Wild Animals in Cages and Cruel Ones on the Outside: Wildlife in Captivity and What it Means

Emilee Rotter

At the Core of the Debate

In 2013, CNN released the documentary Blackfish which exposed the level of cruelty and mistreatment the whales at SeaWorld theme parks were suffering and the danger posed to humans because of it. Within a year afterwards, Alex Halberstadt of The New York Times Magazine wrote an article analyzing and discussing the mental and emotional states of animals kept in captivity. The killing of a silverback gorilla at a zoo later on in 2016 resulted in articles from both Time Magazine and The Atlantic. Time Magazine’s article took the stance that zoos and aquariums play a vital role in conservation efforts. The Atlantic’s article discussed the changes zoos and aquariums continue to make to better the lives of the animals in their care. While this argument appears to just be about animals in captivity it actually raises a deeper argument about the connection between knowledge and entertainment, and where the line should be drawn in the pursuit of both.

Zoos are Helpful for Animals Both Captive and Wild

In an article penned by Dr. Robin Ganzert, CEO of the American Humane Association, for Time Magazine, Ganzert points out that, while there are bad zoos and aquariums, “ethical institutions enrich and ultimately protect the lives of animals.”

The idea Ganzert provides to back up this claim is that by having animals in captivity humans can better study them. This allows for a better understanding of how animals behave, including how they socialize, communicate, and think. With that kind of knowledge, humans can use it to protect endangered species and make other strides for wildlife conservation while also adjusting how they care for said animals in captivity.

The argument against this particular claim is that the information gathered on how animals in captivity behave cannot accurately depict the lives of animals living in their natural habitats. For example, the documentary Blackfish points out that while there is no documentation of an orca whale ever attacking a human in the wild an orca at SeaWorld is responsible for the deaths of three people.

Captive Animals are Dangerous Animals

Tilikum

Blackfish centers itself on the 2010 incident in which Tilikum, an orca whale of approximately 12,500 pounds, attacked and killed Dawn Brancheau, an orca trainer, during an event at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida.

He’s not killing, because he’s a savage. He’s not killing, because he’s crazy or because he doesn’t know what he’s doing. He’s killing, because he’s frustrated and has aggravation. And when he’s… He has no outlet for it.

John Jett, Former SeaWorld Trainer (Blackfish)

Blackfish digs deep into Tilikum’s history. He was captured off the coast of Iceland at the age of 2 and separated from his family, and he went on to spend over 20 years in captivity. During that time, he sired 21 calves (10 of which are still alive), performed in shows to entertain paying crowds, lived in a tank not nearly large enough for him, and, most notably, was responsible for the deaths of 3 people.

As a documentary, Blackfish is able to reach a variety of different people; its accessiblity on platforms such as Netflix and YouTube allows it to appear in recommended settings for people that may have never considered looking for media about animals in captivity. Its balance of ethos and logos is shown off by interviews with SeaWorld trainers, marine animal experts, and a man who helped capture orcas for SeaWorld being its main source of information, but it does not lack in pathos. The documentary appeals to its audience mentally, but it also does so emotionally by mixing footage of orcas in SeaWorld and in the wild and encouraging the viewer to connect with Tilikum and the other orcas on an almost personal level. While SeaWorld is its main target, the documentary addresses the living conditions for animals in any captive environments and questions just how ethical it is to use animals for entertainment purposes.

Harambe

An animal does not just have to be extremely large to be dangerous, or to suffer the consequences of being danger. In 2016, the Cincinnati Zoo found itself at the center of a worldwide controversy regarding the death of their silverback gorilla, Harambe. The incident started when a 4-year-old boy crawled over the wall and into Harambe’s enclosure. Harambe grabbed the child and moved around his enclosure with said child in his grasp. In doing so, the child was at risk of being thrown against hard objects, held underwater, and injured in a variety of other ways. Zoo employees felt a tranquilizer would take too long to take effect, so they decided to shoot and kill Harambe.

The death of Harambe sparked widespread debate all over social media about animals in captivity and whether or not the existence of zoos, aquariums, and others businesses that have wild animals in captivity for entertainment purposes are ethical.

In the article, “Do We Need Zoos,” from The Atlantic, the pros and cons of zoos are weighed in a modern context, fueled by stories like Harambe and Tilikum’s, where the safety of both the animals and humans are considered to be at risk. J. Weston Phippen, the author of the article, acknowledges that, yes, zoos and similar establishments educate the general public about animals, give people an opportunity to see amazing creatures in person, and, in some cases, act as conservation centers to some degree.
However, Phippen also points out that animals suffer greatly in settings like zoos. Even if they are not being physically abused or neglected, being in captivity alone has a highly negative impact on the mental and emotional state of animals, often making them depressed, unusually aggressive, or both.

The article states that zoos and other establishments like it have the ability to change how they house and care for their animals drastically enough that they can maintain the positives that come with their business and lose the negatives. Phippen argues that an environment where wild animals are kept in cages, whether for entertainment, knowledge, or both, can never be ethical, but if humans were to create expansive enclosures where the animals have the freedom to move about as they would outside of captivity, are properly cared for, and the zoo patrons are seemingly more caged than the animals, then the establishment could perhaps be considered ethical.

Are There Others Like Tilikum and Harambe?

An article published in 2014 in New York Times Magazine addresses the psychology of animals in captivity and argues that animals in captivity can never truly be content. The article follows Dr. Vint Virga, a distinguished animal behaviorist and practitioner of veterinary medicine, through a morning at Roger Williams Park Zoo.

The article begins by citing a paper published in 2012, “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Human and Nonhuman Animals,” which asserts that mammals and some other types of animals do in fact think and feel. Therefore, they have emotional needs. Many of those needs, such as freedom, companionship, and ability to hunt and scavenge, cannot be properly met while the animals are in captivity. The evidence for this lies in the lives of animals currently in captivity. Virga introduces the writer to a range of animals, from a giraffe to birds to a red panda, all of which have difficulty living in captivity for reasons that would not affect them if they lived in the wild. Virga essentially states that the majority of what animals in captivity think and feel is negative.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

For all intents and purposes, establishments which hold animals in captivity do have benefits. They offer people the chance to see and appreciate exotic species of animals and allow research opportunities about wildlife and conservation. Dr. Ganzert’s articles is situated within this side of the argument. Whereas Blackfish and the New York Times Magazine article are on the other side of the debate. They believe that animals in captivity live unhappy and unhealthy lives, and they can even become dangerous to the humans around them. The article from The Atlantic sets itself in a place between the others; it appears that animals in captivity are not living the best lives they can, but there is hope that within time there will be a way to keep animals in captivity in a way that is both valuable and ethical. The argument here lies in a question about where the ethical line is drawn in the quest for knowledge, and while some sources believe animals in captivity does not cross this line, others do. It seems the only real answer here is to seek understanding and find the middle ground that gives animals happy and comfortable lives, provides an opportunity for research, education, and conservation initiatives, and also is a source of entertainment for guests. Whether or not this can exist, though, has yet to be discovered.

Works Cited

Cowperthwaite, Gabriela, director. Blackfish. CNN Films, 2013.

Ganzert, Dr. Robin. “Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals.” Time,
Time, 13 June 2016, time.com/4364671/zoos-improve-lives-of-animals/.

Halberstadt, Alex. “Zoo Animals and Their Discontents.” The New York Times, The New
York Times, 3 July 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/magazine/zoo
-animals-and-their-discontents.html.

Phippen, J. Weston. “Do We Need Zoos?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 3
June 2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/.