Global Action Against Animal-Based Entertainment
For centuries, humans have been fascinated by the free spirit and power of wild, exotic animals, and, to express this appreciation, have enslaved them. Oftentime, ancient rulers would collect unique creatures as a display of wealth and power. Today, animals are commonly used as a forefront in the entertainment industry, including exhibits at zoos and self-proclaimed “sanctuaries”, trained performances in circuses, domestication for riding, and cage fighting. In every single one of these displays, the animals had been stolen from their free, natural habitat and were forced into a constrained lifestyle of work and abuse. Although some claim a national approach to regulating animal-based entertainment encourages more rapid enforcement, national efforts thus far have only maintained the status quo and allowed the industry to continue. Instead, a global ban on the transportation of wild animals across national borders for entertainment purposes will limit the presence of these companies and the harm they cause.
Throughout the lifespan of animal-based entertainment, there have been several fatalities within the industry–both to the captive animals and the interacting humans. One of the most infamous incidents took place on February 24, 2010. During a typical SeaWorld performance featuring trained orcas, professional trainer, Dawn Brancheau, was violently battered and drowned by longtime performance whale, Tilikum. Unfortunately, incidents such as this are not uncommon. In fact, the Humane Society of the United States details over 200 circus-related attacks by performance animals on trainers or audience members between 1980 and 2004 alone–some of which were fatal. Along with the danger posed to humans, animal-based entertainment is cruel to the captive animals. I have witnessed this firsthand upon a visit to Thailand’s world renowned Tiger Kingdom in 2014. As excited as my 11-year-old self was to get a one-of-a-kind experience petting and cuddling tigers, I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed by the lifelessness of the cats. In retrospect–and upon research–I now realize that the animals were heavily sedated to hinder any vicious reactions they may have had to visitors. The sad reality is that such a seemingly magical place operates on drugging their animals for twelve hours a day, seven days a week; a two-hour adrenaline rush for us means a lifetime of captivity and false reality for the animals. As much as we want to believe in the fairytale love between people and nature, animals are unpredictable and always run the risk of attack. This is why it is vital to have effective legislation regarding animals in entertainment.
However, current national regulations on animal protection lack clarity and urgency. While national legislation is effective in the sense that it is often implemented quicker than international law, the fact that companies such as SeaWorld and Tiger Kingdom continue business as usual today proves how little national jurisdiction has done to solve the issue. In fact, national efforts of Thailand’s Wildlife Conservation Office have not stopped Tiger Kingdom and similar zoos from keeping their doors open and selling tickets. This is because “the department’s role is not to regulate what the zoos do with the animals…but to ensure that the zoos take proper care of them,” according to the New York Times. Rather than using definitive language and providing a direct course of action, the Wildlife Conservation Office offers no real guideline for what “proper” care entails, which allows the continuation of harmful practices. Vague outlines for regulation not only leave room for interpretation by individual companies, but also by individual nations, as different cultures and countries have different standards for what is considered acceptable treatment toward animals. In this, national regulation of animal-based entertainment means that companies can easily pick up and move to places in which laws are more lax in order to continue business. The lack of a united global stance on the issue creates loopholes for the greedy. As a result of unclear national law, the consistent abuse and negligence of the animals has shortened their lifespan and caused early deaths. To combat this, National Geographic reports, Tiger Kingdom and similar Thai zoos contract deals with “a facility in neighboring Laos” in order to maintain a constant inflow of show animals. Because many of these companies rely on the wow factor of exotic, uncommon creatures, international importation of foreign animals is the foundation of the industry’s success. If we take away the ability to freely transport animals like furniture, SeaWorld, Tiger Kingdom, and others will be shaken at their core and lose their intrigue.
Despite the inadequacy of national regulation on animal-based entertainment, there is currently “no worldwide treaty governing the protection of animal welfare,” according to the Georgetown Law Library. Although there have been attempts at international treaties, all have proven unsuccessful, mainly due to the ambiguity of their proposed goals and their lack of realistic steps for action. Consider the International Convention for the Protection of Animals, a treaty that was drafted in 1988, but had never come into effect. Regarding safety measures during the shipment of animals, Article 6 of the treaty states: “The Contracting Parties shall take all appropriate steps to prevent cruelty and reduce suffering to the minimum in the transportation of any animal”. The use of the phrases “appropriate steps” and “to the minimum” leaves much room for interpretation. In other words, it is up to the reader’s discretion to decide what is and is not valid, and as various cultures and countries perceive and respect animals differently, harmful treatment could arguably be deemed “appropriate”. An international ban on the transportation of wild animals for entertainment purposes, however, is a concise guideline, with no room for discussion and a clear course of action.
An international ban on the movement of wild animals across borders for entertainment purposes would introduce several benefits. Firstly, the ban would mean that in circumstances in which a company’s show animals die off, there is not the option to simply purchase more animals from abroad. Consequently, the companies will either have to improve the care of their animals to extend their lifespan–and thus, years of performance–or the companies will eventually be forced out of business altogether. Either way, the global ban ensures a better life for the animals currently in captivity and prevents further capture in the future. Further, because there will be less shows and exhibits, there will be less opportunities for fatal accidents to occur, thus, death tolls of both the animals and humans that are involved in the industry will decline. Most importantly, the global ban would create a united stance against animal-based entertainment. Despite cultural differences in treatment toward animals, everyone would be held under the same standards. Not only will this eliminate the possibility of loopholes, but it will also encourage stronger advocacy against exploitation of animals. Ideally, in a world in which animals were not abused and exploited for human pleasure, human compassion for all life may be restored. If we are able to refuse the mistreatment of creatures that we do not even understand, maybe we will have more compassion for our fellow humans.
