One thing I would love to do is to go to Sea World. I would love to see the infamous killer whale performances, the dolphins and all of the other exhibits. Lately, this idea has become slightly tainted, following the recent fatal attack on a trainer by a killer whale.
This event has not only caused trauma for the family of the trainer, but it has also put a damper on what is considered by many to be a time of fun and entertainment.
It also caused an upheaval with animal rights activists. Many blame the people that keep whales in confinement. They argue that because the animals are enclosed, then they are forced to take out their instinctive frustrations on the people who tend to them.
This is not the first time an event such as this has sparked controversy. Some may remember Siegfried and Roy, the great illusionists with the large tigers featured in their performances. Roy fell victim to a tiger attack.
This similar situation sparked the interests of activists and others. Many spouted commentary about how the tigers were simply responding to their instinctive behaviors, and if they were not kept confined, then there would not have been an attack.
These two incidents are fuel for those who agree that animals should not be kept in captivity and used for entertainment purposes. However, there have been many instances in which animal confinement has been used for the greater good.
For example, Steve Irwin was famous for his shows with crocodiles and snakes found at Australia Zoo. He was shown on television worldwide and known as “the crazy man with the crocodiles” to many and to others as simply the “Crocodile Hunter.”
Were his actions wrong for using animals as part of his purpose? His entire reason for doing many of the risky stunts was conservation. His philosophy was that if we become close to animals and begin to care about them, then we will want to keep them around longer.
Do movies such as “Free Willy,” “Bambi,” “Flipper” and “Happy Feet” make people think about preserving the lives of animals? I know many of these movies had an impact on how I viewed animals as a child. Also, for many others these movies have an impact on how we view the animal kingdom.
Now, are performances like the ones featured at Sea World contributing to the idea of conservation? I am willing to bet more people would be more concerned about someone harming Shamu, than some one harming a climbing rat. Nevertheless, both of these animals are on the endangered species list and contribute a great deal to their natural ecosystems. Therefore, there is a positive aspect to having animals in captivity.
However, because of the performers like Siegfried and Roy, there has been a large transport of big cats and other wild animals into the country illegally. This larger increase in attacks has correlated with the amount of animals in certain parts of the world where they are not normally found. This has caused not only a huge impact on the ecosystem, but in some cases it has caused a great increase in the amount of animal-to-human diseases contracted.
I have to say that I am not against the use of animals for entertainment purposes, as there are no risks of injury to people and the animals are treated humanely.
I know as a person majoring in animal and dairy sciences with intentions of becoming a veterinarian, I am supposed to be appalled at the thought of animals being kept in confinement.
In reality, I see a bigger picture. Animals in zoos, conservation parks and other things like this are there for a reason: Many species are in danger of becoming depleted. By having these animals be seen by other people besides poachers and other people who would like to harm them, there may be a chance that someone will be willing to step up and try to defend them.
Terrisha Buckley is a junior majoring in animal and dairy science. She can be contacted at [email protected].