On Politics & Animal Welfare

This week, I remembered why I’m not a politics major.

On Thursday, the California Coastal Commission held a hearing about whether or not to approve SeaWorld’s plans to build a new killer whale exhibit that would create an immersive viewing experience for guests and, more importantly, effectively double the size of their orca pools.  After nine-plus hours of extremely impassioned speeches, testimonies, and presentations from animal experts and sign-bearing citizens alike, the Commission unanimously voted to approve SeaWorld San Diego’s expansion—on the condition that they stop breeding and transferring their whales.  Now it’s up to SeaWorld to decide which constraint to accept.

An aerial view of the proposed expansion to the existing
killer whale facility at SeaWorld San Diego.

From my perspective, watching this debate from my dorm room and procrastinating on my actual biology homework, this decision felt like a bunch of politicians trying to reach a compromise to simultaneously make two incompatible groups happy: if SeaWorld can build their new attraction, then animal rights activists can relax knowing that the whales are “banned” from ever breeding again, a decision that would extinguish California's population of killer whales in human care over the next fifty to 100 years.  But I didn't see much evidence that anyone was really thinking about what would make the most important party in this discussion happy: the whales themselves.

Of course, happiness is not a particularly measurable trait, especially in animals.  However, we can consider how this political outcome will interact with their biological and societal needs.

This ruling could produce a few different outcomes.  SeaWorld might pass up the condition and continue to hold and breed their whales in the existing pool system.  Alternatively, they could accept the new condition, build a really cool pool, and try to prevent the whales from breeding.  It’s also possible that the company will try to overturn the breeding ban, since the California Coastal Commission is only supposed to regulate land use, not animal welfare, but I don’t know enough about the intricacies of politics to make meaningful comment on this possibility.  Instead, let’s consider the consequences for the whales if either of the former two paths are taken.

Kasatka (bottom) with two of her four calves, Kalia and Makani,
and Kalia's calf Amaya.  Photo courtesy SeaWorld San Diego.

First, let’s say SeaWorld decides to continue breeding their whales and sacrifice the plans for a new pool, which would mean literally nothing changes.  This would be a sadly-wasted opportunity to significantly improve the space currently available to these animals.  Surprisingly, many animal rights activists are opposed to the expansion at all, saying it wouldn't make a difference in the whales' lives.  One of the most common arguments at the hearing revolved around the fact that no pool will ever be comparable to a whale’s natural range.  True, but consider this: of the eleven whales at the San Diego park, eight were born in a zoological facility.   Five of those eight were born at SeaWorld San Diego.  Whether you feel it should or shouldn't be this way, the fact is that that pool system is the only environment that most of those whales know.  Doubling the size of the space available to them might not come anywhere close to the space available in the ocean, but it would be a significant improvement relative to their particular situation.  If SeaWorld chose not to accept the terms of the BWP approval, the opportunity to vastly expand the only home that they know would be squandered.

A coastal seapen concept (perhaps as a prequel to release) has also been suggested to give the animals a larger and more naturalistic environment.  While this idea holds an almost romantic appeal to people, it comes with significant risks to the welfare of both the captive and wild populations.  I won’t get too far into this debate here, but the risks of release include genetic pollution, the captive whales’ ability to transition from a sterile environment to the ocean, disease transfer between captive and wild populations, marine pollution and environmental hazards, depleting food sources, and lack of cultural hunting knowledge.  The short version is, there’s no CTRL+Z for this whole situation.

The other option is that SeaWorld goes forward with the Blue World Project and agrees not to breed their whales.  Let’s talk about the logistics of this agreement, starting with a fact: animals have sex.

The trainers can do some pretty amazing behavior modification, but sitting the whales down and saying “hey, we’re going to build you a sweet new pool, but you have to keep your genetics to yourself, okay?” is not exactly in their wheelhouse.  Also, since cetaceans have to be conscious to breathe, anesthetizing the animals to spay or neuter them is not an option.  There are only two known ways to prevent the whales from breeding: female oral contraceptives and physical separation.  Unfortunately, each comes with welfare consequences.

Let’s say that all of the females are put on altrenogest, a progestin that essentially suppresses estrus.  This compound was initially developed primarily for horses, but it has also been used short-term for cetaceans and seems to be safe and relatively effective.  However, if the orcas are hereafter banned from breeding, the females would need to be on this compound (or some other form of new, potentially untested birth control) for their entire lives.  Think about when you’re sick: it’s recommended to take the minimum effective amount of a drug for the shortest time possible, because the risks of taking any kind of synthetic compound long-term will eventually build up.  An animal being on contraceptives for their entire life just isn’t healthy.

The other option, then, is the scenario known as the middle school dance paradigm: males on one side, females on the other.  Aside from negating the social stability intentions of the approval conditions’ ban on transferring animals, separation will take away opportunities for social enrichment and weaken the familial bonds that this highly social species depends on.  Even this method is not always completely effective, as animals can interact (and potentially, although the likelihood is low, procreate) through gates.

In any case, we all know that no form of birth control is 100% effective for any species (humans included), and accidental pregnancies have happened in the past.  So, what would happen if one of the whales did get pregnant, even if SeaWorld was taking appropriate measures to prevent it?  (Imagine if we had to extend the abortion debate to whales... Just the thought is exhausting.)  My point is, it’s really easy for policy-makers to tell a facility that they’re banned from breeding their animals, but it’s much harder for the caretakers—the people on the ground floor who literally dedicate their lives to the well-being of those animals—to put it into practice in a healthy, balanced, and effective way.

So, since politicians are obviously so dead-set on attempting to regulate a complex issue, let's think about some policy compromises that would actually benefit the whales.  For example, the government could limit the number of whales SeaWorld can hold or put a cap on the number of births they could [hypothetically] have in a set amount of time, which would prevent overcrowding and maximize the space available to the animals while potentially mandating occasional separations and short-term contraceptive use.  They could prevent the company from importing wild-caught cetaceans from countries with less stringent policies on marine mammal management, although SeaWorld has already pledged to this agreement on their own.  But “banning” breeding altogether—a decision that, by the way, really should be made by the whales’ caretakers and veterinarians, not politicians—is simply not a healthy policy for the animals in question.

At its core, the Blue World Project decision just doesn’t leave reasonable room for a net improvement in the whales’ welfare.  Each option comes with a trade-off for the animals, but it doesn’t have to—it is only because of our human emotional and societal constructs that we mandated a compromise between two opposing groups, a compromise that just doesn’t help anyone except for soothing the egos of those in die-hard support of the extremist “anti-captivity” movement. 

The thing is, the entire ordeal regarding Blue World Project, and animal affairs in general, shouldn’t have been about one group being “proved” right or wrong by a bunch of politicians.  This should be analyzed as the effects that it will have on the whales, because at the end of the day, that’s who we’re supposed to be fighting for, right?  The animals—not our egos.

If absolutely nothing else, we should be able to find unity 
in the fact that we all LOVE animals, right? 
(Is it even possible not to love this face?!)

You can disagree with SeaWorld’s method of making money, you can disagree with the entire practice of keeping animals in human care, you can personally choose not to visit zoos and aquariums.  That’s all okay.  What’s not okay is ignoring facts and using an emotionally-constructed opinion to block off any attempts to improve animal welfare on the basis of a human-oriented compromise.