from makeup to medicine on them — isn’t slavery. How is it not?
I feel the same way. I just don’t think you can make your case for animal testing without basing it on anything other than your own emotions. You have to say something like, “It’s okay to enslave animals for research but not these other reasons,” and I don’t see that you’ve provided sound justification for that.
I also think Kagehi, Larry and desertscope made some valid points.
Titfortat
February 26, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Chappie
I was hoping you would notice.
ildi
February 27, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Philly:
Domesticated animals do well because we’ve bred them that way. The other side of the coin are dogs we’ve domesticated and bred to hunt or herd or do other active duties, then we use them as pets and are all surprised when they kill Fluffy or tear the couch up out of boredom. There is much valid discussion concerning keeping wild animals in captivity. Orcas, for example reduce their life span by about 1/2 in captivity compared to the wild.
Chappie: What I am reacting to is your use of the word ‘slavery’ and ‘enslavement’ in discussing whether animal treatment is humane or not. Slavery is a trigger word, with highly emotive connotations. Maybe it’s because I grew up down South, but you’d better have a damn good justification for using it, in my book. Slavery specifically refers to humans owning other humans. When you describe animals as being enslaved by humans, you’re implying that animals have the same moral worth and by extension the same moral responsibility as humans.
Since most of us are raised in a primarily Christian culture, we tend to hold on to ingrained beliefs that we are different from other animals and have dominion over them, even if consciously we have embraced evolutionary theory. Our status in the world needs to be re-evaluated if we are just the most advanced rung on that ladder, with no special status granted by having a magical ‘soul’.
For example, one argument for being a vegan is that we don’t have the right to kill or use the product of other animals since we’re just ‘one of them’. I think it’s a matter of where you draw the line between what is potentially ‘food’ and ‘not-food’. Is it mobility? (Carrots can’t run away.) Is it having a nervous system? (Oysters and shrimp should be ok, then.) Is it level of intelligence? (Chickens and trout are pretty stupid.) Is it ‘top of the food chain gets to eat everybody below if it tastes good’? In that case, why does our culture ok the eating of pigs, but not cats? All these fascinating questions aside, it’s one thing to come to the conclusion that it’s not ethical to eat animals, and a whole different kettle of fish to say ‘killing animals is murder.’
I linked to the wackjob animal rights activists to make the point that people were asking how much culpability Bill O’Reilly had, for example, for Dr. Tiller’s murder when he constantly characterized Dr. Tiller as a savage baby-killer on the loose. Words matter. In particular, if you’re going to use extreme forms of language, you come across as holding extreme opinions. The statements
and
comes across about as dogmatic and inconsistent as an anti-choice person saying "abortion is murder, with some exceptions like rape and incest."
I particularly find this sentiment interesting:
If by that you mean alter and control our environment to suit us, well, that’s what has made us so successful as a species in filling pretty much all environmental niches (and pushing many other animals out as a consequence). Maybe it’s time we actually did play god and looked at the big picture in doing so.
I must say that the cruelest thing of all is that you have forced me into the position of agreeing with cl on something…
Goyo
March 1, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Good post. As an admirer of animals and a science teacher, I sometimes feel torn between the two opinions. It is such a thrill to visit a good zoo, where animals actually live in a habitat that you can observe and see animals that normally you would never see. Of course animals that normally roam or fly for miles are denied this. And the gorilla sections always freak me out, as I feel like I’m looking at an imprisoned family member.
The parks where animals perform do seem out of place… obviously they’re denied the privilege to roam or migrate. They seem to have a different purpose… money.
ildi
March 1, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Jerry Coyne has an interesting post and comments (including pro and con statements from people who work in the biz) on his blog Why Evolution Is True: Animals should not be entertainment.