[Special Feature: Thinking About Zoos] Considering Zoos, Aquariums, and the Dolphin Procurement Issue from the Perspective of "Emotional Pain"

In February of this year, a symposium themed "The Potential and Future of Dolphin Shows" was held at Kyoto University, and the wording on the promotional flyer caused a bit of a stir. It stated, "No person belonging to an aquarium has ever felt that the dolphins in their care are unhappy." In response, Masayuki Hazama, who is with Enoshima Marine Corporation and interacts with dolphin care professionals nationwide, remarked, "I have never met a professional who does not feel emotional pain. On the contrary, they are earnestly seeking ways to face that pain and are taking practical steps toward its alleviation." On the other hand, at the beginning of the symposium, the organizers declared a rule: "We define aquarium dolphins as not being 'pitiful.' We will not debate this issue." While it is clear that emotional pain exists at the site of animal care, this was likely a judgment that the situation was not conducive to debating it. In this article, I would like to consider the position of Japanese zoos and aquariums by looking back at the issue of dolphin procurement in aquariums from this very perspective that the organizers deliberately avoided.

To begin with, it is said that "emotional pain" began to be shared across various boundaries of human society in the mid-18th century. Shusaku Kanazawa states that in 19th-century Britain, the sharing of "emotional pain" functioned when the poor sought relief from charitable organizations; it was during this exact period that the famous Cruelty to Animals Act (Martin's Act) was passed in that country. In 1879, an amendment was added to the act to restrict vivisection out of consideration for animal suffering, based on a utilitarian perspective that weighed animal pain against the public interest served by vivisection. Takeshi Ito notes that during this amendment, Charles Darwin—a dog lover who worked hard to expose animal cruelty—was involved in establishing rules for vivisection, such as the use of anesthesia, while struggling with his identity as a biologist who had no choice but to accept animal vivisection. It can be said that it was emotional pain toward animals that led Darwin to involve himself in the amendment of the Cruelty to Animals Act.

In this way, viewing animal issues through the lens of human emotional pain has advantages in explaining human behavior. It allows us to understand that one purpose for which humans invest their time is the alleviation of emotional pain. On the other hand, capturing the actual happiness or suffering of animals themselves is, in truth, quite difficult. For example, whether a certain stimulus becomes enrichment that enhances an animal's behavior or becomes harassment varies not only by species but also by individual, requiring complex trial and error. At this point, it is difficult to conduct discussions on whether captive dolphins are unhappy or how training for shows affects them without involving any assumptions or inferences. To begin with, utilitarian standards that emphasize happiness and pain are products of the human brain; what has driven biological evolution is the standard of which genes increase. However, what we humans feel we can empathize with is the animal's "mind," not its genes. While the perspective of "emotional pain" adopted in this article may be useful for humans aiming for a better world, from the perspective of genes, it might be seen as meddling. The role that utilitarian standards play in this universe should perhaps be considered separately.

Here, I will briefly look back at the history of the dolphin procurement issue in aquariums. For details, please refer to Junichi Banno's "Is Dolphin Hunting Cruel?" and "The 75-Year History of the Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums."

The Enoshima Aquarium Marineland, which opened in 1957, was the first to start dolphin shows in Japan. Senzo Uchida (former director of the Churaumi Aquarium), who worked at the Ito Aquarium that opened five years later, noted that edible dolphin hunting was flourishing in Izu, making them easy to obtain. In 1969, the Taiji Whale Museum opened in Taiji Town, Wakayama Prefecture—the birthplace of traditional whaling. By introducing drive-hunting techniques for the purpose of live capture for dolphin shows, Taiji Town began to earn significant income from live sales.

However, in 1972, a moratorium on commercial whaling was proposed at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, and whaling suddenly became an international issue. C.W. Nicol stayed in Taiji to write a novel based on traditional whaling and was shocked by the dolphin drive hunts, which differed greatly from traditional methods. He expressed concern that it would provide "perfect ammunition for various protest movements," but he noted that neither the Taiji dolphin hunters nor high-ranking officials at the Fisheries Agency would listen. Nicol's concerns became a reality when dolphin liberation activist Ric O'Barry visited Taiji in 2003, followed by the release of the film "The Cove" in 2009.

During this time, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) established its Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare in 2003, and the following year, it adopted a resolution declaring Japan's dolphin drive hunts a violation of that code. In response, the Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums (JAZA) negotiated intermittently with WAZA, but WAZA insisted that the implementation and encouragement of the highest standards of animal welfare were the duty of its members and demanded the separation of drive hunting from live capture. In 2009, the two parties announced that they would only conduct live capture of bottlenose dolphins during the September fishing season, but the handling of activities from October onward was left vague, and in practice, the previous situation continued. Upon learning of this in 2014, WAZA pointed out that the agreement was not being upheld. In August, discussions were held involving animal protection groups such as the Elsa Nature Conservation Association, but no sufficient agreement was reached. In March of the following year, an Australian animal protection group, with the support of ethicist Peter Singer and others, prepared to sue WAZA. On April 22, WAZA announced the suspension of JAZA's membership. Subsequently, JAZA decided to remain in WAZA following a vote by its member facilities.

Three major positions were intertwined in this process. The first is the animal rights and liberation position held by Ric O'Barry, the Elsa Nature Conservation Association, and Peter Singer. They criticize the use of animals for human purposes and argue that drive hunting is a cruel method that forces dolphins into a state of panic for live capture. In contrast, WAZA emphasizes animal welfare, recommending the realization of the highest standards of animal welfare for the conservation and management of animals by humans, and demanding consideration for animals even during live capture. Meanwhile, Taiji Town and the Fisheries Agency argue for scientific management and tradition, stating that dolphins should be managed and utilized scientifically as fisheries resources, and that hunters perform memorial services and rituals to express gratitude for nature's blessings.

Re-evaluating these positions from the perspective of this article, animal rights and liberation can be understood as a movement attempting to fundamentally eliminate emotional pain, but it is also a logic that, if taken to its extreme, makes coexistence with animals impossible because it prohibits all animal use. In reality, the relationship between animals and humans involves emotional pain in all sorts of situations—slaughter, culling, bereavement, and spaying/neutering—so the practical question is where to find a compromise. In contrast, animal welfare can be understood as a science that maximizes the psychological well-being of animals, but as it becomes more scientifically refined, the ethical line of how far to utilize it becomes an issue; WAZA recommends thinking about animal welfare and ethics as distinct categories. The final position of scientific management and tradition can be understood as inheriting the tradition of memorial services and rituals to maintain emotional equilibrium within a framework of scientific management that does not consider emotional pain, but the question remains whether this can become a common international ethic.

Looking back at the positions from which Japanese newspapers reported on this issue, the primary focus of the reporting was on the response to international pressure against whaling culture rather than the nature of aquariums. For example, at the JAZA president's press conference, emphasis was placed on confirming that the decision to remain in WAZA did not negate drive hunting or whaling culture. As a result, the movement to examine and improve the traditional nature of aquariums hardly spread beyond those directly involved in zoos and aquariums. Overall, the issue was dominated by a large frame of protecting whaling culture from international pressure, and the perspective of animal welfare was understood only within that scope. At that time, WAZA pointed out that drive hunting was "cruel," but there were instances where it seemed the meaning of this word being applied to live capture rather than slaughter was not well understood. Ultimately, the uniqueness of live dolphin capture within drive hunting was downplayed, and the history of involvement by domestic animal protection groups was ignored.

While the dolphin procurement issue has the unique aspect of being related to whaling, it is merely the tip of the iceberg compared to the numerous issues surrounding animal husbandry. It is still fresh in our memory that criticism was directed at Hanako the elephant at Inokashira Park Zoo, suggesting she should be returned to Thailand, but such criticisms are commonplace in North America and Europe.

Regarding cetaceans, both North America and Europe maintain captive populations of bottlenose dolphins through breeding. However, dolphin keeping has disappeared in the UK and New Zealand, and the Vancouver Aquarium in Canada is facing a potential ban on cetacean keeping by the Park Board. California has banned the breeding of orcas, and SeaWorld has withdrawn from orca shows. In Germany, two zoos keep dolphins, but criticism from animal protection groups is strong. It is said that obtaining accreditation from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) to clearly demonstrate that they are high-class zoos is important for countering criticism and maintaining relationships with politicians.

The same applies to the keeping of elephants and polar bears. Top-tier zoos such as the Bronx Zoo and Central Park Zoo in New York, and Lincoln Park Zoo and Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, have decided to withdraw. California has banned showing elephants the bullhooks used by handlers as a symbol of abuse, and Hannover Zoo in Germany was exposed to criticism after PETA secretly filmed a baby elephant being struck with a bullhook. On the other hand, Zurich Zoo in Switzerland, Cologne Zoo in Germany, and Oregon Zoo in the US have invested massive sums to build vast facilities to continue keeping elephants.

The background to this strengthening trend includes the influence of "Born Free," the true story of a lioness returned to the wild. In the UK specifically, it was made into a film in 1966, leading to the start of Zoo Check in 1984 and the enactment of the Zoo Licensing Act in 1987. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) in North America mandated a strict accreditation system in 1985, showing that they reacted sensitively to this trend and took proactive steps. In Japan, the Earth Life 21 (ALIVE) conducted a Zoo Check with the Born Free Foundation of the UK in 1996, but it ended as a one-off event.

Due to this history, the AZA in North America and the EAZA in Europe protect their member facilities by setting strict standards that only about one-tenth of the animal exhibition facilities in each region can meet. AZA cites "public trust" as the significance of membership, stating that it distinguishes them from substandard animal exhibition facilities and makes it easier to obtain donations and grants. Animal welfare is indispensable for protecting member facilities from criticism, which is why WAZA formulated its Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare and the World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy. In this situation, harboring facilities with insufficient consideration for animal welfare becomes a self-contradiction.

The reason these movements in North America and Europe are difficult to feel in Japan lies in the difference in support for animal protection groups. The RSPCA in the UK is an organization that was established earlier than the London Metropolitan Police; it is an organization of over 100 people that exposes animal cruelty and carries out trials. To begin with, the animal protection movement is a social struggle to change one's own culture. In the US, they still fight to eradicate dogfighting culture, rescue and find foster homes for fighting dogs, and even rescue privately owned tigers and lions. Compared to that, the animal protection movement in Japan can be said to be quite mild.

Even if the difference between us and them can be explained this way, what should we do? If we think about the site of animal care, it is certain that emotional pain exists there. What I found hard to believe in the reporting on the dolphin procurement issue was the claim by a public aquarium that breeding is difficult because there were 11 births but not a single one survived. If this were an elephant in a zoo, there would be condemnation within the industry asking why the husbandry methods were not improved. While captive populations have been established in North America and Europe, and breeding has been successful domestically at New Enoshima Aquarium and Kamogawa Sea World, the emotional pain of the staff who witnessed the deaths of dolphin calves at the aforementioned facility was repeated without leading to sufficient improvements in care.

Senzo Uchida, a heavyweight in the aquarium industry, states flatly that "both aquariums and zoos are 'evil acts.'" This is an assertion that humans are fated to take animal lives and eat meat to survive, and that the relationship between humans and animals cannot be settled with platitudes; it can be understood as a stance that acknowledges emotional pain while seeking to overcome it. It is not unique to aquariums that employees receiving a salary are required to overcome emotional pain to perform their duties. However, the management stance of aquariums that deprioritized the investment of resources necessary for improving the environment and techniques would appear to zoo professionals, at least, as a lack of self-help efforts. On the other hand, from the aquarium side, it might seem unreasonable to discuss fish and dolphins—which can be continuously introduced as fisheries resources—on the same level as foreign animals regulated by CITES. The vote during the suspension of WAZA membership in 2015 was conducted with such feelings, and it could be said that the minority cetacean-keeping facilities were forced to swallow a bitter pill.

However, there is a dangerous aspect to discussing meat consumption and the keeping of wild animals on the same level. Even if meat consumption is respected as an act for life maintenance, the keeping of wild animals for exhibition is of a different nature. Certainly, the fish kept by aquariums have a strong aspect as fisheries resources. Seafood Watch, developed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium in the US, is also based on the perspective of fisheries resource management. However, this only works because the subject is one for whom emotional pain is faint; for example, applying the same framework to penguins would likely not gain empathy. Even regarding sea turtles, which are permitted to be used for food in some parts of Japan, it is rare, as far as I can see, for aquariums to treat them as fisheries resources. To the extent that they cause emotional pain in people's hearts, dolphins are closer to penguins and sea turtles than to fish, and it is not rational to treat them merely as fisheries resources. Even if the introduction of a certain number of wild individuals is indispensable for keeping captive populations healthy, dolphins as fisheries resources and dolphins as captive populations should be treated as distinct to some degree.

Even so, how do zoos and aquariums in North America and Europe manage their operations amidst such harsh criticism? In fact, animal welfare is significant not only for protecting zoos and aquariums but also for fundraising. Zurich Zoo invested a massive sum of over 5 billion yen in its elephant facility, but the majority of that came from legacy gifts, and in accepting the promise of those legacies, they pledged to use the funds "for the animals." The existence of citizens who are willing to share the emotional pain of staff who feel the environment is unsatisfactory and who stand by them to improve it is what supports zoos and aquariums. In Japan, too, there are cases where the sight of zoo staff acknowledging their own emotional pain and working desperately for the animals has garnered empathy, regardless of external pressure or criticism from animal protection groups. Some zoos have begun to gain citizen support by organizing and promoting systematic efforts toward animal welfare. If one can gain the support of citizens by acknowledging one's own emotional pain and striving for the animals, and obtain the necessary management resources from that, would that not be a rather excellent path?