The training of animals in captivity is not unethical, but the approach can be. The Shedd's seems more than legitimate to me. Please explain how it is not:
http://www.clickerreiter.de/KenRamirez2.htm
I think I can give some idea why I believe Shedd's approach to captivity isn't more legitimate, that is, more ethical. Though note that this is the first I've heard of Shedd and have read only that link you've here posted. It's possible that there's other information on the website that'll more or less negate my argument, but what can ya do.
From what I can tell, this is more or less Ramirez's, the head of animal training at Shedd, justification for
training the animals:
Training the animals at Shedd has always been the main focus of the marine mammal staff because, according to Ramirez, training is the foundation of quality animal care and provides the animals with mental stimulation and physical exercise and, perhaps most important, teaches them to cooperate in their own care
The article then goes on to say:
According to Ramirez, a simple definition of training is teaching—teaching an animal how to live in its environment. Just as a mother whale in the wild trains its calf how to navigate, find food and protect itself from sharks, Shedd Aquarium marine mammal staffers teach their animals how to live in the Oceanarium
So the justification for training seems to be this: it teaches the animals how to live in their
new environment, the 'Oceanarium.' Presumably, this is necessary because this environment is significantly different from their
natural environment, the ocean. So right away Ramirez concedes that this new environment doesn't sufficiently approximate their natural habitat, because if it did no training would be necessary. Indeed, in the natural environment such training isn't done by humans, but by the animals themselves, as he himself notes in his example of a mother whale training its calf how to navigate the ocean, find food and so on.
Arguably, this is already objectionable. In the least, it silences arguments that attempt to establish a similarity between the aquarium and the ocean such that any claims that the animals are alienated from their natural environments can be overturned. Ramirez himself, in his justification for training the animals, effectively admits that these claims are well-founded. So he's already on shaky ground, I think. But I'm willing to leave this point because I think there's bigger fish to fry--if you will.
It's far better that these animals be trained to live in this new, artificial and foreign environment (all adjectives that I think are pretty clearly summed up in the term 'Oceanarium') than not. This means that these trainers care for the animals and I also believe that these trainers themselves believe they have the animals' best interests in mind. So I'm far from vilifying these people.
But I'm also far from defending them, primarily because of the following reason: nothing in this justification for training the animals amounts to a justification for their captivity. Indeed, their justification for training them
presupposes that their captivity is justified. Otherwise, since their training requires their captivity, if this captivity isn't itself justified it's hard to see how anything that requires it is justified.
And I think there's reasons to believe that, in most
but not all cases, such captivity is objectionable. Though I'm not an 'non-interventionist' when it comes to animals and nature, I do believe that in most ordinary cases it's in the animals' best interests to develop and exercise their inherent capacities in the very environment in which they evolved to exercise these capacities and that therefore is best suited for them.
Looking at it from that perspective, which I think is the right one, it becomes actually ironically laughable to read Ramirez's defense of animal training. Not only does it fail to defend their captivity, which is the real issue here, it's also self-serving: Ramirez subjects animals to an environment that creates unnatural needs, then he defends his role by satisfying those needs.
In the least, if my argument for why captivity is objectionable is accepted, then Ramirez's justification for their training must also be rejected, for the reason I gave above.
In the end, if you're that sticky about animals being trained and observed by the public you probably shouldn't approve of animals in captivity whatsoever.
I'm willing to bite that bullet, though I wouldn't call myself 'sticky' about it. Just critically reflective.
