Response to Blackfish: A Case for SeaWorld
Earlier this week, CNN aired a documentary entitled Blackfish, which seemingly traces the history of captive orca whales—commonly known as killer whales. Although the documentary raised some interesting points about whether holding orca whales in captivity is cruel, the documentary was really nothing more than a criticism of SeaWorld. The documentary culminated around the death of Dawn Brancheau, an experienced SeaWorld whale trainer, by SeaWorld’s largest orca whale, Tilikum, in order to promote a one-sided spin that SeaWorld trainers should neither be allowed to interact with orca whales, nor should orca whales be kept in zoological settings. This article aims to address some of the public policy issues surrounding trainer interaction with orca whales and the maintenance of orca whales in zoological settings.
Many people see SeaWorld as a theme park whose main mission is entertainment, however, this perspective is misguided. First and foremost, SeaWorld is the world’s most respected zoological institution and the global leader in “ marine mammal veterinary care, husbandry, training, and welfare.” SeaWorld’s mission is to “ inspire guests through education and up-close experiences to care for, and protect, marine mammals.” SeaWorld’s scientific research and conservation efforts are predominantly accomplished through maintaining orca whales in zoological settings and physical trainer interaction with the whales.
Nevertheless, after the tragic death of Dawn Brancheau in 2010, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) claimed that trainers’ interaction with orca whales presented a “recognized hazard” that breached the OSH Act’s general duty clause to “furnish . . . employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to . . . employees.” However, the workplace need not be entirely risk free; the risk must only be feasibly reduced. OSHRC never denied that SeaWorld complied with all relevant industry guidelines and requirements for the care and display of orca whales.
In fact, SeaWorld used a scientifically proven method—operant conditioning— for years to reinforce the orca whales’ positive behavior and minimize the whales’ undesired behavior. This type of conditioning renders whales’ behavior extremely predictable, allowing trainers to maintain close contact. Additionally, SeaWorld has whale-specific protocols, and requires daily behavior records of each whale, allowing trainers to detect any type of abnormal behavior. SeaWorld has extensive emergency procedures for unexpected whale behaviors, and each SeaWorld trainer must have a minimum of three years experience before he or she may direct a whale’s behavior and four years experience in an apprenticeship program before getting in the water with orca whales.
Notwithstanding SeaWorld’s best efforts, a judge ruled in favor of OSHRC disallowing SeaWorld trainers to come into contact with the whales during a performance show without being protected by a physical barrier, but still allowing trainer contact for purposes of husbandry and veterinary care. In essence, trainers’ interaction with orca whales for the purposes of performing a show was a recognized hazard. The judge’s line of reasoning could extend to consider almost any professional entertainment or-sport a recognized hazard, including professional football, boxing, or even NASCAR racing. Naturally, it is understood that serious injury may result from contact sports or high-speed car races. Should we ban these types of activities as well? No. There is almost always risk inherent with any activity, such as driving a car or even owning a pet. This ruling should not stand.
Over the course of SeaWorld’s 50-year existence, there have been millions of trainer-whale interactions with only approximately a dozen interactions resulting in some type of injury, and (only one of which resulted in death). This means that the likelihood of injury relating during a trainer-whale interaction is roughly .0012%. There should remain the principal of assumption-of-risk and a balancing of the risks and utilities associated with the activity. The residual risk of interacting with an orca whale is open and obvious to those who become whale trainers. If the trainer consciously chooses to work with the whales in light of that risk, they are assuming the risk. Trainers are making an autonomous decision that the risk of serious injury is outweighed by the utility of interacting with the whale. That decision should not have been taken away when SeaWorld took all reasonable measures to reduce the risk of injury as much as was practicable.
Furthermore, there is quite a bit of social utility in allowing this type of trainer-whale interaction. It offers the public the opportunity to observe this type of interaction that would otherwise be unfeasible. It provides an educational experience for the public to better understand orca whales and SeaWorld’s care of them. Viewing this type of interaction also satisfies the general human desire to know, and interact with, the natural world. Guests have repeatedly written that watching trainers’ touch and direct whales’ behavior has inspired and “changed them.” Additionally, SeaWorld argues that trainer-whale interaction in the context of training for and performing shows, is necessary for the health and well being of the whales. Trainers are better able to interpret and anticipate whales’ behavior and are the only people from whom the whales will take direction. Orcas cannot be anesthetized, so SeaWorld veterinarians largely depend on trainers to alert them to any signs of illness or injury. Allowing trainers to interact with the whales increases the predictability of whale behavior, helping to alleviate any unforeseeable behavior when the whales are receiving veterinary care.
The death of Dawn Brancheau was truly a tragedy; however, public policy demands that hindsight bias is should be avoided at all costs. Given the extremely low chance of injury occurring during trainer-whale interactions and the high social and educational utility in allowing this type of interaction, it is in the best interests of the public to allow the continuation of trainer-whale interactions at SeaWorld.
This is a terribly disappointing article with mistakes galore and reads more like a public relations press release for SeaWorld than a serious look at the issues. For instance: Paragraph 2 calls SeaWorld “the world’s most respected zoological institution,” etc. The author is quoting SeaWorld and appears to be doing the same thing throughout the article which is scientifically and ethically uninformed and not reality based.
This article was written by Seaworld for Seaworld. They are obviously stepping up their propaganda effort with counter-blogs and other articles to try and sway people away from what should be correct ethical and moral choice – not to allow any intelligent creatures to remain in captivity in order to entertain us with stupid tricks doing things that are totally anti natural.
You are quoting SeaWorld to prove your point about SeaWorld. That’s circular. SeaWorld is a commercial, for-profit enterprise. There’s nothing wrong with that conceptually, of course, but it seems a given that the primary mission of any publicly traded business is to satisfy its obligations to its shareholders. SeaWorld does so via entertainment. Caring for its animal collections is clearly a major factor in its success, but in the end, if the economic cost-benefit balance favors compromising animal welfare to maximize profit, and relevant laws allow it, then that’s what the company will do. This is only logical.
SeaWorld claims that captive orca behavior is “extremely predictable.” From a biological standpoint, this claim is flawed. That’s like saying that human behavior is extremely predictable, but the spectrum of human behavior is very broad and its utter unpredictability is easily demonstrated. In addition, even “predictable” people make poor decisions and mistakes all the time.
All an orca has to do is decide to go off behavior and a trainer may be injured or killed – only machines are “extremely predictable.” Orcas are thinking personalities, not machines. Therefore there is only so much predicting that can be done. SeaWorld’s over-reliance on – its arrogance about – being able to predict orca behavior was a major factor in the judge’s decision to uphold OSHA’s original citation.
In boxing and racing, the individuals who take the risks are independent contractors or self-employed – the OSH Act does not apply. With football, a fantastic amount of protective equipment is now required. It is true that OSHA cannot require abatement that interferes with the ability to play football. So the protective equipment continues to be improved and added to, but the action on the field goes on. At SeaWorld, OSHA cannot stop the show. However, it can require “protected contact” – a term of art in the zoo and aquarium world – to abate the recognized hazard posed by close contact with orcas. Protected contact is required for elephants now (due to handler injuries and deaths) – it needs now to be required for orcas.
As for the likelihood of injury or death, there have been at least 24 or 25 interactions with captive orcas (at various marine theme parks) that have resulted in serious injury (requiring hospitalization). “Some kind of injury” where hospitalization was not needed has occurred in probably dozens more. There have been more than 100 potentially injurious interactions at SeaWorld parks alone. And finally, there have been THREE trainer deaths – only one at a SeaWorld park, but another at a park under SeaWorld supervision (and by a SeaWorld whale) and another at a park that closed 21 years ago.
When you actually look at the number of individual whales who have been involved in these dozens of negative interactions, it comes out to at least two dozen different whales. That is, more than 10% of all the orcas ever held in captivity anywhere have been involved in at least one negative interaction (minor to serious injury/death of trainer). Just looking at SeaWorld whales, it’s more like 25%. So if orcas were machines, they experience a double digit failure rate. That’s more than enough for a factory recall.
The factory workers who were routinely injured in the packing companies in Upton Sinclair’s day knew the risks too, but they needed a job, so they ignored them. The OSH Act arose from their dilemma. With orca trainers, they take the job and keep it because they love the whales. This devotion to their charges should not result in facing a risk in the workplace that is abatable.
You base your conclusion that SeaWorld took all reasonable measures to abate the hazard on SeaWorld’s own claim that it did. That is not sufficient – obviously a vast majority of employers will disagree with an OSHA citation. OSHA came to a different conclusion. The question is what would any objective person reviewing the evidence conclude? That’s what the judge represented and now we’ll see what the appeals court says. But just because SeaWorld says it doesn’t make it true.
SeaWorld argued in court that being in the water with the whales was necessary for the animals’ health and well-being and THEN testified, in complete contradiction, that the health and well-being of the five drywork-only whales already in their collection before Dawn Brancheau died were not compromised in any way.
They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
To be fair, SeaWorld does some great things in terms of taking in injured and sick sea life that washes up on Florida’s beaches, saving them, and rehabilitating them so that they can be released back into the wild. They Do Really Great Things in that regard.
However, the entertainment side is a different operation and works on profit. The last time we went to SeaWorld for the entertainment part we found that the scripted and programmed animal shows weren’t all that much fun. Also, several of the other attractions were closed and locked up tight for no apparent reason. The best thing, at least at first, was watching below surface through Plexiglas as a big walrus swam the same route in a little tank over and over and over again. After a minute or so I felt sorry for that walrus. Not going back.
Power on, Mahalia!
Glad to see a logical response. It is tiring to see how easily people are manipulated by their emotions. The fact is, there are millions of trainer whale direct contact interactions and miniscule serious problems. This whole issue demonstrates how emotion trumps logic when people don’t think carefully.
For example, our chances of being murdered by a known human are far greater than a trainer getting hurt by a killer whale. Are we going to outlaw direct contact with other people? The chance of a Sea World trainer getting killed in a car accident is a greater risk than dying by animal event. And if we let racers, boxers, policemen and firemen choose a risky working conditions, why do we not allow trainers to make similar choices?
I have been working in direct contact with animals for over 40 years and am very happy there was no one to protect me from them by forbidding direct contact. Yes, there are risks, but the risks are reasonably manageable. Let’s take safety precautions, work carefully and proceed, logically, to continue to work in close collaboration with our animal partners. We all benefit.
The same whale that killed Dawn Brancheau previously killed two other people. And saying “it is in the best interests of the public to allow the continuation of trainer-whale interactions at SeaWorld” clearly shows the bias of the writer in favor of a profit making entity as opposed to the well being of the whales, which, after all, is what the documentary Blackfish advocates for.
Your information is incorrect, Julie Core. And the risk for Sea World orca trainers is less than the risk for many other daily activities, including driving. Perspective needed here.
MY concern is for the orcas and dolphins that have NO choice. And what information is incorrect?
I repeat, your information is not correct. And distracting us with another claim does not change the fact that your facts don’t check out. Readers beware.
It is up to others to check out what they read. I do, and you are giving incorrect information.
Here is something else. You are projecting your ideology onto whales and trainers. You are making judgments. You have no first hand knowledge of this subject. If you do the research, you will find plenty of examples where the animals show that they (repeatedly) choose captivity. Here is one: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9343538/#.UuBAJxAo6Hs
There is a reason that zoos are the most popular family venue. I have seen that we love animals and we naturally are fascinated by them. And, they are fascinated by us as well. Once experienced in captivity, they often choose to return. Wild conditions seem to be vastly overrated by ideologues. In reality, many of us humans choose public transportation, a car, an apartment, and a refrigerator over a hut in the amazon and a life plagued with parasites, heat, predators, and other life threatening challenges. Do you live in the wilderness? Why do you think an animal would prefer such hardship?
It may be that you are telling yourself a post hoc story. A little research ( Katrina dolphins, Andre the Seal, the Navy’s attempts to retire its marine mammals to the wild, to name three off the top of my head) and you will see that your arguments don’t seem based in reality. Animals who have human friends often prefer to keep those friendships, and live a more sheltered life. You claim the orcas have no choice. But you don’t propose to ask them what their choice would be. You simply presume to choose for them, in the direction of your personal ideology. So you are not about freedom, you are about imposing a return to the wild, no matter the dangers, shortages and needs to help people and animals connect more directly.
I don’t want your form of kindness. I don’t want to be thrown into the wilderness some where, so I can gratify your projections of naturalness. And if you think it is so good, go try it and report back here.
My information is 100% accurate. It’s a matter of public record. Additionally Sea World continues to try to do end runs around the law preventing import of wild caught cetaceans. To wit, their appeal to the ruling denying the import of 8 wild caught belugas by the Georgia Aquarium, which is ongoing today, 1/15/2014 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-09-30/business/os-georgia-aquarium-beluga-whales-20130930_1_whales-beluga-georgia-aquarium