Stephen Wearing, Anne Buchmann, Chantelle Jobberns. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism. Volume 3, Issue 2, 2011.
Introduction
This article examines some of the contemporary issues in film tourism by discussing the growing industry of dolphin and whale watching following the commercially very successful Free Willy—films (1993, 1995, 1997, 2010). These films have led to increasing participation in cetacean-related activities like dolphin swimming and whale watching as well as visitations to marine amusement parks. This rise in visitation numbers has led to increased pressure on natural habitats and the animals themselves; furthermore, the Free Willy—films and documentaries have taught tourists to expect certain behaviour like acrobatic displays and interest in humans, and of viewing animals in close proximity, which might not be realistic. This paper will discuss these issues in greater detail and examine the links between film-based interest in dolphin and whales, and the resultant implications for the industry.
Film plays an important role in tourism as it is a particularly powerful medium (Churcher, 2003) that operates both on the visual and emotional level and consequently delivers strong images (Morgan and Pritchard, 2000). Commonly, an image defines what is beautiful, what should be experienced and with whom one should interact (Dann, 1996). Consequently, films have encouraged visitation to many locations and also increased the market for certain forms of ecotourism. The ecotourism industry has experienced dramatic growth into the mainstream since its inception as alternative tourism, and has grown to rival mass tourism (Anathaswamy, 2004; Lemelin, 2006; Meletis and Campbell, 2007). Ecotourism’s contribution to sustainable tourism is of interest here and its role in increasing the ability of those interested in viewing marine life generated by film.
A case study in point is the expanded industry in whale watching following the commercially very successful Free Willy—films (1993, 1995, 1997, 2010). The film Free Willy (1993) portrayed a lone captive orca released into the wild and reunited with his family (Wincer, 1993). The film’s star was an orca (in the past also referred to as “killer whale”) named Keiko, and he was fundamental in changing perceptions of orcas from beasts that “were feared and hunted” (Lawrence and Phillips, 2004, p. 9) to creatures that are now revered and glorified (Lawrence and Phillips, 2004). While the film led to Keiko’s own release and freedom, and eventual death, his legacy is a new popularity for dolphin and whale watching—a then niche tourist activity that increased in popularity dramatically after the release of the first film, creating a billion-dollar industry (Hoyt, 2001, 2003; Lawrence and Phillips, 2004). This industry tends to focus on specific cetacean communities, in particular the marine mammals commonly known as whales and dolphins. Furthermore, orcas have emerged as key icons for both coastal whale watching (or in this case more correctly, dolphin watching) as well as being widely used in shows and “educational displays” in marine amusement parks.
We argue that there is a causal link between film and dolphin and whale watching, and that there is at least some incidental evidence proving ground for this. Research, published by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), in 2003 found that $276 million was spent directly and indirectly on whale watching. Furthermore, there has been an annual growth of 15 per cent in the numbers of people going whale watching between 1998 and 2003 and this in a period where international tourism in Australia has only grown at 2.76 per cent a year (Whale and Dolphin Watch Australia, 2010). The screening of the Free Willy—films in 1993, 1995 and 1997 would suggest with lag time that at least some of the growth in demand can be attributed to the US$1 billion-dollar industry (Whale and Dolphin Watch Australia, 2010) that grew around these Films. Particularly as the films gained international recognition and the growth in whale watching also occurred internationally and with this being one of the only related specific phenomena that occurred internationally at this time with IFWA (2010) suggesting that in 1991, approximately four million people went whale watching around the world and by 2008 that number had grown 13 million people this report also suggested US$ 2.1 billion was spend in that year in 119 countries:
The popularity of watching whales from boats has exploded around the world in the last fifteen years […]. Blame this whale fascination on Free Willy […] Before the movie Free Willy was released there was one whale watching boat in the San Juan Islands. A couple of years after the movie I counted over fifty boats on a busy summer afternoon all watching whales […] (Carli, 2010, p. 1).
It is also interesting to note that with the release of the latest Free Willy—film (2010) in Australia the distributor Warner Brothers and Target have developed a promotional campaign whereas one could win a whale-watching experience with the purchase of the DVD (Warner Bros. Entertainment Australia Pty, 2010).
We acknowledge that direct linking of the films to the growth in the whale-watching industry is yet anecdotal but maintain that there is growing evidence particularly given the basis and demand in the whale-watching industry with orcas representing the iconic image in the Free Willy films. Popular media, of course, has been well documented as a form of image development and tourism marketing, from art through to literature, and now film (Beeton, 2010). It is also well documented that film viewing creates visitation to viewed sights (Beeton, 2008, 2010; Croy, 2010), and as we would suggest also visitations to selected species. Orcas are now the most recognized and well-known whales (even though they are technically dolphins) by scientists and the general public (Baird, 1999). Considering the history of hunting whales, which created a fear and public perception of whales best presented in the film Moby Dick (Lawrence and Phillips, 2004), we now observe a shift in public perception. This film-induced shift is in a large part driven by the fact how the Free Willy—films humanized whales, and has significantly facilitated the work of international environmental groups and their campaigns, including those of save the Whale, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. Furthermore, the growing public interest appears to have manifested in an increased demand for watching dolphins and whales, as supported by the significant growth of this industry since the release of the first Free Willy—film in 1993.
Clearly, dolphin and whale watching is not without impacts. The activity often targets specific cetacean communities that are repeatedly sought out for prolonged, close-up encounters (especially in the case of dolphin swim programs). As the demand for more frequent and intimate encounters increases, so does the responsibility of conservation authorities and the scientific community to assess the effects of these activities upon the animals (Corkeron, 2004). Human interaction with cetaceans can cause short-term changes in the behaviour of these creatures, such as alterations to foraging strategies or reduced maternal care, which in the long term can lead to the displacement from preferred habitats or reduced reproductive success (Blewitt, 2008). A growing number of studies have investigated the impact of vessel noise on cetacean communication. Jensen et al. (2009) suggest that the increasing number and speed of vessels may have reduced the habitat quality of cetaceans by increasing the underwater noise level. Lusseau et al. (2009) report that vessel traffic has disrupted the foraging behaviour of southern killer whales (Orcinus orca ), resident around San Juan Island, Washington, USA. Noren et al. (2009) focused on the same group of whales, reporting that the surface-active behaviours of these whales were affected by the proximity of vessels in the area. The authors conclude that the minimum approach distance of 100 meters in whale-watching guidelines may be insufficient in preventing behavioural responses from whales.
Weinrich and Corbelli (2009) studied the potential impacts of vessel exposure on the calving rate of humpback whales off the coast of southern New England (USA), but found no direct evidence for negative effects. They posit that any “short-term disturbance may not necessarily be indicative of more meaningful effects on either individuals or populations” (p. 2931). Sousa-Lima and Clark (2008, p. 174) found an important negative effect of boat traffic on singing activity. Adaptive management should aim at reducing the number of noise events per boat, which can improve the whale-watching experience and reduce the impact on male singing behaviour. Stamation et al. (2010) found that calf pods were more sensitive to the presence of vessels than non-calf pods, and that dive times and the overall percentage of time whales spent submerged were higher in the presence of vessels. The authors caution that since the long-term impacts of the effects of vessels are unknown, management of the humpback whale-watching industry should adopt a conservative approach.
Also problematic is the practise of catching and keeping orcas in marine parks for regular performances including coordinated jumps and anthropomorphised elements such as “kissing” the trainer (Sea World, 2010a, b). Furthermore, the “David Attenborough Effect” perpetuates the ecotourists’ expectations of close encounters with wild animals. David Attenborough is part of the world of celebrity conservationists that offer “closeness to nature and experience of the same” (Brockington, 2008). In particular, his documentaries fail to detail the months or years of research into a particular population of animals, the hours of filming required to “get the shot” nor the hours of travelling undertaken to reach such unchartered destinations (Snowdon, 1999). Consequently, his documentaries can convey the wrong message of wild animals and their willingness to connect with humans in non-threatening ways (Snowdon, 1999). We argue that this “David Attenborough Effect” has influenced even captive animal viewing, and overall has created unreasonable expectations of viewing animals in close proximity, which the ecotourist seeks and expects when wildlife viewing (Brockington, 2008; Snowdon, 1999). This is the more problematic as film tourism research has demonstrated how even highly contrived situations may be experienced and treasured as “authentic” encounters (compare with Buchmann et al. , 2010). So who is really profiting from this increased interest and participation in dolphin and whale-related tourism activities?
It is also interesting to note that while the considerations for animal rights is becoming a mainstream social issue in part generated by this interest in film, this as yet does not necessarily extend to animals in ecotourism, they are for example commonly viewed as “product” by this industry (Dowling, 2008) and therefore brings into question the value of film induced ecotourism. This also raised questions about the sustainability of ecotourism generated by film tourism. The sustainability of film-induced tourism has been raised before by Buchmann (2010) and Buchmann et al. (2010) and will be further discussed as we examine the Free Willy phenomena.
The Free Willy phenomena
Tourism in the free-market economy represents the commercialization of the human need to travel and exploits natural and cultural resources for profit. This paper has already indicated how the increased interest in these animals has led to their commodification in ecotourism. Of course, tourism has drawn on marine life for centuries. The first aquarium opened at London Zoo in 1853, and the idea of containing and presenting marine species to the public spread quickly throughout Europe. Later the expansion of the TV and film industry significantly boosted the public recognition and interest in so-called key species including bottlenose dolphins and orcas. In fact, an international trade of dolphins began in the early 1960s due to the rising popularity of dolphins following the popular film Flipper (1963) and its corresponding television series (1964-1967) (WDCS, 2008). Around this time the first orca was captured (1961), a practise that continued intensively for the next 28 years (Hoyt, 1992). Thus, the use of these animals in films also indirectly leads to an expansion of marine parks and aquariums. Such captured dolphins basically faced a life-sentence in small and often inadequate facilities, and often died long before their wild family members (Hoyt, 1992). Consequently, researchers continue to question the capabilities of marine park and aquariums to cater to the needs of such large and complex animals (Engelbrecht and Smith, 2004; Hoyt, 1992; Williams, 2001). The pressure to end the catching and showing of dolphins for show purposes has steadily increased following a greater understanding of these social animals and their complex lives. Films such as Free Willy in which a lone captive orca is released into the wild and reunited with his family (Wincer, 1993), increased public awareness about welfare issues and the ethics of exhibiting captive orcas. It was due to public awareness and eventual outrage that resulted in the film’s star Keiko being released into the wild, and an-ongoing public discussion concerning captive marine mammals, particularly other orcas. At the same time, captive orca shows and displays continue to draw tourist crowds, and regular performances include coordinated jumps and anthropomorphised elements such as “kissing” the trainer (SeaWorld, 2010a, b). Any such contrieved performances continue to influence and potentially completely form expectations of potential tourists regarding dolphin- and whale-related activities outside said amusement parks too.
An increasing body of literature into zoos, marine parks and aquariums, illustrates the challenges and exploitation of animals used in captive animal viewing. Enhanced by the “David Attenborough Effect” the practise has created unreasonable expectations of viewing animals in close proximity, which the ecotourist seeks and expects when viewing wildlife (Brockington, 2008; Snowdon, 1999). It has been argued that while captive animal viewing seeks to educate it is often failing to invoke respect for the animals. Films such as Free Willy create a desire to view animals in close proximity (Wincer, 1993), which is satisfied through the marine park but has also been transferred to an expectation of close viewing in the wild. The experience of whales in shows such as Sea World’s San Diego Shamu may suggest to tourists that the same experience can be expected when dolphin and whale watching. Thus, the film industry has both popularised wildlife viewing but also created expectations which have been reinforced by captive animal viewing of tourist believing they have the right to view animals in the wild in close proximity.
Similarly, the 2003 Disney movie Finding Nemo (2003) about a young clown fish helped to change public perception by showing fish as sentient beings but also perpetuated and popularized aquariums. Finding Nemo was particularly important in changing public perception about the moral standing of fish. The film challenged society’s long-held opinions when fish were portrayed as sentient beings worthy of animal welfare considerations (Casamitjana, 2004). The popularity of the film resulted in an increase in demand for clown fish (Aquatic Community, 2010) and even overfishing of clown fish in Japan, Okayama, were the local University of Science had to initiate a breeding program to replenish wild populations (“Japanese Students Saving Nemo” Sapadapa, 2005). In this case, too, there is a link between the portrayal and commodification of marine wildlife that in this particular case led to the direct consumption of a whole species of fish that had become iconic after its cinematic portrayal.
Keiko’s story
Even the largest dolphin species in the world, the orcas, have suffered a similar fate. This section traces the life of a particular iconic orca named Keiko who was born in the Atlantic Ocean near Iceland in 1977/1978 and soon captured as a young calf while chasing herring with his family (“pod”). Sent to the Icelandic aquarium upon capture where he remained for three years, he was then relocated to Marineland in Ontario, Canada in 1982. Keiko began his training and his “career” as a performing orca in Marineland, however was sold to Reino Aventura in 1985. Reino Aventura was an Amusement Park in Mexico City, where he lived in a small, warm shallow pool on a diet of frozen fish. His health deteriorated and he become depressed, and lost excessive weight (Keiko, 2006).
In 1991, Warner Bros Studios began scouting for an orca for their upcoming family movie, Free Willy a plot involving a young boy saving a captive orca and releasing him back into the wild. The executive producers initially approached Sea World, however, Sea World did not approve of the ending where the whale was released, and instead suggested the whale be sent to another marine park, e.g. Sea World. Determined to keep their original ending, the executive producers continued their search for an orca to star in their movie (Keiko, 2006). The marine park Reino Aventura eventually agreed to the story, and Keiko became the star of Free Willy . Filming began in 1992, and opened in theatres in 1993 to become a surprise global hit. The world fell in love with Keiko, and upon learning of Keiko’s living conditions in Mexico City, public support rallied to release Keiko back into his family in the wild. The Free Willy—foundation was formed in 1994 with initially significant contributions from Warner Bros Studios (Keiko, 2006).
Keiko’s life in captivity differed greatly to wild life. Wild orcas swim up to 160 kilometres everyday; an adequate pool size is the equivalent of 9,000 times the size of all the interconnecting pools at San Diego Sea World (Hoyt, 1992). Dolphins swim on average around 40-100 kilometres per day, which would involve dolphins swimming around their small circular pools thousands of times every day (Engelbrecht and Smith, 2004). Orcas are highly acoustic and life in a tank has been likened to “a human living in a small room with mirrors on all walls and on the floor” (Williams, 2001, p. 35). Similar to zoos, tanks are designed to reduce costs and ensure easy cleaning (Hoyt, 1992; Williams, 2001). Tanks are cleaned with chemicals and their chlorine levels are high, which has resulted in marine mammals suffering from skin peeling and at times being unable to open their eyes (PETA, 2009). Life expectancies are reduced for captive orcas; reports exist of whales living to up to 90 years of age in the wild, however in captivity, orcas rarely reach the age of ten (PETA, 2009).
In 1996 Keiko returned to the ocean when he was moved to his new home, a custom built, and natural seawater tank at Oregon coast aquarium in Oregon, Washington State, where he began his rehabilitation and re-learnt to catch live fish. In 1998, Keiko was moved to a large pen in Iceland and thus in his home waters for the first time in over 20 years. In 2002, he left the pen and travelled over 1,000 miles to Norway, where he was observed to be in good health. Keiko stayed in Norway where he continued to be fed by his carers, and to able to come and go freely. In December 2003, Keiko died in Norway of what was believed to be acute pneumonia (Keiko, 2006). However, his legacy continues and includes both an increased awareness but also demand for dolphin and whale watching in captivity and the wild.
And yet marine parks and aquariums continue to keep and display orcas. Another case study involves the lone orca, Lolita who was six when captured with her family in 1970 off the coast of Washington State, USA (Orca Network, 2008). She was sent to the Miami Sea Aquarium where she has lived for the past 40 years. For the first ten years she lived with Hugo, a member of her family captured two years earlier, however, he died in 1980, and Lolita has lived alone for 34 years. She is kept in a small, inadequate tank, with no other company. There are on-going rallies for Lolita to be released, and the potential positive outcome is high because her family has been well-documented and Lolita demonstrated a positive reaction upon hearing a tape of her family. Recently high-powered advocates joined the release campaign of this female orca (Orca Network, 2008).
Clearly, displaying orcas is a profitable business for the tourism industry. Sea World parks alone attract approximately ten million people annually, and receive $400-$500 million per year from visitor revenue (Williams, 2001). Sea World estimates as much as 70 per cent of their income derives directly from visitors’ interest in orcas. Researchers imply that the state-of-the-art medical treatment administered to resident orcas is geared more toward economic benefits for the business, rather than the welfare of the whales; they are protecting their multi-million dollar investments, in their opinion smart business (Hoyt, 1992). Animal welfare groups believe orca shows are conducted purely for profit; aquariums and marine parks argue the shows are essential to keep the whales mentally and physically fit (Carwardine, 2001).
The health of the whales in captivity is questionable and often compromised. The mortality rate is high, and cause of death remains largely unknown (Carwardine, 2001; Hoyt, 1992; Smith, 2003; Williams, 2001). The whales are heavily drugged, most commonly on anti-ulcer drugs, and fed large doses—one particular whale was kept on a dosage of 56,000 mg per day of tetracycline to fight anaemia for over three years (Hoyt, 1992). Hoyt (1992), Carwardine (2001), Williams (2001) and Smith (2003) argue that captivity cuts short an orcas life, and all bar two remaining whales have not lived to even half of their wild counterparts expected lifespan estimated by scientists, a fact Sea World is quick to dismiss. They, on the other hand project the lifespan of the species based around their oldest whale, and as she continues to age, their lifespan projections continues to rise (SeaWorld, 2010a, b). Sea World maintain their whales live stress-free lives in controlled environments free from “dangers such as shortages of food, parasites and threats from humans” (Smith, 2003, p. 2), Hoyt (1992), Williams (2001) and Smith (2003) disagree, claiming that if this were true, their orcas should be outliving their wild counterparts. Accurate comparisons between whales in the wild and captivity are yet impossible based on the scientific research available (Hoyt, 1992; Williams, 2001). However, it is acknowledged that captivity heavily impact social interaction. Wild orcas live in tight knit communities called pods, constructed of blood relatives, whom they stay with for life (Hoyt, 1992; Carwardine, 2001; Williams, 2001; Smith, 2003). There are no complete pods in captivity, and whales are forced to interact with whales from different pods and oceans who communicate in different dialects (Hoyt, 1992; Carwardine, 2001; Williams, 2001). Consequently, the quality of life these captive mammals is under scrutiny (Hoyt, 1992; Carwardine, 2001; Williams, 2001; Smith, 2003).
Furthermore, the captive orca business sustains another industry: those who catch the marine mammals. The impact of such captures on the overall survival of the targeted species is an on-going concern to researchers. Hoyt (1992) and Williams (2001) highlight that of the one 127 orcas captured for captivity, 56 originated from British Columbia and Washington State, and 55 from pods off the Iceland. These two orca habitats supplied an astonishing 87 per cent of the world’s captive orca populations (Hoyt, 1992; Williams, 2001). With regulations now governing the capture of orcas in most waters, and increasing public disapproval, marine parks and aquariums are focusing on captive breeding programs to preserve their captive numbers (Hoyt, 1992; Carwardine, 2001; Williams, 2001; Smith, 2003). Sea World has been the most successful, yet mortality rates are still high and the death rate outweighs survival rate (Carwardine, 2001). Hoyt (1992) and Williams (2001) criticise Sea World’s breeding programs, which has a survival rate of only 38 per cent, not including the figures withheld from the public regarding the number of stillbirths, miscarriages, calves surviving only hours or days, and pregnancy related deaths of adult females. Sea World also regularly remove calves from their mothers under five years of age, when in the wild, calves stay with their mothers for life (Hoyt, 1992; Williams, 2001). Clearly, issues of consumption and commodification are highly relevant in this situation, and go beyond the mere case study of Keiko’s experience.
Indeed, whale and dolphin watching, and indeed related activities like swimming with these animals, has become the fastest growing sector of the eco-tourism industry (Corkeron, 2004; Curtin, 2003; Whale and Dolphin Watch Australia, 2010). This rapid growth of the whale-watching industry has consequently “industrialised the ocean” (Corkeron, 2004, p. 848). Viewed by the International Whaling Commission in 1983 as an alternative “use” for whales, whale watching is now recognized as a legitimate form of ecotourism (Orams, 2000) and often seen as “an acceptable form of benign exploitation” (Gillespie, 2003, p. 408). Leading up to 2001, the international whale-watching industry was valued at over US$1 billion (Hoyt, 2001), and attracted over nine million people annually. According to the IFAW (2010), by 2008, the number grew to over 13 million people (IFAW, 2010), participating in over 119 countries (S.M.H., 2009). Patrick Ramage, the Director of the IFAW whale program, notes that whale-watching revenues have more than doubled since 1998, and that whale-watching operations around the world now employ an estimated 13,200 people (S.M.H., 2009) with the fastest growth seen in Asia (Black, 2009). Peter Garrett, the Australian Environment Minister, reports that the whale-watching industry now generates 2.1 billion US dollars of tourism revenue worldwide (S.M.H., 2009). The question is in what ways the film industry is contributing to this phenomenon.
The role of the film industry
Film has further commodified the viewing of animals, and it is significant to examine if the growth of interest in nature/wildlife due to film subsequently increases interest in viewing nature/animals. Of further interest is if such an interest then leads to the improvement of the welfare of animals through their recognition via the education of the tourist through interaction with them—with the ecotourist and animals as active participants in the construction and meaning-making of the experiences there is the possibility of the movement of the animal to a more central role in the overall agenda of ecotourism, including some form of ethics based around animals. This may allow movement away from their marginalisation and sole linkage to economic imperatives. We would suggest that with film induced ecotourism, the global commodification of animals is almost complete. As the economic benefits of ecotourism have increased and the recognition of animals as central to this, given anthropocentric Judeo-Christian traditions, nature is inescapably commodified, especially since “every state of nature must be socially reproduced” (Eder, 1996, p. 24). Further, with the advent of consumerism “commodifying almost all aspects of social life” (Macnaghten and Urry, 2001 p. 26), the commodification of nature is in itself highly contested and so the rights of animals within this contest.
It is contended here that for ecotourism to philosophically align itself to environmental ethics and to present itself as an alternative form of tourism (Wearing and Neil, 1999) it must incorporate some intention to include in its agenda the rights of animals (included in this is the welfare of animals). Research suggests that the welfare of animals has become an issue due to the need to sustain them for commercial exploitation within the ecotourism experience but the notion of rights for animals in ecotourism appears to be a distant hope. We would contend that for a movement towards the rights of animals within the ecotourism experience, de-commodification principles and practices (Wearing and Wearing, 1999) must be introduced into the global ecotourism industry. If ecotourism cannot offer an alternative path (Wearing and Neil, 1999, 2009) towards the rights of animals it loses the right to distinguish itself from the mainstream ideas of tourism and becomes just another market niche in that industry. We are concerned with outlining the complexity of the role of animals in ecotourism suggesting that in neo-liberal regimes, such as Australia, and particularly in the Anglo nation states such as the USA, Canada and England, there is a need to ensure a conscious agenda of decommodifying animals’ role in the ecotourism experience.
The “David Attenborough Effect” as described before might encourage the ecotourist to seek such an experience, satisfying the want of the ecotourist, but not the needs and rights of the animals (Brockington, 2008). The ecotourist seeking an experience with wild animals is not necessarily environmentally conscious, and a close encounter with the animal central to the tour is a high priority (DeBruyn and Smith, 2009; Orams, 2000). Scientists and researchers have long recognized the need for the re-education of tourist expectations when viewing wildlife (Bain et al. , 2002), and a key to the de-commodification of wildlife.
In a world of limited natural resources, humanity must restrain the exploitation of the resources that have become so characteristic of the collective needs of developed countries. There is a conflict between the need to protect the environment and the global market’s needs for production of profit. As such, organisations operating under the banner of ecotourism may need to accept and ensure a closer focus on the rights of animals in order to validly differentiate themselves from a tourism industry otherwise dominated by the exploitative attitudes of free market principles. Thus, the debate about sustainability also becomes a debate about values:
[…] it is important to acknowledge that the concept of sustainability is not a neutral, scientific or objective concept, but rather a normative or subjective concept. It will therefore, always comprise implicit or explicit values (Visser, 2008 as cited in Grimstad, 2009, p. 141).
What is also challenging is that it is not clear how the demand side, the tourists, respond to the challenges of sustainability and the subsequently needed changes in their own behaviour. And while previous “efforts to understand and predict why individuals acting an environmentally appropriate manner have generated a considerable body of literature” (Vaske and Kobrin, 2001, p. 16), so far studies show “no direct relationship between environmental awareness and pro-environmental behaviour” (Hildebrandt, 1997, p. 237). And as Buchmann (2010) notes, people mostly operate within the given societal and policy/management structure. Consequently:
[…] barriers to intended actions and social norms have a strong influence on whether or not intended behaviors are accomplished. Thus, changing the physical and social environment to make sustainable behaviors less difficult and more socially valued will enable those with weaker attitude changes to behave more sustainable. In this way, changing contextual factors is likely to have the largest impact on sustainable behavior and development (Arbuthnott, 2009, p. 159).
Currently, there are few signs of a critical movement within the dolphin and whale-watching industry regarding their responsibility for re-education of tourists and respecting the marine mammals they depend on beyond basic guidelines.
Concluding remarks
This paper has introduced contemporary issues of film tourism stakeholders by discussing the growing industry of dolphin and whale watching following the commercially very successful Free Willy—films (1993, 1995, 1997, 2010). And while these films have increased the profile of dolphins and their larger “cousins” the whales, they have also somewhat facilitated questionable forms of tourism including powered boat cruises chasing wild cetaceans, and their display in zoos, marine amusement parks and aquariums. The influence of film in current neoliberal society is not extensively studied yet though “it is generally accepted that film can influence people’s desires to undertake activities represented in the film” (Beeton, 2008, p. 40). We argued that this has been noticeable in the case of the Free Willy—films and the consequent increase in dolphin and whale-related activities, though further reasons for tourists’ growing interest whale and dolphin watching not related to film tourism and specifically Free Willy should be assumed too.
Many forms of tourism, including film tourism and/or ecotourism, are essentially built upon the exploitation of animals, which is particular true for tourism involving whales and dolphins. The current desire to view these animals, captive or wild, places the needs of the animals behind the “wants” of the humans. An animal’s right to live its life undisturbed is ignored by an industry intent on creating profits, their lives affected on the basis on consumer trends and tastes. It is problematic that these forms of ecotourism have evolved into a form of mainstream tourism, and its contributions to protecting animals are doubtful given that tour companies seek to satisfy the needs of the tourist, not the rights of the animal. If ecotourism is to reposition itself as acting ethically, it must demonstrate its commitment to respecting the animals it depends on. To achieve this, a fundamental shift must occur where the partially film induced ecotourism industry aligns its core foundation with the protection of animals and their life world, and a clear positioning towards issues of commodification, anthropomorphism, as well as human responsibility for habitat destruction. This research paper also argues that captive animal viewing does not contribute to more sustainable forms of tourism; to the contrary, it damages the integrity of even the ecotourism movement due to its alignment with attractions that cause considerable suffering and mental anguish while contributing little to education and true conservation. For any such tourism to contribute to sustainability, animal rights must be a foremost consideration—tourism built around the animals in question, instead of the tourist. Failure to consider individual animal rights and transform the current form of this contemporary tourism will see the continued evolution of dolphin and whale-related activities into another unsustainable form of mass tourism. Of further concern is that, for example, self-regulation of the dolphin-swimming and whale-watching industry has been discontinued in favour of more effective official policies and guidelines. Thus, the contemporary, and at least partially film induced, whale- and dolphin-watching industry finds itself in the somewhat contradictory situation of profiting from the current situation as well as facing the need to change it radically by addressing the rights of its subjects, the cetaceans and their iconic characters.
There is hope that Keiko’s story will inspire a change in how we see and experience dolphins and whales, and transform our relationship to a more respectful one acknowledging the rights of all beings to a free and non-commodified life where encounters are still possible but not artificially forced. In this, the tourism stakeholders face an enormous responsibility as “the worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That’s the essence of inhumanity” (George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950). Now it is up to individual tourists and tour operators as well as the industry as a whole to prove that more sustainable forms of dolphin and whale tourism can be developed. And as “seeing is believing” a well-timed film might once again initiate such a perceptional and behavioural change.