My daily perusal of my Twitter feed reveals to me an impressively high degree of agreement among people in our movement – at least when it comes to identifying what we interpret as immoral behavior towards other species.  Perhaps this creates a misleading impression of how much agreement there is among the public generally.  But among ourselves, we mostly agree on what constitutes cruelty, or exploitation, or unfairness.

However, scratch a little deeper, and we certainly disagree on quite a lot.  And this normally relates, in one way or another, to the approach we choose to take in battling these injustices.  I believe that how we deal with these instances is important.  In the world at large, we see far too many cases where groups (or entire movements) we’d expect would be natural allies in the face of a much bigger issue they both oppose in common, instead seem to spend more of their valuable time attacking each other.  I’ve never understood this human tendency.  It doesn’t serve the interests of either, though it certainly is useful to your common foe.

In our case, there can be few things more helpful to the captivity industry’s bottom line than to keep it’s most forceful critics busy fighting each other.

CCA has made its own choices – a set of principles we use to guide our interactions with each other, and with the world at large.  These allow us to disagree on a great many things, but allows the discourse to proceed in a fruitful direction.  We understand that other organizations will choose a different approach, and we respect that.  Until and unless our own position on an issue is misrepresented, CCA sees no cause for a fight, and will gladly let those orgs speak for themselves.

The issues can be complicated.  I often don’t have all the right answers, but how we propose to relate to one another will determine whether we stay on track towards a world which is more fair and compassionate. Let’s look at typical examples of what you’re likely to encounter at some point.

Let’s start with one which is less complex, comparatively speaking.  In my next post I’ll talk about a couple of tougher issues.

Example #1.  What is the appropriate level of criticism to be used against the patrons of dolphin shows?  These discussions can be difficult, usually when the person you’re talking to has been treated to a marine park’s disinformation regarding their contributions to education and conservation.  It takes patience on your part and a clear presentation of the facts, above all delivered in manner that shows respect for the other person.  Anything less than that, and you’ve probably lost them.  No one is receptive to being made to sound callous or uncaring.  You have the facts on your side.  Give it time and these will come out.

Less commonly, the conversation can quickly become toxic, especially if it’s on social media, but not only there.  You will probably experience some version of being called a victim of ‘suffering sensitivity’.  How do you respond?  I suggest that you take one step first before you yourself decide to raise the temperature on the discussion.  People are often bombarded with messages which create a moral equivalence between actions which they feel, on some instinctive level, don’t really make sense.  If you couple that with a surprising lack of scientific knowledge in many people, however well-meaning they may be, then you may get a question like “what’s the difference between keeping fish in an aquarium, and a dolphin – how can you be opposed to one and not the other?” (I have, and by intelligent people!!)  

Patiently explain what the experience of captivity is really like for a dolphin, and right there you’ve made serious headway with at least one more person.  

Rarely – though still often enough that I find it disheartening – you’ll encounter a person who simply doesn’t care.  There is a certain segment of the population that cannot be shaken from the idea that we humans rule supreme, and all other animals are here to serve us.  Even if it’s only for our entertainment.  My suggestion – terminate the conversation.  Having politely stated your position, don’t indulge someone’s intellectual dishonesty (unless you’re in the process of debating a bill in parliament – thank you spokespersons for S-203!!!).  Don’t waste your time on someone who refuses to acknowledge the difference between a dolphin and a fish, and don’t give them a forum for their nonsense.  We have blocks on  social media for a reason.

Patrons of dolphin shows are the ones who make the cruelty possible.  Yet I argue, here and elsewhere, that this in itself does not make them bad people.  Sometimes they are, yes, but usually not.  Normally, you’re talking about a person who recognizes an orca,  a dolphin, or a beluga as something special, worth seeing.  Possibly wanting the experience for their children, as an entertainment experience with a notable dose of educational value.  Besides, the dolphins appear to be well cared for here, and they never have to deal with predators or pollution, and meals are guaranteed, right?  And the dolphins look so happy – they’re even smiling all the time!

The reality is starkly different, and the experience of captivity is indescribably horrible for such a being.  But before attacking these patrons of dolphin shows, or swim-with-dolphin programs, and so forth – let’s make sure they’ve had a reasonable opportunity to know these facts.  We need to be fair.  Most of these people are potential allies for OUR SIDE.  With a little bit of knowledge, some will remain indifferent, but many, many more will not.  A lot of them will be future donors to our organizations, some will be volunteers and vocal advocates in their schools and workplaces.  Even short of all that, if they simply make the individual choice to never (or never again) buy a ticket to a dolphin show, this goes a long way towards making our world more just, and more compassionate.

Anna, Canadian Cetacean Alliance