SEAWORLD & HSUS PARTNERSHIP: PROGRESSIVE COMPROMISE OR ANIMAL RIGHTS TAKEOVER?
As Iâm sure youâve heard by now SeaWorld announced that theyâre partnering with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and ending the breeding of captive orcas, effectively phasing the species out of their facilities over the next ~50 years. This announcement was sudden and shocking - hell, most SW staff found out the same way we did, with the morning news - and has caused lots of yelling all around. The animal rights people are rejoicing that itâs the first victory in a long war, the zoo world is generally acting like the sky is falling, and the rest of us are kind of stuck sitting here trying to figure out if this is a move we should support. Basically every article out there is biased to one degree or another and that makes it really #*$&ing hard to find reliable sources on the different parts of an issue. So⊠Iâm going to write you a breakdown of as much as Iâve been able to suss out. Iâm not going to tell you what conclusions to draw or what side to support - Iâm just going to give you the best informed discussion of all of the different sides that I can.
There are two issues really being discussed with this announcement - the cessation of breeding and the partnership with HSUS are both pretty monumental and controversial moves. This post will cover the HSUS and SeaWorld partnership - a subsequent one will talk about the specifics of the choice to cease breeding captive orcas. This is simply because theyâre both such long topics to cover that for accessibility they shouldnât be in one post.
The Humane Society of the United States is an organization with a pretty shady past, present and future. Despite what you might think from the words âhumane societyâ in the organizationâs name, theyâre not actually associated with with animal shelters nor do they run spay/neuter programs (source), take in animals, or do any of the outreach and community support the term implies. Very little of the money they bring in actually goes to any sorts of animal care - even though their most successful ad campaigns involve tugging on the heartstrings of viewers with images of animals in shelters. Theyâve got $195 million in assets at last count, which is basically enough to fund animal shelters in every state, but⊠they donât.Â
Instead, they spend âmillions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunaticsâ (source). Theyâve shown a distressing lack of institutional ethics: theyâve been caught lying to congress (source), bribing witnesses (source), and then paying out to settle a subsequent racketeering charge (source). Thereâs also an investigation into the conduct of a Kentucky congressman who may have illegally been lobbying for HSUS (source). HSUS is âa radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organizationâ (Source).
While HSUS originally started as an animal welfare organization in the 1950âs, it changed focus in 80âs to animal rights after a vote at that yearâs national conference. This process involved a large personnel change within the organization, and HSUS hired staffers from all over the animal rights movement to high positions, including former PETA staffers (source) (who took on roles such as VP of investigations, investigations section staffers, and international affairs) and most notably an Animal Liberation Front member named John Goodwin (source)(source).Â
Thereâs an important difference between animal welfare and animal rights:
âAnimal rights organizations, which emerged in the early 1980s, seek to end the use and ownership of animals. Animal welfare organizations, on the other hand, have existed for decades and seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.â
Itâs hard to tell why, exactly, HSUS chose to change their charter and radicalize so quickly. While itâs possible that the members at the time were genuinely convinced of the need for their new viewpoint, itâs likely it was motivated by money. HSUSâs president (1970-1996) John Hoyt was recorded as remarking:Â
âPeTA successfully stole the spotlight⊠. Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency (âŠ) have been ignored. (âŠ) Since we havenât been successful in getting half a loaf, letâs go for the whole thingâ (source).
In general, HSUSâs modus operandi is to appeal to people while being incredibly misleading with their intent and the usage of the money that comes in. HSUS informercials state that for $19 a month you can help them care for abused animals - but, as an organization that doesnât run any actual shelters or rescue organizations, just $1.03 out of the suggested $228 yearly donation would actually reach an animal shelter (source). They donât disclose anywhere in their shelter-feels based ads that the money people are donating does not go to pet shelters or local humane organizations. They exploit animal abuse cases to boost fundraising but they rarely keep track of the animals theyâre exploiting, much less ever donate the money raised to the care of those animals (Source). The list goes on and on, but the gist is that HSUS is very two-faced in many of their operations. Theyâve supported Michael Vick, influenced community legislation and school curricula in backhanded ways, and often donât speak out about the âhumaneâ treatments they claim to support. They filed a lawsuit against Ringling Bros over alleged elephant abuse in the year 2000, which was reported by an employee that turned out to have been paid off by multiple animal rights groups (source). Theyâve been called out by news sources like the Washington Times as a âdeceptive, predatory organizationâ and inÂ
An article written in 2009 compared the operating ethos of organizations such as PETA and HSUS pretty deftly: Â
â[Institutions such as HSUS] prefer to erode your rights slowly, over decades, rather than terrorizing you into a quick change of behavior against your will. Â But their goals are the same as PETAâs: No meat or dairy, no hunting or fishing, no zoos or aquariums, no fur or leather, no pet ownership, no medical research using lab rats, and the list goes on.
In 1993, UC San Diego microbiologist Dr. Patrick Cleveland spelled out how PETA and HSUS share a âphilosophy of animal rights and goal of abolishing the use of animals.â But their different âtactics and timetable for that abolition,â he wrote, are like the difference between a mugger and a con man. âThey each will rob you â they use different tactics, have different timetables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken.â (source)â
How does HSUS feel about zoos and aquariums?
Officially, the HSUS statement on the existence of zoos and aquariums is this:
âThe Humane Society of the United States believes that under most circumstances wild animals should ideally be permitted to exist undisturbed in their natural environments. Zoos are, however, a currently established part of our society and a fact of life. Some of them provide benefits for animals, such as financially supporting conservation programs and the preservation and restoration of threatened and endangered species, as well as promoting the education of people to the needs of wild animals and their role in ecosystemsâ (source).
That sounds pretty reasonable, and in-line with the Association of Zoo and Aquarium (AZA) accreditation standards (which all SeaWorld facilities have received). The AZA requirements are best summarized in the preamble of their 92-page standards document:
âZoos and aquariums accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) are continuously evolving. A primary goal of AZA institutions is to achieve the highest standard of welfare for the animals in our care. Standards are constantly being raised, ensuring that animals in AZA institutions are receiving the best possible care from highly qualified staff, in modern facilities that represent best practice in our profession. 21st century AZA-accredited institutions and certified related facilities are expected to be leaders in the field and to embrace the highest quality facilities, programs, and staff available. Animals must be well cared for and housed in appropriate settings that provide an educational experience for visitors, and meet the animalsâ physical, psychological, and social needs. Animals must be managed as appropriate for long-term genetic viability of the species, which means careful planning of resource allocation, exsitu breeding, and ex-situ/in-situ conservation and researchâ (source).
Except, then, the HSUS statement goes on to say this:
âSadly, though, the antiquated zoo of yesteryear did not disappear with the advent of state-of-the-art exhibits that now dominate publicity about modern zoos. The dark side of the story is that thousands of wild animals, many endangered, continue to languish in roadside zoos and menageries. Often the care for these creatures barely meets even the minimal federal requirements for exhibiting animals. Unfortunately, only about 10 percent of the more than 2,000 animal exhibitors licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are also accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). Even some AZA-accredited zoos contain forgotten and outdated exhibits. These inadequate displays are often obscured by the multimillion-dollar exhibits that tend to focus on the more glamorous species and habitats.
Instead of being focused only on entertainment and profits, zoos and other facilities housing captive wild animals should be organized around a core mission that educates the public about the needs of the animals and the threats they face. Such zoos should maintain animals in conditions simulating their natural habitats as closely as possible, and treat the animals in their care with the highest degree of humaneness and professionalism. Achieving these requirements is imperative not only for the welfare of the animals, but also because inhumane or inappropriate conditions when viewed by an impressionable public, especially children, provide a negative learning experience by seeming to condone indifference or cruelty toward animals. And they do not teach anything about the lives of these magnificent creatures in the wild.
The HSUS works with zoos desiring to improve and having the capability to do so. We also urge zoos to act as sanctuaries for wild animals, providing facilities for animals in need rather than breeding them for exhibition purposes or acquiring them from the wild or from exotic animal dealers.â
Thatâs a pretty damning statement of intent couched in âbut if they can do this weâll say theyâre probably okayâ, and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how zoological facilities work. Reputable facilities, such as the ones certified by AZA, do not import animals from the wild or buy them from exotic breeders. Itâs often impossible to provide the highest standards of care in fully naturalistic exhibits due to such things as cleaning exhibits regularly, the difficulty in keeping animals from destroying naturalistic elements of exhibits such as horticulture through their natural behaviors, and the need for varied and plentiful enrichment during the entire life of an animal.
Remember how HSUS has a habit of being really misleading? Well, thereâs one specific sentence in this statement that exhibits that perfectly. They say that âinhumane or inappropriate conditions when viewed by an impressionable public, especially children, provide a negative learning experienceâ, etc. That makes it sound like people learn bad things, right? Nope. In the realm of education research, a âpositive learning experienceâ means that the people learned what you wanted to teach them. âNegative learning experiencesâ mean that the subjects learned the wrong thing or did not learn anything at all. This particular statement is likely to be a perversion of a study by Eric Jensen in 2013, since itâs the only one Iâve seen anti-cap and anti-zoo organizations attempting to back up claims that zoological institutions donât teach kids things. What Jensenâs study actually found was that children who explored a zoo on their own, as opposed to with a guide or facilitator of the educational experience, tended to have negative learning outcomes - aka, if you let kids run around a zoo without an educator, theyâre probably going to not read the signs and draw their own conclusions about what theyâve seen. Thatâs very different from âzoos provide children with negative experiencesâ as portrayed in this statement.Â
Why the HSUS and SeaWorld Partnership makes professionals uncomfortable:
Itâs hard to start talking about the HSUS and Seaworld partnership from an optimistic standpoint because thereâs a major red flag with the PR about it - SW claims the organizations are in a partnership, but HSUS only says that SW was working âin cooperationâ with them and is âjoining HSUS in advocacy campaigns after negotiationsâ (source). Seaworldâs announcements focus on how the HSUS collaboration will improve extant conservation and educational movements, but the tone of the HSUS press release is very self-congratulatory and derogatory of how much more SW needs to change. This has a lot of people in the zoo and aquarium field worried, given the organizationâs precedent for prioritizing its animal rights agenda over facts, prior agreements, and ethical conduct (source).Â
Although the HSUS and SeaWorld partnership involves a lot of collaboration on sustainable seafood, ending whaling and shark-finning, promoting conservation, and increasing education, the biggest focus put on the announcement from all sides has been the cessation of breeding for orcas under their care. Itâs been a really big talking point. Some people believe itâs the best course of action so the company can focus on improving welfare for the existing animals, some people like it because itâs the beginning of removing whales from captivity, some people think itâs inhumane to remove the natural sexual and mothering behaviors from what the whales can engage in, some people worry this is just a toehold for the animal rights coalitions to take over all zoological facilities, and some people feel that this means the end of awareness for orcas once theyâre no longer accessible to the public for them to fall in love with and learn about. Theyâre all valid concerns and viewpoints, honestly.
Seaworldâs statement on the topic acknowledges the pressure from animal rights activists and the decreased attendance rates since the release of Blackfish, but it also frames the choice as one on their terms that allows the company to grow and change as necessary.Â
âThis was a very difficult decision. Â We love our whales and so do our guests. But, we faced a huge paradox. Whales are a reason why people come to SeaWorld. But it is also a growing reason why they donât. Â More and more people are uncomfortable with these very large and majestic animals in environments that they perceive as not big enough. Â Evolution and change have always been part of SeaWorld, and this is no different. Â As society changes, we need to change with itâ (source).
Weâre changing because attitudes about animals under human care have evolved and we need to evolve with them. And make no mistake: we have all played a big part in why society has evolved on this issue.
When we opened our doors more than 50 years ago, killer whales were feared and hunted. Now, orcas are among the most beloved marine mammals on the planet. One reason why is more than 400 million people came to our parks and fell in love with our whalesâ (source).
A non-Seaworld associated fan site, Awesome Ocean, wrote pretty eloquently about what they feel are the driving factors behind this change. (Itâs important to note that, while they sound official, thereâs no evidence theyâre receiving any information from anyone at Seaworld and all opinions stated are not necessarily those of the company).Â
âWe all must realize that Americansâ attitudes about orcas have changed. 50 years ago, killer whales inspired fear and motivated hunting expeditions. As time went on, they became some of the most beloved marine mammals on the planet. SeaWorld did that. One company single-handedly changed public opinion and welcomed millions of visitors to their parks, allowing guests to come face to face with wild animals and grow to love them. Now, orcas in captivity and under human care inspire not just love and admiration, but also concern. SeaWorld isnât afraid to change, and we must not be afraid to let them. (âŠ) To say the partnership between SeaWorld and the HSUS comes as a surprise is probably the understatement of the year. (âŠ) From a practicality standpoint, this decision makes sense. In order to best protect orcas and other marine mammals, SeaWorld needs allies â not enemies. They need someone on the other side of the spectrum to band together, change with the times and protect the killer whales we all loveâ (Source).
A number of other media sources outside of SW and HSUS have acknowledged this as well. A contributor for the Dallas News wrote an incredibly snarky (but accurate) op-ed on it, commenting:
âToday, people care more â and know more â about how animals are treated. (âŠ) SeaWorld wasnât caving to PETA. It was catering to the average soccer mom who started realizing her choices for a family vacation were either SeaWorld (where sheâd seen something about a dead trainer and bloody whale battles) or Universal (where Harry Potter finds freedom every day, escaping Gringotts)â (source).
Awesome Ocean seconded (and cited) that in a response to the backlash SeaWorld was getting from fans who felt betrayed:
âSeaWorld did not cave, they made a decision that will allow them to keep their doors open. The decided to be able to continue to employ tens of thousands of people. They decided to be able to continue to pay to operate the worldâs most important rescue and rehab operation in the world. They decided to be able to be the worldâs foremost zoological institutionâ (source).
Overall, SeaWorld seems confident that this partnership is a good decision for the parks and for the whales in captivity. They also present it as a partnership where HSUS supports their ongoing conservation, rescue and education efforts (source)(source). Â Meanwhile, HSUS documents seem to imply this is only the beginning of the changes they want to see SW make - and they frame the changes as SeaWorld supporting their radical advocacy campaigns rather than putting more effort into SeaWorldâs own extant programs. This is from the rather self-aggrandizing and self-promoting blog post by the current HSUS president Wayne Pacelle:
âIn a sign that the humane economy is an unyielding force, exerting its influence on companies in all sectors of commerce, SeaWorld announced in cooperation with The HSUS today that it will end all breeding of its orcas and it wonât obtain additional orcas from other sourcesâpolicies sought by animal advocates for many decades. (âŠ) Joel Manby, SeaWorldâs CEO, is banking on the premise that the American public will come to SeaWorldâs parks in larger numbers if he joins our cause instead of resisting it, and if SeaWorld is a change agent for the good of animals. (âŠ) During my discussions with Manby, I was clear that the agreement we forged should deal with all animals â not just orcas. Thatâs why this announcement not only promises more help for manatees, sea lions, and other marine creatures in distress, but it also connects consumers to these issues through their diets. Starting soon, all SeaWorld food offerings will be cage-free for eggs and gestation-crate-free for pork, all seafood will be more sustainably sourced, and there will be more vegetarian and vegan optionsâ (source)
Okay, an important note that literally none of the animal rights folk seem to ever get right: Seaworld has not been bringing in ânewâ orcas since the 70âs. No facility in the United States has because thereâs this thing called the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), created in 1972, that prevents the capture of marine mammals, period. Any ânewâ whales coming into any facility in the country would be rescues, but no orca calves have been rescued and brought to any SeaWorld facility. It makes it sound better for animal rights outrage purposes to say âweâre stopping them from getting more!â so they keep reiterating that incredibly misleading point.
Itâs pretty obvious that to the President of HSUS this is just the beginning of a far-reaching agenda to change how SeaWorld operates. Itâs never just been about orcas, like Blackfish made it out to be - now itâs about all mammals AND humane food AND ethical eating agendas. This partnership gives HSUS more credibility and a national spotlight, and everyone in the zoological field is kind of rightfully worried that, given their history, theyâll try to exploit it or force more change thatâs not in touch with the realities of the institutions theyâre affecting.
Both Zoonation and The Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums (AMMPA) released statements shortly after Seaworldâs announcement decrying it. The AMMPAâs statement did not specifically mention HSUS, but the implications that it was involved in the attacks on the organization itâs now professing to be working with were definitely present, and the distrust of the organizationâs agenda rampant:
âFor more than two-and-a-half years, SeaWorld has been savagely attacked with misinformation and lies promulgated in the deceitful film Blackfish, and by its animal rights supporters through coordinated social media attacks, protests, petitions and other tactics. No company, no matter how great, could withstand such a withering, prolonged and well-funded assault without sustaining damage to its reputation and bottom line.  However, when such pressure campaigns succeed, they can have very serious and unfortunate consequences. (âŠ) The organizations behind the assault on SeaWorld, calling on it to end its public display of killer whales, are not just opposed to killer whales in human care.  They are part of an animal rights movement that does not believe there should be any animals at all in human care for any reasonânot in zoos and aquariums, not as service animals, not in sports, movies or the circus, and not even as pets. For this reason, it is unlikely their pressure campaigns will end after this decision.  Instead, they will step up their assaults on other species of animals on public display in zoos, aquariums, and marine parks. (âŠ) If the anti-SeaWorld campaign that culminated in todayâs announcement was really all about orcas, we call on animal rights groups that participated in it to immediately end their assaults on all of the other species in zoos and aquariums and instead focus their formidable financial resources on helping animals in the wild threatened by toxins, disease, marine debris entanglement, ship strikes, scarcity of prey, and a host of other threats. SeaWorld has done its part, now they should, tooâ (Source).
Meanwhile, Zoonationâs response to the HSUS partnership was short and direct:
âZooNation does not and cannot condone the recent decision by SeaWorld leadership to partner with an organization that is fundamentally opposed to all zoological efforts and facilities. Even if the HSUS doesnât take direct action against zoological facilities, they monetarily support organizations that do, therefore we feel SeaWorld leadership has made a fundamental misstep in accepting this partnership with what is, at best, an antipathetic organization.
The main issue that has come about is that SeaWorld leadership has accepted the conversation that their orca breeding and human care program is wrong somehow, and that is tragic and untrue. We have supported SeaWorld through all the controversy surrounding their orca human care programs, before, during and after the Blackfish mockumentary, and we feel SeaWorld leadership has lost its way, and fundamentally misunderstands the central issue; human care is no longer about âentertainmentâ but about education, conservation and saving our oceans from the abuse human beings are subjecting it toâ (source).
Itâs hard to project how this potentially volatile partnership is going to play out. Two major players working together on important conservation initiatives and acting together to cease the endless yelling that has heretofore characterized the captive cetacean conversations could be really beneficial. It also could turn into a farce where HSUS attempts to force SeaWorld to continue to shift towards itâs radicalized agenda by weaponizing the public opinion. HSUS definitely has a shifty past but it would be jumping the gun to say theyâre definitely going to be causing problems for SeaWorld in the future. Itâs possible the partnership really is in good faith. Thereâs not really going to be any way to tell until farther down the line.Â
What to take away from this:
Take everything you hear with a couple grains of salt, and search out multiple sides of the story when you hear new information come out about SeaWorld/HSUS actions. Itâs entirely possible that the way one side presents a story is going to be really different from what the other is saying for quite a while. Different agendas mean different spins and different responses to media and public backlash. Remember - one source is going to be a company that has to ensure it can stay in business and provide for the animals in itâs care, and the other is going to be from the perspective of a radical group with no investment in the business and no monetary worries.Â
Itâs an uneasy partnership to say the least for everyone involved with the zoological world. Hereâs hoping that HSUS is actually invested in the well-being of the whales and isnât attempting to use this as a jumping-off point to try to end all animal captivity (and with it, vital research, conservation and education efforts). It could be, though. We just kind of have to wait and see.Â
COMING SOON - THE PARTNER PIECE ABOUT SWâS CHOICE TO STOP BREEDING ORCAS AND HOW IT COULD PERTAIN TO ANIMAL WELFAREÂ
baratheonpilled
tangentwithtanner
dededos
andulkaphoto
discoholicmusic
origamiaround
vaporwave
pixelskylines
kaledo-art
