[Special Feature: Thinking About Zoos] Considering the Issue of Dolphin Procurement and Zoo/Aquarium Ethics from the Perspective of "Emotional Pain"

2017/06/01

In February of this year, a symposium titled "The Possibilities and Future of Dolphin Shows" was held at Kyoto University, and the wording on the promotional flyer caused a bit of a stir. It stated, "No person belonging to an aquarium has ever felt that the dolphins in their care are unhappy." In response, Masayuki Hazama, who is affiliated with Enoshima Marine Corporation and interacts with dolphin care professionals nationwide, stated, "I have never met a professional who does not feel emotional pain. On the contrary, they are desperately seeking ways to face that pain and are taking practical steps toward its mitigation." On the other hand, at the beginning of the symposium, the organizers declared a rule: "We define aquarium dolphins as not being 'pitiful.' We will not debate this issue." While it is clear that emotional pain exists at the site of animal care, this was likely a judgment that the situation was not conducive to debating it. In this article, I would like to consider the position of Japanese zoos and aquariums by looking back at the issue of dolphin procurement from this very perspective that the organizers chose to avoid.

To begin with, it is said that "emotional pain" began to be shared across various boundaries of human society in the mid-18th century. Shusaku Kanazawa notes that in 19th-century Britain, the sharing of "emotional pain" functioned when the poor sought relief from charitable organizations; it was during this exact period that the famous animal cruelty prevention law (Martin's Act) was passed. In 1879, an amendment was added to the act to restrict vivisection out of consideration for animal suffering, based on a utilitarian perspective that weighed animal pain against the public interest served by vivisection. Tsuyoshi Ito states that during this amendment process, Charles Darwin—a dog lover who worked hard to expose animal cruelty—was involved in establishing rules for vivisection, such as the use of anesthesia, while struggling with his identity as a biologist who had to accept the practice. It can be said that it was emotional pain for animals that drove Darwin to involve himself in the amendment of the animal cruelty prevention law.

In this way, viewing animal issues through the lens of human emotional pain has advantages in explaining human behavior. It allows us to understand that one purpose for which humans invest their time is the mitigation of their own emotional pain. On the other hand, capturing the actual happiness or suffering of animals themselves is, in truth, quite difficult. For example, whether a certain stimulus serves as enrichment that enhances an animal's behavior or as harassment requires complex trial and error, as it varies not only by species but also by individual. At this point, it is difficult to conduct discussions on whether captive dolphins are unhappy or the nature of training for shows without involving any assumptions or inferences. Fundamentally, utilitarian standards that emphasize happiness and pain are products of the human brain; what has driven biological evolution is the standard of which genes increase. However, what we humans feel we can empathize with is the animal's "mind," not its genes. While the perspective of "emotional pain" adopted in this article may be useful for humans aiming for a better world, from the perspective of genes, it might be seen as meddling. The role that utilitarian standards play in this universe should perhaps be considered separately.

Here, I will briefly review the history of the dolphin procurement issue in aquariums. For details, please refer to Junichi Banno's "Is Dolphin Hunting Cruel?" and "The 75-Year History of the Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums."

The Enoshima Aquarium Marineland, which opened in 1957, was the first to start dolphin shows in Japan. Senzo Uchida (former director of the Churaumi Aquarium), who worked at the Ito Aquarium that opened five years later, noted that dolphin hunting for food was common in Izu, making them easy to obtain. In 1969, the Taiji Whale Museum opened in Taiji Town, Wakayama Prefecture—the birthplace of traditional whaling—and introduced drive-hunting techniques for the purpose of live capture for dolphin shows. As a result, Taiji Town began to earn significant income from live sales.

However, in 1972, a moratorium on commercial whaling was proposed at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, and whaling suddenly became an international issue. C.W. Nicol stayed in Taiji to write a novel based on traditional whaling and was shocked by the dolphin drive hunts, which differed greatly from traditional methods. He expressed concern that it would provide "perfect ammunition for various opposition movements," but noted that neither the Taiji dolphin hunters nor high-ranking officials at the Fisheries Agency would listen. Nicol's concerns became a reality when dolphin activist Ric O'Barry visited Taiji in 2003, followed by the release of the film "The Cove" in 2009.

During this time, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) established its Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare in 2003, and the following year adopted a resolution declaring Japanese dolphin drive hunts a violation of that code. In response, the Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums (JAZA) negotiated intermittently with WAZA. WAZA maintained that the implementation and encouragement of the highest standards of animal welfare was a duty of its members and demanded the separation of drive hunting from live capture. In 2009, the two parties announced that during the September fishing season, only live capture of bottlenose dolphins would be conducted, but the handling of activities from October onward was left vague, and in practice, the status quo continued. Upon learning of this in 2014, WAZA pointed out that the agreement was not being upheld. In August, discussions were held involving animal protection groups such as Elsa Nature Conservation Campaign, but no sufficient agreement was reached. In March of the following year, an Australian animal protection group, with the support of ethicist Peter Singer and others, prepared to sue WAZA. On April 22, WAZA announced the suspension of JAZA's membership. Ultimately, JAZA decided to remain in WAZA following a vote by its member facilities.

Three major positions were intertwined in this process. The first is the animal rights and liberation stance held by Ric O'Barry, Elsa Nature Conservation Campaign, and Peter Singer. They criticize the use of animals for human purposes and argue that drive hunting is a cruel method that forces dolphins into a state of panic for live capture. In contrast, WAZA emphasizes animal welfare, recommending the realization of the highest standards of welfare for the conservation and management of animals by humans, and requiring consideration for animals even during live capture. Meanwhile, Taiji Town and the Fisheries Agency argue for scientific management and tradition, stating that dolphins should be managed and utilized as fisheries resources and that hunters perform memorial services to express gratitude for nature's blessings.

Reinterpreting these positions from the perspective of this article, animal rights and liberation can be understood as a movement to fundamentally eliminate emotional pain, but it is also a logic that, if taken to its extreme, makes coexistence with animals impossible because it prohibits all animal use. In reality, the relationship between animals and humans involves emotional pain in all aspects, including slaughter, culling, bereavement, and spaying/neutering, so the practical question is where to find a compromise. In contrast, animal welfare can be understood as the science of maximizing the psychological well-being of animals. However, as it becomes more scientifically refined, the ethical line of how far to apply it becomes an issue, and WAZA recommends distinguishing between animal welfare and ethics. Finally, scientific management and tradition can be understood as inheriting traditions like memorial services to maintain emotional equilibrium within a framework of scientific management that does not consider emotional pain, but the question remains whether this can become a shared international ethic.

Looking back at how Japanese newspapers reported this issue, the primary focus was not on the state of aquariums, but rather on the response to international pressure regarding whaling culture. For example, at the JAZA president's press conference, emphasis was placed on confirming that the decision to remain in WAZA did not negate drive hunting or whaling culture. As a result, the movement to examine and improve the traditional state of aquariums hardly spread beyond those directly involved in zoos and aquariums. Overall, the issue was dominated by a large framework of protecting whaling culture from international pressure, and the perspective of animal welfare was understood only within that scope. At that time, WAZA pointed out that drive hunting was "cruel," but there were instances where it seemed the meaning of this word—applied to live capture rather than slaughter—was not well understood. Ultimately, the unique nature of live dolphin capture within drive hunts was downplayed, and the history of involvement by domestic animal protection groups was ignored.

While the dolphin procurement issue has the unique aspect of being related to whaling, it is only the tip of the iceberg among the many issues surrounding animal husbandry. It is still fresh in our memory that criticism was directed at the Inokashira Park Zoo, suggesting that Hanako the elephant should be returned to Thailand, but such criticisms are commonplace in North America and Europe.

Regarding cetaceans, both North America and Europe maintain captive populations of bottlenose dolphins through breeding. However, dolphin keeping has disappeared in the UK and New Zealand, and the Vancouver Aquarium in Canada is facing a potential ban on cetacean keeping by the Park Board. California has banned the breeding of orcas, and SeaWorld has withdrawn from orca shows. In Germany, two zoos keep dolphins, but they face strong criticism from animal protection groups. It is said that obtaining accreditation from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) to demonstrate that they are high-class zoos is crucial for countering criticism and maintaining relationships with politicians.

The keeping of elephants and polar bears is similar; top-tier zoos such as the Bronx Zoo and Central Park Zoo in New York, and the Lincoln Park Zoo and Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, have decided to withdraw. California has banned showing elephants the bullhooks used by handlers as a symbol of abuse, and Hannover Zoo in Germany was exposed to criticism after PETA secretly filmed a baby elephant being struck with a bullhook. On the other hand, Zurich Zoo in Switzerland, Cologne Zoo in Germany, and Oregon Zoo in the US have invested huge sums to build vast facilities to continue keeping elephants.

The background to this strengthening trend includes the influence of "Born Free," the true story of a lioness returned to the wild. It was made into a film in the UK in 1966, leading to the start of Zoo Check in 1984 and the enactment of the Zoo Licensing Act in 1987. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) in North America mandated a strict accreditation system in 1985, showing that they reacted sensitively to this trend and took proactive measures. In Japan, the Alive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Group conducted a Zoo Check with the UK's Born Free Foundation in 1996, but it remained a one-off event.

Due to this history, the AZA in North America and EAZA in Europe protect their member facilities by setting strict standards that only about one-tenth of the animal display facilities in each region can meet. AZA cites "public trust" as the significance of membership, stating that it distinguishes them from substandard facilities and makes it easier to obtain donations and grants. Animal welfare is indispensable for protecting member facilities from criticism, which is why WAZA formulated its Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare and the World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy. In this environment, housing facilities with inadequate consideration for animal welfare becomes a self-contradiction.

The reason why these movements in North America and Europe are difficult to feel in Japan lies in the difference in support for animal protection groups. The RSPCA in the UK was founded earlier than the London Metropolitan Police and is an organization of over 100 people that exposes animal cruelty and carries out trials. Fundamentally, the animal protection movement is a social struggle to change one's own culture; in the US, they still fight to eradicate dogfighting culture, rescue and find homes for fighting dogs, and even rescue privately owned tigers and lions. In comparison, the animal protection movement in Japan can be said to be quite mild.

Even if the difference between us and them can be explained this way, what should we do? Looking at the actual sites of animal care, it is certain that emotional pain exists there. One thing I found hard to believe in the reporting of the dolphin procurement issue was the claim by a public aquarium that breeding was difficult because there had been 11 births but not a single calf survived. If this were an elephant in a zoo, there would be condemnation within the industry asking why the husbandry methods were not improved. While captive populations have been established in North America and Europe, and breeding has been successful domestically at New Enoshima Aquarium and Kamogawa Sea World, the emotional pain of the staff who witnessed the deaths of dolphin calves at the aforementioned facility was repeated without leading to sufficient improvements in care.

Senzo Uchida, a leading figure in the aquarium industry, states flatly that "both aquariums and zoos are 'evil acts.'" This is an assertion that humans are fated to take animal lives and eat meat to survive, and that the relationship between humans and animals cannot be settled with platitudes; it can be understood as a stance that acknowledges emotional pain while seeking to overcome it. It is not unique to aquariums that paid employees are required to overcome emotional pain to perform their duties. However, the management stance of aquariums that deprioritized the investment of resources necessary for improving environments and techniques would likely appear to those in the zoo industry as a lack of self-help efforts. On the other hand, from the aquarium's perspective, it might seem unreasonable to discuss fish and dolphins—which can be continuously introduced as fisheries resources—on the same level as exotic animals regulated by CITES. The vote during the suspension of WAZA membership in 2015 was conducted with these feelings in mind, and it could be said that the minority cetacean-keeping facilities were forced to swallow a bitter pill.

However, there is a dangerous aspect to discussing meat consumption and the keeping of wild animals on the same level. While meat consumption may be respected as an act for survival, keeping wild animals for display is a different matter. Certainly, the fish kept by aquariums have a strong aspect as fisheries resources. The Seafood Watch program expanded by the Monterey Bay Aquarium is also based on a perspective of fisheries resource management. However, this works precisely because the subject is one for whom emotional pain is faint; for example, applying the same framework to penguins would likely not gain empathy. Even for sea turtles, which are permitted to be used for food in some parts of Japan, it is rare, as far as I can see, for aquariums to treat them as fisheries resources. To the extent that they cause pain in people's hearts, dolphins are closer to penguins and sea turtles than to fish, and it is not rational to treat them merely as fisheries resources. Even if the introduction of a certain number of wild individuals is indispensable for keeping captive populations healthy, dolphins as fisheries resources and dolphins as captive populations should be treated separately to some degree.

Even so, how do zoos and aquariums in North America and Europe manage their operations amidst such harsh criticism? In fact, animal welfare not only protects zoos and aquariums but also carries great significance in fundraising. Zurich Zoo invested over 5 billion yen in its elephant facility, but the majority of that came from legacy gifts, and in accepting those bequests, they pledged to use the funds "for the animals." The existence of citizens who choose to share the emotional pain of staff who feel the environment is unsatisfactory, and who stand by them to improve it, supports zoos and aquariums. In Japan, too, there are cases where the sight of zoo staff acknowledging their own emotional pain and working desperately for the animals—unrelated to external pressure or criticism from protection groups—has garnered empathy. Some zoos have begun to gain citizen support by organizing and promoting systematic efforts toward animal welfare. If one can gain the support of citizens by acknowledging their own emotional pain and striving for the animals, and obtain the necessary management resources from that, would that not be a rather excellent path?