Perhaps it should be a given that politicians should be very
wary of getting involved in areas of science where they have very little or no
specialist knowledge. This is particularly true in the area of animal welfare –
which actually can be considered a science that can be objectively studied.
This situation has become even more complex since the inception of the
philosophical concept of animal-rights which as many have pointed out bears little relationship to issues of animal welfare.
A recent case in point is the continuing controversy
regarding the SeaWorld's zoological parks and their care and husbandry of
killer whales. This has been exacerbated by the much promoted film Blackfish which those who have regularly read the comments and blogs on this site will be
very familiar with. The problems with this particular film have been discussed
elsewhere and therefore I will not revisit old ground in this particular
article.
The latest developments in the saga of the animal-rights
lobby groups particular the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PeTA) is an ongoing campaign to stop the SeaWorld Park developing
larger habitats for their killer whales. This recently culminated in this
organisation and its supporters lobbying the California Coastal Commission who
have jurisdiction on allowing planning permission for SeaWorld's to undertake
the new killer whale exhibit in San Diego. The resultant current outcome of the Commission's ruling aptly demonstrates the concerns regarding politics and
animal welfare alluded to at the beginning of this article.
First, the California Coastal Commission is there to
undertake stewardship of coastal resources in California and is primarily
involved in making sure that planning decisions do not negatively impact on the
environment. However, they are not there to make moral or other judgements on
how organisations or businesses operate beyond that point. For them to give
permission for the extension of the killer whale habitat at SeaWorld's but then
bind it to issues regarding the husbandry of their animals - the cessation of
their killer whale breeding programme and a banning of movements of animals within
zoological facilities - is clearly not within their legal remit. For those
people who do not understand this position a way to think of it is this: would
it be acceptable for this same Commission to grant permission to allow the
building of a new carnivore exhibit at San Diego zoo or Wild Animal Park and
then turned round to that institution and tell them that they cannot breed
these animals or move them to other facilities. This would be particularly
pertinent if the animals concerned were also part of an international breeding programme.
Clearly it was the actions of the lobbying of PeTA that
seems to have forced the Commissions hand in introducing these Draconian
amendments to the planning permission of SeaWorld's new killer whale habitat. Interestingly,
the same set of criteria was forcibly imposed on the publicly owned Vancouver
Aquarium last year. The board that oversees the aquariums operation tried to
initially ban the display cetaceans at the aquarium and when this failed tried
to force a ruling that banned animal breeding and movement between other
zoological facilities. Again this was a group of local politicians who had been
influenced or had sympathies with the animal-rights movement. Fortunately, the
animal management team at the Vancouver Aquarium challenge this ruling and it was overturned.
A second point to ponder is that PeTA and their associated
protesters – who lobbied at the Commission meeting – have all publicly made declarations they wish to acquire the killer whales at SeaWorld's to be takento a sanctuary (zoo) run by themselves or their associates. Therefore, it would
seem that here we may well have a legal conflict of interest insomuch that
these animal-rights lobby groups and their supporters are actually taking
action against a "business competitor" e.g. SeaWorld's which may well be at the
very least legally dubious. This seems to have been something that the
Commission has not fully realised.
I am sure that this animal-rights led pantomime will
continue to roll on. Unfortunately, I am minded to think that the only people
who will profit from this are lawyers and the least likely are going to be the
killer whales and their care at SeaWorld.
As a final thought, because we are now seeing a considerable
amount of blurring of lines between a political ideology of animal-rights and
the realities of animal welfare – not helped by the involvement of naive
politicians – we are going to depressingly see considerably more examples of
this nonsense in years to come.
Update: 15 October 2015. SeaWorld announced that it will challenge ruling that banned the company from breeding captive killer whales at its San Diego park.
Update: 15 October 2015. SeaWorld announced that it will challenge ruling that banned the company from breeding captive killer whales at its San Diego park.