The great Sea World debate

This blog is a bit different from my usual blogs, but then today has been an unusual, albeit interesting today. Why? Firstly, because I went to the park that is at the centre of a great deal of controversy at the moment, Sea World. And secondly, because when I got back I watched the documentary which is causing much of the controversy, Blackfish.

Now I'd be lying if I said we hadn't had a great time at SeaWorld. Observing the fish and other sea creatures, admiring the superb shows, and laughing ourselves silly on the rides, is my idea of a fun day out. 

But, Blackfish has tainted it somewhat, providing a shocking but needed alternative perspective, and making me question the park even more than I already did. Is it cruel to keep Orcas in captivity? Should the trainers be allowed in the water with them? Should I have contributed to the multi-million dollar profit SeaWorld makes off the back of these beautiful mammals? In all honesty, I've not completely made up my mind.

What I am certain of is that it is right to question parks like SeaWorld and their practices to make sure they are handling the animals and other wildlife in their care as best as they possibly can. Yesterday I saw this sign at San Diego zoo, which says it all really:

There are certainly practices shown in Blackfish which I could never condone. Never should animals be captured from the wild, separated from their broken-hearted mothers for no other reason than pure entertainment's sake. We should think very carefully before trying to force animals in to newly created 'families', because neither bullying nor isolation like Tilikum experienced is fair. Never should whales be punished or blamed for their natural behaviour. And we should always show respect for the power and intelligence of these magnificent sea creatures.

What I'm struggling to get my head round, however, is why these 'killer' whales should be treated any differently from other animals in the park or indeed in any zoo. Is it their size that makes a difference? Their intelligence? Or the fact they are expected to perform like circus animals? Or if there is no difference, where do you draw the line? Should zoos be abolished altogether?

I believe zoos, aquariums and parks like SeaWorld help scientists and the general public to learn about animals and have an overall positive impact on the species in captivity. I also like to think that unless there is an exceptional circumstance only animals that would have otherwise died in the wild are taken; that all those they can are released back in to the environment Mother Nature intended for them; and that all those kept in captivity are well looked after. 

I'm not naive, I know the perfect picture I have painted above is in reality unfeasible to enforce. After all, no wildlife park is going to make enough money to stay afloat, let alone make a profit (which as a practice is arguably morally opposable) if the enclosures are so large no one can see any of the animals. But I do think these are practices we should encourage whenever we can. I found myself, both today at SeaWorld and yesterday at San Diego zoo, questioning whether the animals had enough space. A viewpoint reinforced by the ex-SeaWorld trainers featured in the documentary who have publicly spoken out suggesting the killer whales should be given a larger sea pen. 

I don't have the answers to this problem, nor do I pretend to have enough knowledge to offer a in-depth viewpoint, but there you have it. My day has not evoked just the elation and interest I expected or the enjoyment and chilled nature of other days on this trip; instead it's sparked an internal and group moral debate. A debate I'm sure will continue amongst us and wider society for many years to come.