tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/seaworld-22480/articlesSeaWorld – The Conversation2021-06-21T15:41:42Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1617752021-06-21T15:41:42Z2021-06-21T15:41:42ZBlackfish: how captive killer whale documentary ended SeaWorld’s orca breeding programme<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407414/original/file-20210621-21-1b8xdi6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C1022%2C682&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tilikum, the orca who killed three trainers, was captured at the age of two and performed for most of his life.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_(killer_whale)#/media/File:Tilikum_(orca)_(Shamu).jpg">Milan Boers/Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2013, the documentary <a href="https://www.blackfishmovie.com/">Blackfish</a> reached nearly 21 million viewers within its first month of airing on CNN. The film tells the bleak story of Tilikum, a performing orca at the US marine park SeaWorld. </p>
<p>After being taken from his mother in the wild <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2329488419884139">at the age of two</a>, Tilikum was held in a tank at SeaLand Canada with two larger females who <a href="https://www.thedodo.com/tilileaks-exclusive-documents--639864949.html">routinely attacked him</a>. Together the three SeaLand orcas <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/26/world/americas/orca-trainer-tilikum-keiko/index.html">killed a trainer</a>, and Tilikum was transferred to SeaWorld in Orlando on <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/whales/seaworld/tilikum/nmfsltr.html#conditions">the understanding</a> that he should no longer perform. This advice was ignored, and Tilikum went on to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/28/seaworld-trainer-john-hargrove-killer-whale-treatment">kill two more people</a>, including trainer Dawn Brancheau at SeaWorld in Orlando in 2010.</p>
<p>Blackfish presented Tilikum’s aggression as symptomatic of post-traumatic stress, induced by a life in captivity. This contradicted SeaWorld’s claims that orcas <a href="https://www.bizcominthenews.com/files/seaworlds-response-to-blackfish-1.pdf">cooperated willingly</a> during each show. The documentary sparked a public outcry against orca captivity.</p>
<p>The hashtag #EmptyTheTanks spread on Twitter and viewers pressured artists into cancelling their shows at SeaWorld and demanded corporate sponsors such as SouthWest Airlines to drop their partnerships with the company. There were also protests outside the park, and in cities worldwide.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G93beiYiE74?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In the year following Blackfish’s release, SeaWorld’s attendance dropped by one million visitors. In 2014, the company announced a 84% fall in income and saw its share price drop by 33%. Although SeaWorld attributed this to “<a href="https://www.seaworldinvestors.com/news-releases/news-release-details/2015/SeaWorld-Entertainment-Inc-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2014-Results/default.aspx">the seasonal nature of the business</a>”, the <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-seaworld-tank-after-expose-in-blackfish-2013-11-07">media</a> largely blamed Blackfish. In September 2014, SeaWorld’s shareholders launched a lawsuit against the park, claiming it had <a href="https://nypost.com/2014/09/10/seaworld-sued-by-shareholders-over-blackfish-scandal/">misled investors</a> about the effect the documentary would have on its business. In February 2020 SeaWorld agreed to pay out $65m to settle lawsuit claims. </p>
<p>In 2016, SeaWorld announced the immediate end of its orca breeding programme, and in the same year, California passed a ban on captive orca breeding. Five years on, we conducted a <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10221">study</a> to find out just how influential Blackfish was in bringing about that decision.</p>
<h2>Blackfish’s impact</h2>
<p>The high number of viewers, social media engagement and press coverage indicate the documentary had a wide reach, but they cannot tell us the role that Blackfish actually played in changing SeaWorld’s policies compared to other factors. For this, we carried out an impact evaluation to disentangle the complex causes.</p>
<p>We used a method from conservation which attempts to understand why a <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.13218">species has recovered</a> in the wild. We compiled a list of 15 potentially important factors that could have led to the change in SeaWorld’s breeding policy and stock market drop, including competition from other marine or theme parks, economic factors that meant guests had less spending money, the 2015 change in SeaWorld’s leadership, and the effect of other media – like the 2015 book Beneath the Surface, written by a former SeaWorld trainer.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405024/original/file-20210608-28218-d81fst.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405024/original/file-20210608-28218-d81fst.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405024/original/file-20210608-28218-d81fst.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405024/original/file-20210608-28218-d81fst.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405024/original/file-20210608-28218-d81fst.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405024/original/file-20210608-28218-d81fst.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405024/original/file-20210608-28218-d81fst.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Timeline of key events pre- and post-release of Blackfish.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Laura Thomas-Walters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We interviewed 26 people with expertise in marine conservation, marine mammal training, zoo and aquarium collections, animal welfare and media communication. This included SeaWorld trainers, though SeaWorld’s leadership refused to take part. We asked them, based on their expert knowledge, whether they thought each of the 15 factors may have affected SeaWorld, and how. We then looked for corroborating evidence.</p>
<p>After eliminating less plausible explanations, our analysis indicated that the negative publicity resulting from Blackfish changed how people viewed orca captivity, and this, rather than a seasonal variation in guest numbers led to a drop in SeaWorld’s visitors and market value. This became particularly clear when we compared SeaWorld’s stock market value over the same period to other amusement parks, such as Disneyland and Universal Studios.</p>
<p>Interviewees identified several reasons why Blackfish had such an impact. The support from major distribution channels like CNN lent credibility to the documentary and allowed it to reach a large audience. As one former employee of SeaWorld said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Having that movie picked up by CNN gave it credence [and] made people think…this isn’t just a propaganda piece. This is news.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Blackfish also made viewers empathise with Tilikum. One media communication expert screened Blackfish with her students and described its impact:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They get really emotional, very sad or very angry but quite a strong emotional reaction.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The testimonies of the diverse range of experts we interviewed suggested that viewers felt SeaWorld had been dishonest and reckless. As one animal welfare campaigner put it: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It just really offended people that they’ve been lied to for so long… A very severe blow to a company that relies on the goodwill of the public.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The company’s dismissal of Blackfish as <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20140122131934/http://seaworld.com/en/truth/truth-about-blackfish/">propaganda</a> did not help either. One person who worked in the aquarium industry said SeaWorld had been “incredibly slow to anticipate the fallout.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404911/original/file-20210607-27-ddhdvq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/404911/original/file-20210607-27-ddhdvq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=812&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404911/original/file-20210607-27-ddhdvq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=812&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404911/original/file-20210607-27-ddhdvq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=812&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404911/original/file-20210607-27-ddhdvq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404911/original/file-20210607-27-ddhdvq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/404911/original/file-20210607-27-ddhdvq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1020&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Overall theory of change depicting the impacts of Blackfish, including the contributing drivers that explain how Blackfish came to be so influential. The thick outlines show the original intervention (Blackfish) and outcomes of interest in the study.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Laura Thomas-Walters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But our study also made clear that the timing of Blackfish’s release was vital. Various filmed and written works released prior to Blackfish, such as the 2009 documentary The Cove, had slowly influenced public attitudes towards marine mammal welfare and rights. </p>
<p>Blackfish benefited from a perfect storm, building upon decades of animal welfare and animal rights activism against marine mammal captivity. </p>
<p>By exploiting that and creating an emotional bond with viewers through the plight of Tilikum, Blackfish achieved what researchers have so far only speculated about when it comes to the potential of documentaries – sparking widespread activism and, ultimately, change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161775/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Thomas-Walters conducted this research with Laure Boissat, which formed part of Boissat's Master’s in Biodiversity Conservation and Management at the University of Oxford. Boissat went on to work for World Animal Protection.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Diogo Veríssimo has consulted for several zoological parks in the US and UK.</span></em></p>Blackfish struck an emotional chord over the plight of a traumatised performing whale, prompting real change.Laura Thomas-Walters, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of StirlingDiogo Veríssimo, Research Fellow in Conservation Marketing, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/900592018-01-17T13:59:59Z2018-01-17T13:59:59ZWhy boycotting the Daily Mail is a complicated business<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202099/original/file-20180116-53324-mw75xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">h</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Boycotts are nothing new. Businesses, countries and individuals have been ostracised as a means of protest for a long time. It was the 19th century shunning of land agent <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Cunningham-Boycott">Captain Charles Boycott</a> by his neighbours in Ireland which gave us the word. But in today’s highly connected world, boycotts can be organised much more quickly – and be much wider ranging in their targets. </p>
<p>Should we be worried about this? Or is it a sign of an emerging democratic process to bring about a better society? And what about the effects on businesses? Do boycotts fundamentally threaten their hold on consumer markets? </p>
<p>The essence of a boycott is to put collective action ahead of individual preference. You might think: “I prefer to buy my clothes from H&M, but I will forgo my personal benefit in support of a collective action against that company. I will shop somewhere else.”</p>
<p>This is the thought process (and follow up action) consumers go through for a boycott to become effective. But it is not always this straightforward. </p>
<p>For example, those advocating a boycott may have a certain ideological disposition. But if they do not actually consume the product to be boycotted, there will be no immediate loss to the seller. </p>
<p>How many individuals proposing a boycott of the Daily Mail newspaper actually ever pay to read it, and in turn expose themselves to the adverts companies place within its pages? We might suspect that Daily Mail boycotts are led by those on the left wing of politics. So the most likely answer is that the right wing Mail will not lose many readers, or its advertisers lose many potential customers. </p>
<p>Boycotts are more likely to succeed where they appeal to widely shared public concerns. For example, a boycott of SeaWorld by animal rights activists was credited with a 7% <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/04/seaworld-shares-sink-record-low-attendance-falling">fall in admissions to the attraction</a>. </p>
<p>Recent opinion against the Daily Mail has been mobilised, most notably through the group <a href="http://stopfundinghate.org.uk/">Stop Funding Hate</a>. This group seeks to reduce companies’ advertising spending in British newspapers which it alleges promote social division. Without advertising revenue, the theory goes, boycotted newspapers will be weakened as outlets for communicating messages which sow the seeds of divisions within society. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"950693035662245889"}"></div></p>
<p>But that highlights another problem for modern day boycotts in a social media dominated world. Many people actually <em>have</em> attitudes which others consider to be divisive. </p>
<p>In the echo chamber of the media we choose to consume, we tune into those news sources which confirm our existing beliefs and prejudices. We shut out those channels which challenge them. UK national newspapers have always appealed to groups based on their attitudes and values. Ask a British person to name their preferred newspaper, and you will already have a good idea of their attitudes and values. Millions of people choose to read the Daily Mail.</p>
<p>And despite the deep pockets of the Mail, it is unlikely that commercial interests will be completely subservient to political evangelising. Yes, the paper has political views, but it is also business savvy. Poor business weakens its political platform. </p>
<p>So the Mail’s chosen political position might appeal to a significant segment of consumers, and not to others. Along the way, it will inevitably lose some advertisers, with <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lego-ends-advertising-daily-mail-stop-funding-hate-campaign-a7413361.html">Lego</a> and <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/02/17/the-body-shop-ceases-advertising-with-daily-mail-owing-clash-editorial-stance">Body Shop</a> publicly severing ties. Virgin Trains announced it would no longer stock the paper, and then <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42687568">reversed the decision</a> a few days later.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"952820229377228801"}"></div></p>
<p>Some of these battles may have been based on good analysis of cost effectiveness, and nothing to do with political views. But an advertiser could gain added kudos on the way out if it cites the greater social good as the reason for pulling adverts. </p>
<h2>Preaching to the choir?</h2>
<p>In an intensely measured and monitored media world, this would seem to be a no-cost win for advertisers. But publicly pulling advertising can also harm advertisers. The retailer Paperchase thought it was doing the right thing by apologising for its dealings with the Mail, again citing differences in values between the company and the newspaper. Yet this was not a clear win for its brand equity. Some <a href="https://order-order.com/2017/11/20/paperchase-faces-backlash-bowing-anti-press-freedom-cranks/">prominent commentators responded</a> by proposing a boycott of Paperchase for caving in to pressure from an alleged small group of individuals, and thereby threatening free speech.</p>
<p>The American John Wanamaker, an early pioneer of marketing is believed to have once commented: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The trouble is I don’t know which half.”</p>
<p>Today, in theory, consumer tracking technology has hugely increased companies’ abilities to assess the effectiveness of their media activity. But changing the attitudes of people who never buy from you and probably never will won’t make much difference to the bottom line. Appealing to core customers will. </p>
<p>While complex theoretical approaches may help to examine the direct and indirect consequences of boycotts, there will still be uncertainty. And a boycott may simply strengthen the resolve of those you are trying to shun.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90059/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Palmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Boycotts can bring backlashes – and back tracking.Adrian Palmer, Professor of Marketing, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565272016-03-22T09:51:57Z2016-03-22T09:51:57ZWill the end of breeding orcas at SeaWorld change much for animals in captivity?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115826/original/image-20160321-30908-1yx0ww2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No more breeding, but still on exhibit.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OrcaShow_SeaWorld_3.jpg">Business Navigatoren</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When SeaWorld announced it would <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0317-manby-sea-world-orca-breeding-20160317-story.html">stop breeding orcas</a> and begin to phase out “theatrical performances” using the animals, the news appeared to mark a significant change in ideas about animals and captivity.</p>
<p>Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and Joel Manby, CEO of SeaWorld, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/03/17/470861233/seaworld-to-end-orca-breeding-program-in-partnership-with-humane-society">promoted their new partnership</a> in interviews. After a long history of mutual recrimination, the two organizations say they’ll work together to provide needed support for wild marine creatures in distress and to improve the circumstances of currently captive orcas in the U.S. As SeaWorld’s Manby put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s clear to me that society is shifting. People’s view to have these beautiful, majestic animals under human care – people are more and more uncomfortable with that. And no matter what side you are on this issue, it’s clear that that’s shifting, and we need to shift with that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If there is indeed a shift going on, it seems to be more in the rhetoric of the animal exhibition industries than in public comfort (or discomfort) with seeing large animals in captivity.</p>
<h2>Changing with the times…</h2>
<p>For anyone interested in the history of exhibiting exotic animals, the news that people’s expectations have changed and that zoological gardens, aquariums and circuses are responsive to those changes can’t help but illicit a little cynicism.</p>
<p>The SeaWorld/HSUS announcement echoes news from last year that Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus decided to phase out elephant performances and retire the animals to a state-of-the-art sanctuary. In both cases, the companies were clearly facing growing public criticism damaging their bottom lines. They appear to have made business decisions to protect their brands and refocus the public’s attention on what they describe as more critical core missions. </p>
<p>At the same time, both announcements were framed as having resulted from the recognition that the times have changed – “that society is shifting” – and that change is making circumstances better for animals in captivity. This claim reaches far beyond charismatic whales and elephants and is deployed for all kinds of new policies and exhibits.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OoqgrupfD5k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Zoological Society of London’s advertisement for ‘Land of the Lions.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Later this month, for example, the London Zoo will open its “breath-taking” newest exhibit, “<a href="https://www.zsl.org/zsl-london-zoo/exhibits/land-of-the-lions">Land of the Lions</a>,” featuring “thrilling, immersive Indian-themed areas to explore – including a train station, crumbling temple clearing, high street and guard hut.” The exhibit is described as an “interactive adventure,” through which visitors will “get closer than ever before to mighty Asiatic lions.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h_iiE73nJDc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth opens ‘Land of the Lions.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As remarkable as this exhibit sounds, a video of the queen officially opening the exhibit shows a fairly unsurprising couple of female lions “activated” by having food dispersed in a relatively small exhibit with wire fencing. </p>
<h2>But the times have been changing for a while</h2>
<p>I’m not sure whether the queen felt transported to India in visiting this exhibit. What is clear, though, is that the zoo wants us to believe that this exhibit is something entirely novel. This sort of claim is very old, indeed.</p>
<p>Even in 1869, for example, almost 150 years ago, an editorial appeared in the <em>Daily News</em> of London describing a proposed new lion house for this same zoo. Pointing to a history of “dismal menagerie cages,” the <a href="http://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB000014698/">article heralded a new vision</a> of “displaying lions and tigers, in what may be called by comparison a state of nature” and the public can look forward to seeing “lions at play, free as their own jungle home; tigers crouching, springing, gamboling, with as little restraint as the low plains of their native India.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115923/original/image-20160321-32315-1ik4kt2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A late 19th-century vision of a zoological park of the future.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">From Nigel Rothfels' Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ever since public zoos began to be built in the 19th century, there’s been a consistent rhetorical pattern behind any proposed new zoo or aquarium or exhibit. </p>
<p>The argument typically runs something like this: whereas in the past our exhibits have been disappointing, uninspiring and small, our new exhibit will finally make it seem like the animals are not in captivity. As importantly, the animals themselves will also finally be happy.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, almost all of these new exhibits turn out to be somehow less than was envisioned, less than was hoped…simply less. </p>
<p>This is <em>not</em> to say that exhibits haven’t in fact gotten better. Exhibited animals are in general better cared for and healthier in all ways than they used to be. </p>
<p>Each generation of exhibits does tend to improve on what came before; elephant exhibits being built at the more ambitious zoos of today, like the Oregon Zoo’s “<a href="http://www.oregonzoo.org/discover/new-zoo/elephant-lands">Elephant Lands</a>,” for example, have typically radically improved the conditions for the animals, keepers and the visiting public. And these changes have been pushed by public concerns along with the ambitions of designers and directors to provide better circumstances for the animals. </p>
<p>But all that doesn’t alter the fact of captivity. And that fact will, as best as I can tell, continue to undermine whatever rhetorical gestures may be made declaring a new day for animals and people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56527/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Rothfels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The history of displaying exotic animals seems to be one of evolving public expectations about what constitutes acceptable conditions. Is it a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same?Nigel Rothfels, Director of the Office of Undergraduate Research, University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/504822015-11-11T16:44:03Z2015-11-11T16:44:03ZAre some species just too wild for a happy life in captivity?<p>SeaWorld in California has announced that it will be <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34773179">phasing out killer whale shows</a> from 2017. The move comes in response to public criticism over the treatment of the whales, heavily influenced by the documentary <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/blackfish/seaworld-orca-whales-finding-dory/">Blackfish</a>.</p>
<p>Concern over the welfare of captive killer whales raises a much broader question of whether there are animal species that should never be kept in captivity. Many people are concerned about apes and elephants, for instance, because they have highly developed cognitive abilities such as <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/metcalfe/PDFs/Metcalfe%26Son_Autonoetic.pdf">autonoetic consciousness</a> – the ability to see their life as a continuous story.</p>
<p>Back in the 1990s the <a href="http://www.projetogap.org.br/en/">Great Ape Project</a> set about trying to give apes equivalent rights to humans, which would technically mean that they could not be held in captivity as this would count as unlawful imprisonment. In recent years a number of court cases have attempted to have apes and other species classified as non-human persons under the law. </p>
<p>If a judge accepted this proposition then an animal could be given <em>locus standi</em> meaning that its rights could be represented in a court of law in much the same way as a child can be represented by a lawyer. This happened in Argentina in 2014, when a judge ruled that an orangutan called Sandra at Buenos Aires Zoo was being <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/11307205/Sandra-the-orangutan-granted-limited-human-rights.html">unlawfully deprived of her freedom</a>. After legal appeals, Sandra will now be sent to an <a href="http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/famed-orangutan-sandra-gets-a-new-home-151002.htm">animal sanctuary in Brazil</a>.</p>
<p>So how can we decide if a species should ever be kept in captivity? Philosophers would first apply the “basic needs test”, which questions whether all of the animal’s physiological needs for survival are being provided. That is: does the animal have enough food, water and the correct kind of shelter? All zoos around the world should be meeting this need; if they don’t, their animals would die. </p>
<p>Of course there may be species in the wild whose basic needs are not sufficiently well known for this test to be passed. No mountain gorillas have ever been <a href="http://igcp.org/gorillas/faq/">kept successfully in captivity</a>, for instance, perhaps due to the problems of providing them with an adequate diet and climate.</p>
<p>Equally just because a species can potentially be kept comfortably in captivity doesn’t mean they should be, especially when <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/25/worlds-leading-zoo-association-overlooked-horrific-cruelty-to-animals">badly-run zoos</a> or negligent owners are involved. This leads us onto the second test that philosophers would apply, called the “comparable life test” – is the life of an animal in captivity at least as good as it would experience in its natural habitat? </p>
<p>This test is much more difficult to measure because here we are also concerned with the animal’s psychological well-being and so cannot use simple measures such as longevity or reproductive output. Some species, such as elephants, have much shorter lives in captivity, whereas chimpanzees live much longer. Tigers will breed under the most appalling of animal welfare conditions, so much so that they can be farmed, whereas gorillas are very sensitive to their conditions. </p>
<p>Animal welfare is a notoriously difficult thing to measure because it varies not only species by species, but individual by individual. This comparable life test is further complicated by the fact that the wild environment is a place where animals suffer from hunger, thirst, disease and social pressure to name but a few negative aspects.</p>
<p>Presently the keeping of wild animals in captivity in the UK, <a href="http://www.aspcapro.org/resource/shelter-health-animal-care/five-freedoms">the US</a> and many other countries around the world adheres to the concept of the <a href="https://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlblob&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=RSPCABlob&blobwhere=1210683196122">five freedoms</a>:</p>
<p>• Freedom from fear and distress.</p>
<p>• Freedom from hunger and thirst.</p>
<p>• Freedom from thermal and physical discomfort.</p>
<p>• Freedom to express natural patterns of behaviour.</p>
<p>• Freedom from pain, injury and disease.</p>
<p>Clearly many wild animals don’t experience these freedoms so it could be argued that, on these terms, captivity is better than the wild for some species. Animals themselves might occasionally agree: take the female southern tamandua, or collared anteater, at Belo Horizonte Zoo in Brazil that on several occasions escaped from its enclosure to find a mate in the local forest and then once pregnant <a href="https://theconversation.com/domestic-cat-or-lost-lynx-on-the-trail-of-the-paris-tiger-34255">returned to the zoo</a> to raise its offspring. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101462/original/image-20151110-21195-x7l76f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101462/original/image-20151110-21195-x7l76f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=930&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101462/original/image-20151110-21195-x7l76f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=930&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101462/original/image-20151110-21195-x7l76f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=930&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101462/original/image-20151110-21195-x7l76f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1168&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101462/original/image-20151110-21195-x7l76f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1168&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101462/original/image-20151110-21195-x7l76f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1168&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Did somebody say ‘lion’?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/learnscope/10154326653/">Robyn Jay</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The freedom to express natural patterns of behaviour is normally the most impinged in captivity, but scientists still debate its importance. Is a captive giraffe that does not spend its days looking out for hungry lions necessarily suffering? No. Whereas a captive chimpanzee with no opportunity to groom and be groomed will clearly suffer. Again there is no simple answer in terms of animal welfare.</p>
<p>The principal question for me is whether a species can be kept in captivity without significant psychological suffering. If science can prove the answer to this question is “no” then the animal should never be kept in captivity. </p>
<p>However, what if the species was threatened with imminent extinction in the wild – should we take the remaining individuals into captivity? This was done with the <a href="http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22697636/0">Californian condor</a> to take part in a captive breeding programme for future reintroduction, and the species was saved with hundreds of individuals now back in their natural habitat. Or perhaps we should allow the last representatives of the species to go extinct – leaving them to an unpleasant death in the wild.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50482/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert John Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>No one wants animals to suffer, but it is notoriously difficult to measure their welfare.Robert John Young, Professor of Wildlife Conservation, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/504942015-11-11T13:50:33Z2015-11-11T13:50:33ZBlackfish: proof that documentary can be a powerful force for change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101562/original/image-20151111-21228-a57myl.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dogwoof</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s a rare and precious thing when a documentary changes some small part of the world for the better. And such rarity tells us a great deal about how heavily are the odds usually stacked against documentary – not just as a campaigning tool for change but as a purveyor of disruptive and inconvenient stories. </p>
<p>Take 2013 documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545118/">Blackfish</a>, for example. This feature-length film about a trainer’s death caused by a captive killer whale at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida, placed the plight of captive orcas in the spotlight. It was the lightning rod for an animal rights campaign that could suddenly call upon celebrities such as Matt Damon, Harry Styles and Willie Nelson to condemn what animal welfare pressure group PETA has <a href="http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/seaworld-must-end-captivity-not-just-circus-style-shows/">called</a> a “tawdry circus”.</p>
<p>The public’s appetite for seeing captive orcas does appear to be waning. Since the documentary’s release, SeaWorld visitor numbers, share price and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/06/seaworld-profits-plunge-customers">profits have fallen</a> and the park recently <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34773179">announced</a> that it will end killer whale shows at its San Diego venue. </p>
<p>Revealing the new strategy, SeaWorld’s chief executive Joel Manby said: “We are listening to our guests, evolving as a company, we are always changing. In 2017 we will launch an all new orca experience focused on natural environment [of whales].”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101549/original/image-20151111-21232-m5r04q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101549/original/image-20151111-21232-m5r04q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101549/original/image-20151111-21232-m5r04q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101549/original/image-20151111-21232-m5r04q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101549/original/image-20151111-21232-m5r04q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101549/original/image-20151111-21232-m5r04q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101549/original/image-20151111-21232-m5r04q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Orca in the wild.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dogwoof</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s film tells in chilling and sometimes graphic detail the story of the death, in 2010, of Dawn Brancheau, a 40-year-old animal trainer. She was dragged under water and drowned by Tilikum, a killer whale and the main visitor attraction at the SeaWorld theme park in Orlando, Florida. Tilikum had killed before: in 1991, another trainer, Keltie Byrne, at the now-closed Sealand of the Pacific in British Columbia, Canada; and in 1999, Daniel Dukes, a drifter just out of jail who’d sneaked into Tilikum’s SeaWorld enclosure and was discovered the next day hanging drowned and butchered across the whale’s back.</p>
<p>Blackfish was controversial from the moment it debuted at the <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/blackfish-sundance-review-414203">2013 Sundance Film Festival</a>. Quickly picked up for theatrical distribution in the US, the documentary attracted overwhelmingly positive reviews. Its story of dual tragedy – human and captive whale – was elegantly structured and told without recourse to sensationalism. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101558/original/image-20151111-21184-ja2ufc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101558/original/image-20151111-21184-ja2ufc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101558/original/image-20151111-21184-ja2ufc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101558/original/image-20151111-21184-ja2ufc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101558/original/image-20151111-21184-ja2ufc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101558/original/image-20151111-21184-ja2ufc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101558/original/image-20151111-21184-ja2ufc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">SeaWorld’s fun.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dogwoof</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>SeaWorld, for its part, accused it of distortion and misrepresentation. A company-run website called <a href="http://seaworldcares.com/the-facts/truth-about-blackfish/">SeaWorld Cares</a>, was set up to demonstrate why the film is “propaganda, not a documentary”. A poll run by a local Orlando newspaper asked: “Has … Blackfish … changed your perception of SeaWorld?” Of the 99% voting no, more than half were cast from <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/03/tech/web/sea-world-blackfish-poll/">a single IP address sourced to SeaWorld</a>. Criticisms of the film from SeaWorld employees also appeared at a time when the film was being strongly tipped for a documentary Oscar. It made the shortlist but missed out on a nomination.</p>
<p>It’s remarkable that a documentary should have made an impact as great as this. All the more so when you consider that the film was made with the slimmest of production budgets: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/seaworld-blackfish-pr-profits-share-prices">$76,000</a>. While it bears the imprimatur of CNN – the news organisation (along with Magnolia Pictures) picked up the film for distribution after its Sundance screening – CNN did not pay for it to be made.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G93beiYiE74?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But there are bigger obstacles that all documentaries have to overcome to be seen and heard by more than a tiny minority. Broadcasters rarely invest in them. If they do, they place heavy restrictions on them. In the US, for example, the Discovery Channel bought the TV rights to Alex Gibney’s Oscar-winning <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/">Taxi to the Dark Side</a> and then <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2008/02/08/19443/gibney-taxi-discovery/">announced</a> that the film was “too controversial” to show (HBO later bought the rights). Film distributors can prove similarly difficult. This year, Amir Amirani’s excellent <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1929449/">We Are Many</a>, about the cascading consequences of the 2003 anti-war marches, has struggled to gain the exhibition it deserves.</p>
<p>In particular, it’s notable how common the tactic of labelling documentary as “propaganda” is an accusation that trumps all else because it preemptively renders corrupt the motives of the filmmakers. There are other recalcitrant gatekeepers and influencers too, including, I’m sorry to say, academics who study and write about documentary: academic writing in this area rarely ventures into comment or analysis on this kind of thing, particularly in modern-day, big-business counterattacks.</p>
<p>For all the claims that films such as Blackfish are evidence that we are in a “golden age” of documentary, they are fragile things indeed, easily blown into obscurity or silenced by the sheer weight of corporate power. Gabriela Cowperthwaite may have attracted many who otherwise might not have thought much about the rights of killer whales. Documentary needs advocates to stand up for what, as Blackfish has shown, can be a powerful form of journalism capable of bringing about change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hickman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Documentaries are fragile things, easily blown into obscurity or silenced by the sheer weight of corporate power.David Hickman, Senior Lecturer in Film & Television Production, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.