Essay 2.2 Animals In Captivity- torture or for education?

Over the years, I have grown up as a complete animal lover. Like most kids, I was always excited to go to the zoo and watch all different types of animals in their natural habitats. Little did I know, these are not their natural habitats at all. I’ve begun to rethink whether zoos, aquariums or circuses are a good thing or not. There has been much debate concerning whether or not these places are ethical and in the best interest of the animals.

These places to see animals are considered to be magical and educational entertainment. For my family, going to the zoo was one of the most fun things we could do. Learning about the different types of fish at the aquarium and watching the giraffes eat from the trees was the highlight of my year. These experiences gave me an appreciation for animals, going to these places to learn more about animals is what made me an animal lover.

Having the opportunity to see wild animals in real life will have much more of an impact towards the education than will reading about them in a book. Only a select few children are privileged enough to actually go scuba diving or on an African Safari, zoos and aquariums provide easy access for everyone to witness these amazing animals.

Endangered species are often saved by human intervention. Humans can help save species in captivity by breeding and prolonging lives through medical care. Michael Hutchins, PhD, director and William Conway Chair of the Department of Conservation and Science for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association states, “The primary benefits zoos provide to society are education and conservation of species and habitats” (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association). I agree, there are many benefits to these organizations but many don’t meet humane standards. Hutchins says less than 10% of animal exhibitors meet the Association of Zoos and Aquariums accreditation. The major zoos and aquariums throughout the United States provide safe environments for wild animals with proper care, but many do not.

On February 24th 2010, Tilikum, the great orca whale murdered his second trainer at Sea World in Orlando, Florida. This would make be Tilikum’s third fatal attack, the third being a man who snuck into the aquarium to swim in the tank (his death was mostly attributed to drowning and hyperthermia). According to an article in Time, Tilikum grabbed his trainer, Brancheau, by her ponytail and dragged her to the bottom of the pool where she drowned (Chua- Eoan). This brings up the question, were these attacks acts of revenge on the trainers? I think it’s shocking that after this whales’ first murder, he was still expected to perform.

These amazingly intelligent animals are captured and put into tanks that would be proportional to a human living in a bathtub. Orca whales swim up to 100 miles a day in the wild and are imprisoned in confining tanks (PETA). Sea World trains whales and dolphins to do tricks such as jumping through hoops, swimming with the trainers and of course, splashing the audience. As a kid, I always left the aquarium in awe of the talent and intelligence of the mammals in these performances. But now I know these tricks and moves are not natural for these animals at all. According to Peta, they are trained by, “withholding food and isolating animals who refuse to perform” (PETA). I don’t think anyone would argue that these tactics are ethical to wild animals.

Many zoos don’t show natural behaviors or natural interactions, we only see trainers handling and feeding the animals. Many zoos and aquariums shouldn’t be applauded for teaching about wild animals; rather, they should only be given credit for showing how some animals are capable of adapting to such a drastic change. Think about the natural habitat of a polar bear; the very cold Arctic Circle, yet there are polar bear exhibits in zoos all over the world, often no where near their natural climate. And I’m sure there aren’t hundreds of people passing by and tapping on the glass in the wild either. Animals in captivity aren’t the same animal they would be in the wild; often these creatures are living a life that nature didn’t intend for them.

Have you ever thought about where these animals often come from? Many are taken from their natural habitats; The Humane Society of the United States believes that the process of capturing wild animals often causes suffering the moment they are taken. When wild dolphins are taken from the ocean, “they are ripped violently and traumatically from their social units” (Humane Society). Often time’s dolphins are fished and either slaughtered or sold to be in such shows. Animals were made to live in the wild, not wherever humans want them to.

Circuses have one of the worst reputations for animal cruelty. When I was 6, I had a Ringley Brothers Circus shirt that I tried to wear as much as I could until it became so worn out that it began to tear. I understand the lure and excitement as a child to see the elephants and tigers do amazing tricks. But, the truth isn’t as glamorous as we are made to believe. The Humane Society states, “The methods used to train these animals are often abusive, and they may be chained or confined for hours on end” (Humane Society). Circuses travel all year round all over the world. Elephants, lions and monkeys are put in small cages and taken from town to town. These animals are often not given proper care and don’t have access to basic necessities while traveling. The animals are only released from their cages in order to perform, and when performing they are sometimes leashed and shackled.

The temperatures and climates these animals experience are definitely not what they would experience in a natural setting. According to PETA, “A young lion named Clyde died in a sweltering boxcar as a Ringling Bros. train crossed the Mojave Desert on a day when temperatures exceeded 100°F” (PETA). There have been many other preventable fatalities of circus animals because lack of veterinary care and basic necessities for survival while on the road.

Not only do these animals experience tough travel and living conditions, the process of training them is very disturbing. The most common method of training is physical punishment, often by hitting, electric shock, and whipping. Many shocking videos have been shot showing the pain and suffering these animals are put through. PETA states:

Video footage shot during a PETA undercover investigation of Carson & Barnes Circus revealed Carson & Barnes’ animal care director, Tim Frisco, viciously attacking, yelling, and cursing at and shocking endangered Asian elephants. Frisco instructed other elephant trainers to beat the elephants with a bullhook as hard as they could and to sink the sharp metal bullhook into the animals’ flesh and twist it until they screamed in pain. The videotape also showed a handler using a blowtorch to remove elephants’ hair and chained elephants and caged bears exhibiting stereotypic behaviors caused by mental distress.

This is a very disturbing account of circus animals being exploited and abused for our entertainment. But, this is a very common occurrence in circuses all over the world.

I don’t think these programs should be done away with, but I think something needs to be done to enforce the accreditation of all zoos and aquariums. I also think animals such as Tilikum who have not adapted very well, should still be held in captivity. There are other options for him such as sanctuaries where he can live in a normal environment with other whales. I also think there should be more emphasis on the Internet to see videos of wild animals. There are other options to learn about these creatures, technology has come so far. But, I think everyone can agree that circuses need the biggest intervention. There needs to be a conscientious effort to help the animals that suffer daily, circuses that raven all over the world should not be allowed to have animals in their shows, I think this issue needs to be discussed in order for a change to take place for these circus animals. I understand the benefits zoos, aquariums and circus bring but we can’t put the lives of these majestic animals on the line for a profit.

Works Cited

Chua-Eoan, Howard. “The Killer-Whale Attack at SeaWorld: How It Happened.” U.S. 25 February 2010. New York Times. Web. 14 March 2010.

Ellis, Richard. “Sea World Killer Whale Attack.” 25 February 2010. Washington Post. Web. 13 March 2010.

The Humane Society. The Humane Soceity of the United States. 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.

Kuehn, Bridget. “Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos?” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. (2002). n. pag. Web. 14 March 2

PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 2010. Web. 13 March 2010.

Reflection 2.1

After writing my first draft, I know it needs a lot of work. I started my rough draft with not very much organization; I just wrote down all of my thoughts and they don't seem to make much sense. I also need to work on writing more clearly, because I often say things that make sense to me, but not others.

But, In general writing a Rogerian argument hasn't been too hard. I think it's not very hard because of the topic I chose. I think both sides of keeping animals in captivity are very strong. My boyfriend and I had a VERY LONG debate after I wrote my paper on whether or not zoos and aquariums were a good thing or not. He gave me a lot of very good points on the benefits of these organizations.

I realized that both of us were coming from the debate from different views, I the animal lover and he the one who thinks zoos are very educational. He made the point that without the zoos and aquariums you wouldn't see the animals at all, most people won't be going to Africa to see a safari. But, in the end we both agreed that zoos and aquariums that don't provide sufficient care for the animals are unethical and that circuses all together are not okay. I think I need to use his opposing point of view more in my argument and argue more towards the middle ground about circuses and correct treatment of animals.

Overall, I know my paper needs a lot of work in organization and clarifying my ideas. I also need to make sure my sources are scholarly, and once again work on citations.

Essay 2.1 Animals In Captivity- torture or for education?

Over the years, I have grown up as a complete animal lover. Like most kids, I was always excited to go to the zoo and watch hundreds of different species of animals in their natural habitats. Little did I know, these are not their natural habitats at all. I’ve begun to rethink whether the zoo, aquarium or circus is a good thing or not. There has been much debate concerning whether or not these places are ethical and in the best interest of the animals.

On February 24th 2010, Tilikum, the great orca whale murdered his second trainer at Sea World in Orlando, Florida. According to an article in Time, Tilikum grabbed his trainer, Brancheau, by her ponytail and dragged her to the bottom of the pool where she drowned (Chua- Eoan). This brings up the question, were these attacks acts of revenge on the trainers? I think it’s shocking that after this whales’ first murder, he was still expected to perform.

These amazingly intelligent animals are captured and put into tanks that would be proportional to a human living in a bathtub. Orca whales swim up to 100 miles a day in the wild and are imprisoned in confining tanks (PETA). Sea World trains whales and dolphins to do tricks such as jumping through hoops, swimming with the trainers and of course, splashing the audience. As a kid, I always left the aquarium in awe of the talent and intelligence of the mammals in these performances. But now I know these tricks and moves are not natural for these animals at all. According to Peta, they are trained by, “withholding food and isolating animals who refuse to perform” (PETA). I don’t think anyone would argue that these tactics are ethical to wild animals.

But, I did learn a lot about animals that I would never actually see in the wild. Zoos, Aquariums and circuses do provide easy access to the public to witness the majestic qualities of these animals. We can learn a lot about their basic behaviors in the wild and sometimes get to interact with them. But, do these benefits outweigh the suffering we are putting many of these animals through?

Visiting many zoos we don’t see natural behaviors or natural interactions, we only see trainers handling and feeding the animals. Zoos and aquariums shouldn’t be applauded for teaching about wild animals, rather, they should only be given credit for showing how some animals are capable of adapting to such a drastic change. Think about the natural habitat of a polar bear; but, there are polar bear exhibits in zoos all over the world, often no where near their natural climate. And I’m sure there aren’t hundreds of people passing by and tapping on the glass in the wild either. Animals in captivity aren’t the same animal they would be in the wild; often these creatures are living a life that nature didn’t intend for them.

The Humane Society of the United States believes that the process of capturing wild animals often causes suffering the moment they are taken. When wild dolphins are taken from the ocean, “they are ripped violently and traumatically from their social units” (Humane Society). Often time’s dolphins are fished and either slaughtered or sold to be in such shows. Animals were made to live in the wild, not wherever humans want them to.

Circuses have one of the worst reputations for animal cruelty. The Humane Society states, “We might like to think the wild animals featured in a circus, movie, TV show or commercial are enjoying themselves. But behind the scenes, the methods used to train these animals are often abusive, and they may be chained or confined for hours on end” (Humane Society). Circuses travel all year round all over the world. Elephants, lions and monkeys are put in small cages and taken from town to town. These animals are often not given proper care and don’t have access to basic necessities while traveling. The animals are only released from their cages in order to perform, and when performing these animals are sometimes leashed and shackled.

Also, the temperatures and climates these animals experience are definitely not what they would experience in a natural setting. According to PETA, “A young lion named Clyde died in a sweltering boxcar as a Ringling Bros. train crossed the Mojave Desert on a day when temperatures exceeded 100°F” (PETA). There have been many other preventable fatalities of circus animals because lack of veterinary care while on the road.

Not only do these animals experience tough travel and living conditions, the process of training them is very disturbing. The most common method of training is physical punishment, often by hitting, electric shock, and whipping. Many shocking videos have been shot showing the pain and suffering these animals are put through. PETA states:

Video footage shot during a PETA undercover investigation of Carson & Barnes Circus revealed Carson & Barnes’ animal care director, Tim Frisco, viciously attacking, yelling, and cursing at and shocking endangered Asian elephants. Frisco instructed other elephant trainers to beat the elephants with a bullhook as hard as they could and to sink the sharp metal bullhook into the animals’ flesh and twist it until they screamed in pain. The videotape also showed a handler using a blowtorch to remove elephants’ hair and chained elephants and caged bears exhibiting stereotypic behaviors caused by mental distress.

Circus animals are exploited and abused on a daily basis and forced to perform tricks that are not natural to them at all.

Even though many animals face unethical circumstances, I see the other side of the argument. Letting wild animals be available for public display is more educational then reading about them in a book. Endangered species are often saved by human intervention. Humans can save these species in captivity by breeding and prolonging lives through medical care. Michael Hutchins, PhD, director and William Conway Chair of the Department of Conservation and Science for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association states, “The primary benefits zoos provide to society are education and conservation of species and habitats” (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association). I agree, there are many benefits to these organizations but many don’t meet humane standards. Hutchins says less than 10% of animal exhibitors meet the Association of Zoos and Aquariums accreditation. The major zoos and aquariums throughout the United States provide safe environments for wild animals with proper care, but many do not.

I don’t think these programs should be done away with, but I think something needs to be done. I don’t think animals such as Tilikum, the Killer Whale, should still be held in captivity. There are other options for him such as sanctuaries where he can live in a normal environment with other whales. I also think there should be more emphasis on the Internet to see videos of wild animals. There are other options to learn about these creatures, technology has come so far. But, overall there needs to be a conscientious effort to help the animals that suffer daily, this could be done by boycotting businesses that exploit animals in order to make a profit. I understand the benefits zoos, aquariums and circus bring but we can’t put the lives of these majestic animals on the line for our selfish pleasures.

Works Cited

Chua-Eoan, Howard. “The Killer-Whale Attack at SeaWorld: How It Happened.” U.S. 25 February 2010. New York Times. Web. 14 March 2010.

Ellis, Richard. “Sea World Killer Whale Attack.” 25 February 2010. Washington Post. Web. 13 March 2010.

The Humane Society. The Humane Soceity of the United States. 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.

PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 2010. Web. 13 March 2010.

Kuehn, Bridget. “Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos?” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. (2002). n. pag. Web. 14 March 2010.

Prewriting Essay 2

For my next essay I want to argue zoo and performance animals. In light of the Killer whale, Tilikum, killing another trainer, I don't think these animals should continue to live at Sea World or in other aquariums.

The opposing views would be: having these animals on display is very beneficial to teaching about these wild species. We would never be able to go see a Killer Whale in it's natural environment and learn about them the way we do from aquariums and other venues.

I believe that we have such great technology now-a-days that we can learn about these animals on T.V. Yes, it's not as interactive or as entertaining but capturing these wild animals and holding them in tanks similar to a human in a bathtub is inhumane. There are other options for these wild creatures after we have captured them and somewhat domesticated them. There are other options, such as a Killer whale sanctuary in Brazil. Here, they can live in a much larger, more natural habitat and still be safe after not growing up in a wild environment. I also think, how can we keep putting the lives of trainers in danger when many have been attacked by the whales ans had near death experiences? We're putting trainers' lives in danger and these whales are obviously angry.

Reflection 1.3

I'm excited that this argument is finally over. In the end, I was very happy with my paper. Going to the writing Center definitely helped me with a few things I was confused about and showing me that a lot of things didn't make much sense; and helped me to clarify.

My writing process can basically be summed up by: after I chose an editorial I was FINALLY happy with, I just researched and researched sources to the point where I had about 25 tabs up on my screen. I would go through and highlight things I liked and good points to help support and that go against my argument. Then I tried to incorporate those sources into somewhat of a first draft. Then for the next draft I first went through and reread it and changed little things I wasn't happy with, I think I even changed sources, added some and took out some. For the last draft, I did the same thing and made changes all over the place and then changed some of the organization. In the final draft I also worked on the comments I was given, such as citing my sources correctly, pulling from the original editorial more, 5Ws and paraphrasing some of my sources rather than all being quotes.

In the end, I'm happy with my final draft and how it turned out. I don't think I've ever put as much time and thought into a paper. I had to think about if I was fulfilling everything we learned and all of the aspects of a successful rebuttal argument.

1.3 Lower drinking age could be step in the wrong direction

Dear De Andra Kenoly,

I recently read your article about the benefits to lower the minimum legal drinking age in The Whitworthian from February 28th 2009. I strongly disagree with this idea because I am very certain it would only turn an unhealthy drinking culture into a worse one. It has been proven that there is a major problem with minors abusing alcohol and that it is on the rise. I understand your duty as an aspiring journalist to write an interesting editorial. I also understand it’s an important issue because you’re months away from turning 21. But, I'm sure as a senior undergraduate student you've seen alcohol abuse by your peers. Something needs to be done, but lowering the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to purchase alcohol will only create more abuse from a wider range of ages.

Your editorial mentioned the Amethyst Initiative, which has had a major role bringing this discussion into the public. According to their website, their goal is to: “…encourage moderation and responsibility as an alternative to the drunkenness and reckless decisions about alcohol that mark the experience of many young Americans” (Amethyst Initiative). John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College, founded this group in hopes to change the law and create action. They broke news because of their petition signed by over 100 college presidents all agreeing to the benefits of lowering the MLDA.

These presidents believe lowering the drinking age will create a new culture of drinking in moderation. As good as that idea sounds in theory, I only see this creating a younger age group for binge drinking. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey said, “This small minority of college administrators wants to undo years of success – that defies common sense. We need to do all we can to protect the national drinking age – a law that saves the lives of drivers, passengers and pedestrians across the country each year” (MADD). Many benefits have come from raising the drinking age to 21 in 1985. I think it's safe to say most people, other than young adults counting down to their 21st birthdays, will object to this proposal.
Since the drinking age has been raised to 21, drinking related accidents have decreased by a significant amount. The Department of Transportation has estimated that the 21-year-old drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since 1985 (MADD). It doesn’t make sense to lower the legal drinking age and risk 1,000 lives per year.

College students have easy access to alcohol and often binge drink on the weekends. This is becoming more and more of an issue because of the health risks that are associated with drinking so heavily and in such short time frames, often causing blackouts and regrettable decisions. By college presidents signing petitions to lower the age to 18, they will only be passing the problem down to high school principals. Ruth Engs a professor of Health Applied Science at Indiana University believes drinking is a problem in minors because it is rebellious, she says, “[Binge drinking] is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of 'adulthood'” (Engs, paragraph 2). If the drinking age is lowered to 18, then 16 year old high school students will just be wanting to drink because it’s forbidden and rebellious. Ronald M. Davis, Immediate Past President of the American Medical Association, has a strong opinion on lowering the drinking age. Davis states, “If we lower the age at which young adults are legally allowed to purchase alcohol, we are lowering the age of those who have easy access to alcohol and shifting responsibility to high school educators. The science simply does not support lowering the drinking age” (MADD). This will become a never ending cycle; changing the age to 18 would be irresponsible and would brush the problem under the rug.

You also give evidence that many other European countries have a younger drinking age and that they have a healthy drinking culture. Europeans’ healthier drinking habits are not only related to the actual age, there are other variables in how they are raised that affect their perceptions on drinking. The United States today would not be able to take on these mannerisms by just changing the law, our peers would not be able to adjust to this new idea of legal drinking in moderation. This change needs to be gradual, over a long period of time.

As we’ve seen in many horror stories, not all minors can handle their alcohol, and that’s the cause of the problem. I believe "responsible drinking" is not an option right now, the law needs to be used to prevent deaths and injuries in young people. We cannot lower the drinking age and hope it will work. In the past, states that lowered their drinking ages back to 18 had much higher rates of car accidents in 18- 20 year olds, states such as: Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine (Drinking Age). It makes no sense to me, to give 18-year-olds this power when they will be set up for failure.

Underage drinking is not only an issue in the United States; it’s a worldwide problem. New Zealand is also in the center of this controversy; in 1999 the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18. According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, the amount of traffic accidents increased significantly in young adults from ages of 15- 18, it is believed that a higher MLDA would have prevented these problems. These statistics show that lowering the drinking age was not effective and will most likely have the same outcome if this was done in the U.S.

In your editorial you bring up a very strong point, “I am considered mature enough to choose to enlist in the army and perhaps even die for my country. I am also considered wise enough to vote on issues and for politicians to run the country” (Kenoly, paragraph 21). However, we should reconsider when someone is legally considered an adult. The website Why 21? discusses the benefits of the 21 year old drinking age. Their website provides evidence that the human brain does not finish developing until the age of 25 and that, “adding alcohol to the mix is a recipe for disaster” (Alcohol and the Teen Brain). Because scientists agree of the detrimental effects of alcohol on the brain, why would we allow teenagers to have access to something that we know is poisoning them? As you said in your editorial, “Judgment can be clouded when drinking” (paragraph 26). I can’t imagine the increase of bad decisions if the age is lowered to include younger, less mature teenagers.

By lowering the drinking age, alcohol abuse by teenagers would be increased. We should continue to examine and look for better options or solutions to underage alcohol abuse. As you said, “The consumption of alcohol is not the dangerous thing; it is the silence which shrouds the underground drinking scene” (Paragraph 15). I believe better education on alcohol should be set fourth and more conversations about drinking should take place at home and at school in order to teach adolescents to drink in moderation. I do agree that making better decisions about drinking is crucial; but I think there are other options rather than lowering the drinking age in the society we live in today. I think lowering the drinking age to 18 will only cause more abuse of alcohol and send the future of our society in the wrong direction.


Apprehensive College Student,
Danielle Guy



Works Cited

Amethyst Initiative. Amethyst Initiative. 2010. Web. 2 February 2010.

Engs, Ruth. Forbidden Fruit. University of Indiana. Web. 2 February 2010.

Kenoly, De Andra. The Whitworthian. Whitworth University. 28 February 2009. Web. 1 February 2010.

Kypri, Kypros. Voas, Robert. Langley, John. Stephenson, Shaun. Begg, Dorthy. Tippetts, Scott. Davie, Gabrielle. “Minimum Purchasing Age for Alcohol and Traffic Crash Injuries Among 15- to 19-Year-Olds in New Zealand.” American Journal of Public Health 96. 1 (2005): 126-131. Print. 2 February 2010.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2010. MADD. Web. 12 February 2010.

Procon. Web. 3 February 2010.

Why 21?. 2007. Web. 2 February 2010.

Writing Center

I've been so busy all week and have not been able to coordinate when the writing center is open and when I have time to go. I decided to go tonight, even though it was last minute, to get any final advice. I worked on my paper all week and changing things daily, so, I was hoping going to get help wouldn't be too much of and arduous task.

Going to the writing center was VERY beneficial. I didn't think it would help me as much as it did. We read my paper aloud and noticed a lot of little mistakes I had missed proof reading. We changed sentences I didn't like to be more concise and clear.

We also went through each paragraph and gave a brief summary and looked at the overall structure of the paper. We looked at the order of paragraphs and how they flow together. After looking at this I realized some of my paragraphs will go better together and moved some things around.

One of my main concerns was citations. We went through the new MLA guidelines and changed some of my citations. We also changed some of my in text citations that were incorrect. Overall it was very helpful to complete my paper, I expressed my concerns and we figured out how to fix them.