Stripes of Death: Dangers of the Biggest Cat

Stripes of Death: Dangers of the Captive Cats

Today we're discussing the dangers of big cats in captivity in the wake of the unfortunate death of Stacey Konwiser of the Palm Beach Zoo reported a few weeks ago. The issue is huge, a lot bigger than you think. You'd think there aren't that many pet tigers roaming around the country, but there is an estimated 5000-10000 captive tigers scattered across the United States (there is no official census, so we are left with only estimates). That's more than the entire Asian wild population put together. Of those, only a small percentage is in the hands of AZA (American Association of Zoos & Aquariums) accredited zoos, the majority being in the possession of private owners. For simplicity's sake, we'll be focusing on the dangerous aspects of tigers in captivity and how problematic it can be to have the largest cat in captivity, in both accredited zoos and private ownership. Pet tiger legislation and the actual ownership of tigers will be focused in later posts.

So, what's so bad about having a tiger as a pet? We have cats in captivity and surely tigers can't be that dangerous? If you have a shred of sense in your body, you should realize that tigers are some of the most formidable creatures that walk the earth. With great strength, speed, and agility and armed with sharp teeth and claws, tigers are the largest cats in the world and not animals you should ever mess with (then again, it's usually not smart to mess with tigers). While tigers are certainly dangerous , if handled effectively and safely, they pose little risk to their caretakers.

Tigers have been in captivity for only a few centuries (compared to lion training which has dated back thousands of years) and the art of keeping tigers in captivity is still being slowly figured out, although accredited zoos have had some success in keeping tigers in captivity. There are three groups that tigers fall in when kept in captivity: zoos & sanctuaries, private owners, and circuses. Most respectable institutions, like accredited zoos and sanctuaries, ban all free contact with the tigers. That means the keepers are never in the exhibit with the tiger and are trained with a strong wall separating the two. The only reason for the keepers to be close would be a veterinary checkup where the cats are generally put under anaesthetics and monitored closely.

Some private owners follow the same precautions as accredited zoos, but the Internet is proof that many private tiger owners cuddle, play, and swim with their striped "pussy cats" as if they were simple house cats. Some even share their homes with their tigers and treat them like part of the family. This is incredibly dangerous. Some private owners believe that their relationship with their tiger will keep them from harm, but this is simply not the case. Friendship or not, it is impossible to breed the wild instinct from the tiger.

Circuses fall in the gray area of tigers in captivity. As part of the act, the trainers go into the ring with the tigers (often accompanied by lions) and it takes an enormous amount of training and respect for a trainer to share a space with ten tigers without being ripped apart. Most professional circuses (like Ringling Brothers) employ many safety measures and protocols after receiving a bad reputation and while life on the road isn't ideal for tigers, they are certainly treated better than some "pet" tigers.

Stacey Konwiser was an experienced tiger keeper. She was recently killed by a male Malayan tiger at the Florida zoo where she worked at. While she certainly had a great love for the cats that she dedicated her life to, it was by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) reported that she went into the enclosure without following protocol. The tiger almost instantly delivered a fatal neck injury. Zoo personnel were able to tranquilize the tiger, citing that if they shot the tiger, they could've harmed Konwiser who's condition was unknown at the time.

Konwiser isn't the only one to fall victim to the captive tiger. Most notable is the death of a teenager at the claws of a female Siberian tiger named Tatiana. Tatiana resided at the San Francisco Zoo for several years where she also rose to recognition for grabbing a zookeeper's arm that came too close. Three teenagers visited the zoo on Christmas Day of 2008 and taunted the tiger by throwing items into her exhibit and hanging their leg off the rail. Reports show that the trio had alcohol and signs of marijuana in their systems. Enraged at the teasing, Tatiana leapt from her exhibit (the exhibit's moat was five feet less than the AZA-recommended standards) and mauled the three teenagers. She managed to kill one, with the other two fleeing from the maddened tiger. This marks the first death of a visitor in the history of the AZA-accredited zoos. Tatiana was later killed by the police that rushed onto the scene.

Tigers are very dangerous animals that should not be taken lightly. Sometimes we get so caught up in their beauty and grace, we forget that these animals are much more lethal than we'd like them to be. Our portrayals of tigers in the media, whether it's Tigger from Winnie the Pooh, Tony the Tiger, or even the tiger that was slowly trained in Life of Pi, makes us believe that tigers are just animals that can coexist with us with a lot of love and respect. Tigers do not make good pets and even for professional zoo keepers they can be quite powerful. This is an issue that should not be taken lightly. Maybe your state has no laws banning the private ownership of tigers or maybe you have seen a zoo tiger attacking it's meal. Whatever your beliefs, know that in the wrong hands, tigers in captivity can be one's last decision.

Author's Note: Tigers in captivity have always fascinated me due to their prevalence in the United States and popularity among exotic pet owners. I also extensively researched the San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks (I even passed the zoo on my way to Christmas dinner during the attack) and it's a illuminating case study of a professional zoo that without the right protocols, can be more harmful than they appear. Private tiger ownership is not a huge concern for many because it has no long term harmful effects on humans, but definitely is not good for the tigers. Is it responsible for us as the dominant species to hold these majestic animals in small cages for our own personal amusement? More tiger ownership will be discussed in later posts.

Sea World: Only Time "Whale" Tell

Sea World: Only Time "Whale" Tell If it's Latest Gambit Will Pay

I apologize for waiting for three months to post a new article, but I was busy with some endeavors. But since the hiatus a lot has happened in the zoological world. For today, we're taking another in-depth look at everyone's favorite zoological punching bag: Sea World. The controversial entertainment corporation that runs three marine theme parks in the United States (San Diego, Orlando, and San Antonio) made the decision to end orca breeding effective immediately. In the next few decades, there will be no more killer whales in captivity. Thoughts? There's a lot of them and it's safe to say that some are happy and some are not. 

Sea World has put in hot water for the past six years. With the death of senior trainer Dawn Brancheau by resident killer whale Tilikum, a massive leviathan responsible for the deaths of two other humans and the release of the documentary Blackfish, Sea World's attendance and profits have plunged from their once great peak. And the aggressive expansion of the theme park business by Disney and Universal has brought the competition to a higher level, with Disney playing it's profitable Star Wars and Marvel cards and Universal banking on the "universal" appeal of Harry Potter. And what has Sea World rolled out in the past years? Save for a penguin ride that was met with lukewarm reviews, Sea World's aging attractions have relied on it's live animal shows for far too long to keep the turnstiles turning and it's clear that Sea World cannot rely on their profitable black-and-white mammals to sustain their parks (anyone realize that black-and-white animals tend to be the most profitable for zoos? Pandas? 

Sea World fought the critics hard in the past three years. They initiated an aggressive marketing campaign to convince their customers that Sea World was simply a misunderstood zoological facility that was only doing the best for their killer whales. They agreed to restrictions regarding the killer whale trainers' contact with the orcas and even rolled out a new expansion plan entitled Blue World. But that ambitious plan fizzled out when the California Coastal Commission approved the expansion with one addition: stop breeding the killer whales or forget Blue World. To invest in a multimillion dollar project for a temporary exhibit is extremely risky at best and Sea World had to weigh their options. While attendance and profits had more or less stabilized, the marine park company faced a ton of headaches from animal rights activists and a decreasing customer pool. In the end, Sea World decided to stop breeding their controversial icons once and for all. 

If you take a closer look, you get more of the juicier bits to this story. For one, Sea World, in an effort to win back support from animal lovers, partnered with the Humane Society to announce the end of killer whale breeding. This wasn't surprising to the common eye, the Humane Society is the number one animal protection organization in the country. But the Humane Society has hidden motives up their crisp sleeves and they're not the most honest organization in the world. In fact, they tried to sue Ringling Bros. in a coalition of animal rights organizations for Ringling's treatment of circus elephants, while paying off a key witness. 

If you're super worried about the future of Sea World, don't fear too much. Killer whales can live anywhere from 25-60 years (depending on their health, gender, and subspecies). In captivity, it tends to be a little shorter, but many of Sea World's killer whales are young and Sea World Orlando's dominant female Takara is also pregnant. The killer whale shows will end within the next couple years so never fear, there's still at least four decades before killer whales go extinct in captivity (taking into account if the youngest killer whale survives to around 40).

Whatever the motives of Sea World (it's safe to assume that they ended orca breeding to increase profits and regain it's image), the age of the orca is over. It's odd to think that less than a decade ago, trainers exploded from the water aloft killer whales' snout and crowds packed the grandstands to get the chance to be splashed from one of the world's top predators. So much has changed in so little time. Is it for the better? Certainly Sea World will never be the same. It's the equivalent if Disneyland decided to remove Pirates of the Caribbean or Universal Studios took out their studio tour. It probably won't hurt business in the long run, but Sea World has essentially lost their most iconic attraction. And despite widespread applause from many critics who fought bitterly for the killer whales' "release", there are others complaining about how Sea World "gave up".
As someone who supports Sea World (not for the entertainment value, but for it's potential to teach millions about marine life), it was hard to accept that decision. But if you look at it, Sea World has been fighting tooth and nail for their beloved Shamus for more than three years and things haven't turned for the better. Their stock increased 10% after the announcement, although I was surprised to see the negative comments on Facebook and Twitter about the decision. Mostly I've been seeing "Die Sea World!" or "Sea World sucks!" or "Free the killer whales!"


In a society where we value our independence and freedom the most (if you don't believe me, watch the LEGO Movie or the Hunger Games), Sea World had become a symbol of captivity where majestic marine mammals were forced to live in tiny conditions while being withheld to food to perform circus tricks. Sea World was desperate to shed this image, although they seem to have dug in their heels with certain lines. For example, while the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have repeatedly called Sea World to release their killer whales into open-water sanctuaries, this scenario doesn't seem likely. There are many difficulties in constructing these (including costs for maintenance and labor) open-water sanctuaries, not to mention that it's never been done before and Sea World doesn't seem interested on spending millions of dollars on something that will run it's course in the next couple decades.

I've written three articles about Sea World, debating on what they should do to convince the public that they're run legitimately. Honestly, Sea World is a bit like Hillary Clinton. They're both painted as these evil, untrustworthy figures while in real life, they're probably just normal, neither good nor bad. I think Sea World gets a lot of unwarranted hate for being the poster boy of captive animals. Sure, some of their practices can be improved and I'd wager that soon enough, the public will want dolphins out of captivity. What will Sea World do? Evolve, like they always have. PETA has long predicted that Sea World was just a desperate sinking ship just waiting to fail after relentless hammering from animal rights activists and concerned citizens alike. But Sea World surprised people with this move and we'll have to wait and see if faith will be restored in Sea World. Who knows? There are some consequences. Already some marine mammal researchers are complaining that since Sea World is ending their killer whaler program, they cannot conduct their research (conducting research on wild orca populations is risky, expensive, and unpredictable) effectively. Some dissatisfied customers are boycotting Sea World. Still others are unhappy that Sea World hasn't taken their killer whales out completely. Sea World compromised at the end and you know what they say about compromises: everyone leaves just a little bit angry.

Author's Note: Sea World has become a polarizing figure in recent years, the butt of the joke for many and the target for others. It didn't help that Sea World's initial attempts to quell the public backfired and got even more people enraged. I am not a hater of Sea World, but neither do I outright support them. They are like any other zoological facility, some of their efforts are good and others can be improved. This is the end of an era for Sea World. They banked on their killer whales to get them to the top and the massive marine mammals propelled them center stage. Now it's up to them to find a new way to enthrall children and adults alike with the majesty and beauty of marine life. 

Swazi Elephants: U.S. Zoo vs. Death?

Swazi Elephants: Certain/Improbable Death or Prisoners/Guests? 

Well it's that time in the year where we return to the controversy of elephants in captivity. The issue on hand now? Swaziland. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, Swaziland is a small African country located in Southern Africa. How small? Think slightly larger than Connecticut. And it is home to the Hlane Royal National Park, home to many exotic wildlife including elephants. The problem on hand is that elephants are destructive and there is no room in the tiny, landlocked country for them if the country wants the more endangered rhinos to help. The solution? Two options: Cull the elephants or send them to U.S. zoos.

First of all, let me say that I am in no way criticizing zoos in general (at least the good ones). But I have to call utter BS on this. Elephants don't fare well in captivity (with a few notable exceptions) and their breeding rate is nowhere near a self-sustaining population in North America. Despite their controversial status, elephants remain the top draw for American zoos and with the shortage closing in on most major zoos, they must adapt by either closing their popular pachyderm exhibits (generally replacing them with rhinos) or step up their breeding. Neither option has been successful at this point so zoos must look elsewhere for their elephants. 

The perfect solution for their problem is Africa. Elephants are categorized into two species: Asian and African. However, under the Endangered Species Act, it is illegal to import Asian elephants. If you're able to sidestep all the bureaucratic red tape, you might actually be able to get your hands on some African elephants. The San Diego Zoo and Lowry Park Zoo spearheaded an effort that brought thirteen elephants into the United States in 2003. The herd was enormously helpful in stepping up breeding efforts (the San Diego Safari Park at it's peak was home to thirteen elephants), but the move remains controversial. 

This time, the effort is being led by Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo, Wichita's Sedgwick County Zoo, and the Dallas Zoo to bring in eighteen elephants. The zoos and the government claim that the elephants (ages range from 6-25) will be culled (aka murdered for "good" reason) to make room for the rhinos. The choice is most likely untrue, designed to get the import permits signed. After all, who doesn't like a good rescue? However, I've perused most articles that ebulliently call for the elephants not to be subjected to the prisons in U.S. zoos. Besides the usual "zoos are awful for elephants" and "I hate zoos!", there wasn't much logical reason against the culling. One article vaguely explained that there were alternatives, but then stopped short of listing any viable options. National Geographic suggested birth control or South Africa as options. South Africa is already full to the brim with elephants and administering birth control in the field still doesn't solve the problem of the current elephants (it could be applied later so we wouldn't have to have this debate).

And now we come to the scenario that the elephants end up coming to the United States anyway despite the strong global opposition. Would it be that bad? While many zoo exhibits are insufficient for the cognitive and physical abilities of elephants, it's hard to paint a picture of loneliness, suffering, and pain when you look at the three zoo elephant exhibits. Dallas Zoo's Giants of the Savanna has five acres (and cost $32.5 million to build), Omaha's elephant exhibit is part of its $73 million renovation, and Wichita's Elephants of Zambezi Valley is the nation's third largest exhibit for zoo elephants at over five acres (and the world's largest elephant pool). While certainly life in captivity is not perfect, would it be that bad? With zoo technology at it's finest, they're not sticking the elephants behind bars in a concrete enclosure. They'll have families, free veterinary care, fresh food, and a safe home. Pardon me for saying this, but most people in the world don't have that luxury. It's not the perfect choice, but at this point, it's the best option if the elephants come to the United States. 

While many conservationists and field biologists are against the holding of elephants in captivity, zoos are evolving to meet those changing demands. Just recently bullhooks (tools historically used to beat captive elephants into submission) were banned and elephants required to be housed in social groups. As I keep on repeating, it's not a perfect system but it's getting better. I am not against the transfer of the elephants, but I feel that the motives of the zoos are not as pure as they portray themselves to be. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the zoos are just greedy businesses capitalizing on their best attractions. Or maybe zoos are the forefront of conservation and they're just receiving a lot of heat for trying to help the elephants. I'm not sure and I cannot state anything as fact if I don't have the real facts. Whatever the end for this, let us keep in mind that the welfare of the elephants should always remain our top priority. As long as the elephants are well cared for, I have no reason (other than ideological) to be against the transfer. 

Blue World: Sea World's Next Great Challenge

Sea World's Blue World Project May Prove To Be It's Greatest Challenge

I seem to write a lot about Sea World nowadays because it is the center of controversy over whether we are allowed to keep charismatic megafauna (elephants, marine mammals, gorillas, giraffes, etc.) or for that matter, any animal in captivity. Let me be clear on that I am not anti-Sea World. Sea World holds one of the largest zoological collections in the United States and they have done much more help than harm with marine species. However, with that, I do not agree with some of their killer whale practices (the size of their tanks for example). If you want to blast me for supporting watery prisons, go ahead, but do not deny that Sea World has done some good things in the zoological world. I support Sea World, but not for their killer whales, for the good they do rescuing marine animals and supporting conservation and research. 

First of all, let's talk about the Blue World Project. It's a humongous renovation of the killer whale habitats in all three Sea World parks which will involve the expansion of the tanks and some new technological advancements that can mimic the wild habitat of killer whales. It includes 1.5 acres of water (double the size), new immersive environments, and even an advanced feature that will allow killer whales to swim up a "current". Let's be frank in that humans will never be successful in recreating the wild. We can barely create suitable habitats for monkeys, let alone marine mammals who swim for miles each day. Does that mean we cannot hold marine mammals on ethical basis? Sea World seems to think so. While the Blue World Project is not a perfect option, wouldn't it be better for the killer whales to have bigger tanks rather than languish in their smaller, concrete "habitats"?

I, for one, would rather see the killer whales in larger habitats and actively swimming rather than their current homes. I first visited Sea World San Diego in 2007 and was disturbed on the swimming pool state of the killer whale homes. However, I don't blame Sea World for their troubles with killer whales. True ethical captivity of animals takes time. Humans have worked with elephants for centuries and we still have major problems of housing them ethically. Sea World pioneered the use of killer whales in captivity and it's surprising that the death count isn't higher considering they ripped them from the ocean at a young age (then again, the zoos of old around the world did the same with pretty much every other animal). How many zoos have let chimpanzees, lions, and hippos die in small, concrete enclosures? Sea World is no different from other zoological facility, but has received the brunt of the criticism due to it's enormous collection of the ocean's top predator.

Sea World's greatest challenge be the Blue World Project. The Blue World Project was meant to reinvent Sea World's image, but the fact that they want major renovations on the killer whale tanks means they admit that the killer whales are not living in an idealistically good habitat. The California Coastal Commission recently told Sea World San Diego that in order to build the Blue World Project, they would be forced to cease killer whale banning. Sea World is currently challenging the ban in court, citing that the Commission has no jurisdiction over captive killer whales. Animal activists and concerned citizens alike have pointed out that even if Sea World builds the Blue World, it will never be enough to house killer whales ethically. 

Sea World has faced serious problems over the past two years since the release of Blackfish. Their once strong attendance numbers have declined rapidly. In 2012, Sea World San Diego reported an annual attendance of 4.4 million. Two years later, the numbers barely eclipsed 3.8 million. Orlando has shown similar numbers, while San Antonio's numbers have not been released to the general public. In addition, Sea World's stock have stumped and many of its corporate partners have abandoned the once strong company. Discounts and a large marketing campaign have seemed to not make a dent in the growing number of people disgusted with Sea World. As you can see above, most don't agree that the Blue World Project will have any effect on the killer whales' welfare. I disagree. How can more space be a bad thing? If they HAVE to stay in captivity, more space is good, right? If they're not going anywhere, we only have one option: improve their current lifestyle as best we can. 

Sea World must evolve sooner or later. They cannot continue in their current state or be shut down. I can think of two likely scenarios, neither of which involves Sea World building the Blue World and then everyone flocking back to the parks. It just doesn't make sense. "Honey, guess what? Sea World built a bigger tank! Never mind all the nasty comments I posted on Twitter or the fact that I protested outside their theme park for ten hours. Let's take the kids and go!" Scenario #1: Sea World caves in to public pressure and sends its killer whales to open-water sanctuaries. That would take the public pressure off and help rebuild its reputation. Scenario #2: Sea World wins the fight against the California Coastal Commission and builds Blue World, while desperately trying to find another way to rebuild its tarnished reputation. This can also extend a third likely scenario to Sea World losing the fight against the California Coastal Commission and then either caving into public pressure and building the open-water sanctuaries or building the Blue World, effectively ending killer whales. Pretty much any scenario results in the loss of killer whales. The end of an era is nearly upon us. Sea World must realize this or be forever silenced. I understand they are fighting for long term survival. Activists already hate dolphins in captivity. But what about sharks? Sea lions? Otters? Marine animals are considered some of the hardest animals to care for in captivity. Sea World may go extinct if everyone suddenly decides it's not okay to house any marine animal in captivity, even rescued seals and sea lions. But for the short-term survival, giving up the killer whales would take immense public pressure off Sea World and ensure they can fight to live another day.

Author's Note: It has become clear that Sea World must change. Ringling Bros. have retired their circus elephants (technically the company will still retain control over their herd). Sea World has great potential to do good for zoological specimens. They are correct in the power of inspiration. Children who leave Sea World have a greater understanding of the marine world and the dwindling wild. Sea World has rescued thousands of marine animals and their zoo technology is the best in the world. Is anyone still complaining about Lolita who absolutely lives in a bathtub? No. As humans, we find it much easier to see the faults in companies than it is to see the potential. We should not see Sea World as the enemy. Like any other corporation, they want money, but the animal department (veterinarians, trainers, research scientists, educators, etc.) employed only want what's best for the animals. We need all the help we can get to combat the increasingly dwindling, polluted, dangerous wild that used to be the home of millions of creatures. Sea World is ready to help with their enormous resources, but it cannot do much if they're increasingly worried about their own survival. We only have fragments of biodiversity left and we must preserve what's left for the future. Can Sea World  hold back the tide? Only time will tell.