The article titled Marine Parks by Bill Daly tries to look into various dimensions of the issues related to marine parks and tries to find the answers to them (Daly 1997). The main focus of the article is on the credentials of the marine parks related to various scientific and ethical issues. It is claimed that marine parks violate several social, economic, and ethical norms. They do not make any effective contribution either scientifically or ethically. Therefore, there is no need of keeping these parks open.
The writer has presented various views to support his claim. Many experts are of the opinion that marine parks are the only organizations that provide an opportunity to see various kinds of marine animals, especially the mammals (Smith,
…show more content…
The experiments on the caged animals are unproductive because when the animals are caged, their natural habits and behavior changes (Jones, 1991). Most of the Australians like to see creatures roaming and playing in their natural habitat. The same thing goes for the international visitors. They do not come to Australia to see captive animals, rather they want to see the real natural beauty and diversity of Australia in the wild environment. If the marine parks are not closed, then Australia will lose its tourist attraction. Moreover, these marine parks capture several important animals like dolphins and make them detached from their natural and normal habitat. They are kept in such an atmosphere that is not at all acceptable at any cost. If a human being loses his house, his relatives, and his society then he becomes destroyed. The same thing goes for these animals. Therefore, this is a clear violation of ethical norms. These marine parks offer only a handful of benefits, and a long list of disadvantages that can affect every part of the society, economy, ethics and environment. Thus, Daly's claim seems to be relevant and …show more content…
But there are more disadvantages than its advantages. Marine parks offer people to have a glance of the natural beauty of Australia. According to me, that is not at all natural. An animal can be best observed in its wild habitat. Most of the people would agree on this fact. Most people would agree on this matter. There is no need of gaining a little profit by pushing the growth of the society and the balance of the environment into a state of danger. Moreover, I also want to assert that we should feel the pain the captive animals go through. If we consider ethically, then it can be seen as an opposition to the basic level of humanity. I strongly agree with Daly and I think that the marine parks should be closed
Considering the many challenges animals face in the wild, it is understandable that people may be eager to support zoos and may feel that they are protective facilities necessary for animal life. In the article “ Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals”, Author Robin Ganzert argues that Zoos are ethical institutions that enrich the lives of animals and ultimately protect them. Statistics have shown that animals held in captivity have limited utilitarian function resulting in cramped quarters, poor diets, depression, and early death for the animals thus, proving that Zoos are not ethical institutions that support and better the lives of animals as author Robin Ganzert stated (Cokal 491). Ganzert exposes the false premise in stating
In this short essay Bill Daly begins by telling us that he will be assessing arguments to keep marine parks open and he will be point out reasons why they actually don’t carry any weight. The overall conclusion that daily made in this essay was that marine parks should no longer be kept open because they are useless and in some ways can be considered to be animal cruelty or no new animals should be captured for their uses. In the essay I found that there were four major premises that can clearly be found. The first major premises can be found in the second paragraph, where it says that ‘there are many more locations where the marine life can be found naturally compared to marine parks’ (Bill Daly, para 2). The second premise was located in the third paragraph, where the Daly tells us the ‘by moving the marine life out of its natural habitat we are affecting their behaviour and making any research that is conducted on them unreliable when it comes to their natural behaviour’ (para 3). The third major premise that I found was in the fourth paragraph, where it says that the ‘parks could be considered tourist attractions but a majority of tourists come to see wildlife in its natural habitat and not in cages’ (para 4). The fourth and final premise that I found was in the fifth paragraph, in this paragraph Daly says that ‘the parks can be cruel to the animals they hold because they put a restriction the freedom they would normally have in the wild’ (para 5). In the end I believe that Daly has created a good inductive argument against the use and creation of marine parks.
In February of 2010, a woman named Dawn Brancheau died while working as an animal trainer at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida. There has been a large amount of debate about the circumstances surrounding her death—some say she slipped and fell, while others say that she was dragged in by one of the orcas, Tilikum. The controversy over her tragic death brought this question to the surface: should parks like SeaWorld be closed down for safety reasons? While this argument has been going on for a long time, the death of Brancheau spurred a wave of debates about whether the park should be allowed to remain open. On one side, people believe the parks should be shut down and the animals should be released from captivity in an effort to protect the animals and the humans. On the other side of the argument, people believe the parks should be kept open because of the benefits they offer to the world in education and conservation. In light of SeaWorld’s recent transitions, I believe the park should remain open to the public.
The whale Tilicum who is responsible for multiple deaths of trainers is still in captivity and still performs in shows. He now has no life left in him and for hours will still sit in the same spot. This is no way to treat a living thing and in no way should wild animals like this be put into captivity. The bottom line is that these animals are living mammals and should not be put into situations where they are starved and kept in extremely small spaces to live out their lives. Companies like Sea World should no longer have whale shows and should release all of the whales that will be able to survive into the wild. Sea World would be able to survive without their whale show, and even though it is one of the biggest sources of revenue the park can make money in other endevures.
I acknowledge that teaching the public about these animals will help educate the public more about the species and how to protect them, but why do we have to hold these animals in small confined places? What’s wrong with teaching the public through videos, interactive modules and the internet? I don’t agree with the statement that Jack Hanna, animal expert, made while being interviewed on CNN, “How are you going to love something unless you see something? SeaWorld provides that. You can’t love something unless you see it.” (Hanna). This comment is deceitful. There is a handful of species in the wild and species who are ...
Thesis Statement: Closing SeaWorld’s doors would be unjust, however; SeaWorld can repair its image by providing excellent care for its current residents and by shifting the business model from entertainment to rescue, rehabilitate and release at all locations.
The utilitarian foundation of argumentation indirectly taken by the producers of this film is one that focuses on the consequences as a means of determining what one ought to do. Utilitarianism argues one ought to commit acts that affects invoke more pleasure than pain or suffering. In the case of The Cove, Richard O’Barry and Louie Psihoyos , as well as other individuals chosen for the task of videotaping and creating the exposé, continually argue a few major points. One area where Richard O’Barry disagrees but the others seem to care little is the fact that dolphins are herded and initially chosen for performance purposes at water parks around the world. This showcases the manner in which many see the positives of entertaining individu...
Ganzert identifies the counter argument, “some critics have seized the tragedy as an opportunity to advance an uncompromising anti-captivity narrative in which all zoos and aquariums are inherently unethical and cruel” (2016), p. 1, para. 78. 1.
These four studies evaluated the use of marine protected areas (MPAs) as the primary tool for conservation efforts. Within Fox’s study, he identified four components that increase an MPA’s effectiveness, all of which focus on bringing together the goals of the governing bodies involved, as well those of the locals who rely on the marine systems in question for resources. The research presented by Edgar and his team presents similar findings as they identify five factors that have shown to increase the success of MPAs after they studied 87 different MPA locations. In addition to identifying the key factors that contribute to MPA success, they also identify some factors that lead to MPA failure. Halpern’s study focuses on the limitations of MPA networks and the broader scope issues that need to also be addressed in order for MPAs to be truly effective.
There are many places where people can go to see live animals such as aquariums, zoos, and safari parks. A pleasant way to define a Zoo is to call it “an establishment that maintains a collection of wild animals”. (Google def) Another way to say that is a facility in which animals are “enclosed in cages for public exhibition”. I believe zoos are ethical; however, changes need to be made to eliminate problems I have discovered. In this argumentative essay, I will be arguing the ethics of zoos and certain problems that need to be addressed that people are not aware of. Zoos are great places to take the family out for the day to have entertainment; however, problems such as captive breeding, length of life, and animal stress need to improve.
The difference between right and wrong is not always perfectly clear. A long-standing part of cultures across the world, zoological and animal parks have been around for hundreds of years. While in the past concerns and issues regarding the ethical problems zoos seem to impose were less prominent, in recent times the rise of animal rights activist groups and new generational values have influenced the way people view these parks. Critics believe that zoos are an unnatural habitat for animals and force them to live in captivity, having a negative impact on their health. Yet, there are still many remaining who fully support zoos, citing business and educational reasons. Some supporters even acknowledge the ethical problems zoos face, but choose
Most people think that zoos protect animals, but it can clearly be seen in the records provided by the Times that the zoos are doing the exact opposite of protecting animals. The American zoos, including the accredited ones, have led to the near demise of elephants. As if that alone isn’t enough to prove that zoos are cruel and unfair, there are many professionals and experts who gravely look down upon zoos too. Delcianna Winders, director with the PETA foundation, said “Renowned oceanographer Jean-Michel Cousteau reported that...
In the film, Madagascar, zoos are depicted as a sanctuary in which all the exotic animals are kept safe and are open for the public to view. But many would argue that zoos are inhumane, the caging of animals for our personal entertainment is unjustifiable. Those who believe that zoos are wrong and should be destroyed are animal rights activist; they believe that animals should be allowed to choose their own destiny. Those that believe that zoos are an important part of our lives are scientist and zoologist. This debate has gone on for generations and average folk are stuck in the middle, not knowing which side to stand on. The animals being kept in captivity could not be interviewed; their side of the story will be based on interpretation on their movement and interaction with animals in the zoo and in the wild. Are animals better suited to live in the harsh conditions of the wild or are they better suited to live their lives safely in captivity?
It is said that in order to protect the wildlife, we need to be educated about the wildlife that inhabits our planet. As humans, and the superior species on Earth, we put exotic animals, aquatic and terrestrial, in zoos or aquariums where people can go to see them to learn more about them in order to protect them. It just so happens that by putting these animals into captivity, we are causing more damage to them, just as damage is occurring in the wild and more species are becoming extinct. Animals should not be held in captivity; it does not save them from going extinct, but helps kill them off.
People now set up national parks in order to protect edge species, which are facing extinction made by human development. In the other hands, people set up zoos for animal study but more for entertainment. Because of several reasons, animals should be kept in national parks instead of zoos for the sake of animal protection. There are some facts about them to help understanding and comparing their work and function.