# data[].attributes.headline
Are there many or few great white sharks near California?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are there many or few great white sharks near California?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The possibility of keeping large sharks in captivity has been of great interest to many public aquariums, which seemed unlikely because they need more delicate care than most other fish. Until lately, the only species that lived in captivity were some species like leopard sharks and horned sharks, among others which are benthic animals and not very large.

THE CHALLENGES OF THE CAPTIVITY

The shark species most wanted by aquariums is the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), which has awakened the fear and fascination since its representation (exaggerated) in the 1975 film JAWS. The reality is that attempts to keep them in a huge tank in front of hundreds of curious eyes have not been very successful. In general, large species such as the Carcharodon carcharias are difficult to catch and transport. Their sharp senses are disturbed with the use of structures and machines, to take them out of the water, their weight can damage their organs while carrying them, because their cartilaginous skeleton does not provide the support needed for transport.

Besides, if an aquarium wants a great white shark in their tanks, it must fit a space large enough and adequate to its needs. The life of a shark in an aquarium also includes satisfying its feeding needs.

It is very expensive to keep sharks in captivity which is also another reason why they often aren't found in aquariums. They require saltwater tanks with an enough room to move around, and they consume large amounts of food daily.

In 2004, the Monterey Bay Aquarium managed to condition a space for a great white shark, and it stayed there for six months, after which it was released back into its natural habitat. The attempt was made for the first time in 1980 when the same aquarium kept an individual of the same species in captivity but unfortunately died after 11 days at the facilities. That time the conditions were not adequately met.

To guarantee an optimal life development in captivity, it is important that aquariums or any place that keep sharks fulfill these conditions:

1. Sharks can move comfortably during their transportation to their next habitat.

2. Sharks natural movements and reactions are not limited or restricted. Some shark species like the great white shark are susceptible to stress if they do not execute physical activities.

3. The tank that houses the shark should be adequate and free of obstacles that hinder any of its movements.

4. The environment should not have human artifacts, machines or tools that stimulate their sense of electroreception.

UNFORTUNATE CASES

Although some small species are prone to survive in aquariums, it is dangerous to use small places to exhibit or keep them. There have been cases of people selling sharks illegally to people who do not have the skills to keep a shark alive and healthy. Sometimes, when the young ones grow, space can become more limited, and those who own them are forced to make some adverse decisions for the animals, such as their release into the sea without previously experienced life in the wild.

Sharks are not domestic animals, so their care is more special than dogs cats or ornament fish. Keeping an individual involves an enormous investment of time and money and requires the knowledge about their life and care. Therefore it is an important responsibility.

PROSPECTS OF A LIFE IN CAPTIVITY.

Captivity is not an ideal condition for any animal, but this view changes when it comes to threatened species. In the case of sharks, many of them face serious dangers, and it is important to take measures to protect and preserve such species.

Life in captivity may be favorable to their survival to some degree. For example, the Monterey Bay Aquarium has made efforts to provide information on the species and it is a pioneer in exhibiting white sharks. However, some organizations disagree with the latter practice, and the aquarium has not keep white sharks again.

If there is an advantage of having sharks within human limits, it is the possibility to investigate their biological, physiological and health conditions that allow an assessment and subsequent establishment of conservation measures for the affected species. However, many experts agree that sharks in captivity don't follow the usual behavior that they would in the wild. Therefore observing them in captivity to learn about how their life in the wild isn't very useful at all.

It should not be forgotten that sharks are not "made" to live indoors. They need space and freedom like all animals. If it is not strictly useful for the survival of the species, do not support its captivity.
Sources:
www.peta.org/blog/great-white-shark-dies-after-just-three-days-in-aquarium/

http://www.georgiaaquarium.org/experience/explore/programs-activities/animal-interactions/journey-with-gentle-giants/swim-with-whale-sharks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharks_in_captivity
BioExpedition Publishing © 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks are not made for captivity. Most species do not do well in captivity and their life span get severely shorten.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California ocean ecosystems | What we do | Monterey Bay Aquarium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are working to protect California's unique and important ocean ecosystems by raising awareness, recovering sea otters along the coast, monitoring ocean health, and working with state legislators to establish strong policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks Endangered and Conservation

If you were face-to-face with a shark, what would your reaction be? Do not worry about getting away as fast as possible. Probably the shark will flee from you first.

While it is a truth that some shark species are animals that present a sort of danger to people, it is also true that humans have endangered the preservation of many shark species, despite all the physical and physiological adaptations they have achieved through evolution to survive in their natural environment.

The picture of the status of sharks is not encouraging. There are about 12 species considered dangerous for humans, but about 20 are in danger of extinction. How do you explain this? Their indiscriminate and incidental hunting and the destruction of their habitat are the main factors that caused this situation which, joined with the wrong information that most people know about them, endanger their survival which has exceeded hundred of millions of years.

SAD STANDARDS OF DANGER

In fact, estimations state that about 100 species out of 470 that exist in the world, are in a status of imminent danger to severe. The organization responsible for classifying animal status, including sharks, is the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. From its perspective, all threatened species are under continuous evaluation, and a diagnostic is provided that is an indicator of dangers, causes, and consequences.

The organization has nine categories to classify the status of animals: Not Evaluated, Insufficient Data, Minor Concern, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, Endangered, Critically Endangered, Extinct in the Wild and Extinct. A shark species is considered threatened if the IUCN Red List includes it starting in the Vulnerable status as this category being "less risky" among all the critical levels.

The Near-Threatened category, although it is not an indication of an endangered species, sets a precedent and indicates a potentially endangered species in the future. Vulnerable species face a high risk of extinction in the wild, Endangered species face a very high danger of extinction in their natural habitat and species classified in the Critically Endangered status face an extremely high risk of extinction.

THREATENED SHARKS

Predators, but also prey. According to IUCN analysts, among the approximately 470 species of sharks, 2.4 percent are Critically Endangered, 3.2 percent are Endangered, 10.3 percent are Vulnerable, and 14.4 percent are Near Threatened.

Famous species such as the great white shark ( Carcharodon carcharias) and the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) are Vulnerable although the size of the latter and the ferocity of the first are striking. The power of humans over species almost defenseless against them has won.

These are the 25 most threatened species of sharks in the world, classified as Endangered (EN) and Critically Endangered (CR):

Carcharhinus hemiodon. Pondicherry shark. (CR).
Centrophorus harrissoni. Dumb gulper Shark. (CR).
Glyphis gangeticus. Ganges shark. (CR).
Glyphis garricki. Northern river shark. (CR).
Glyphis siamensis. Irrawaddy river shark. (CR).
Haploblepharus kistnasamyi. Natal shyshark. (CR).
Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus. Daggernose shark. (CR).
Mustelus fasciatus. Striped smooth-hound. (CR).
Squatina aculeata. Sawback angelshark. (CR).
Squatina oculata. Smoothback angelshark. (CR).
Squatina squatina. Angelshark. (CR).
Carcharhinus borneensis. Borneo shark. (EN).
Glyphis glyphis. Bizant river shark. (EN).
Hemitriakis leucoperiptera. Whitefin topeshark. (EN).
Holohalaelurus favus. Honeycomb Izak. (EN).
Holohalaelurus punctatus. White-spotted Izak. (EN).
Lamiopsis temminckii. Broadfin shark. (EN).
Mustelus scmitti. Narrownose smooth-hound. (EN).
Sphyrna lewini. Scalloped hammerhead. (EN).
Sphyrna mokarran. Great hammerhead. (EN).
Squatina argentina. Argentine angelshark. (EN).
Squatina Formosa. Taiwan angelshark (EN).
Squatina Guggenheim. Angular angel shark. (EN).
Squatina punctata. Squatina punctata. (EN).
Triakis makulata. Spotted houndshark. (EN).

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

In the last decades some species populations have decreased up to 90 percent, and some others, up to 70 percent due to anthropogenic causes that kill them directly and indirectly. Disinformation and slow reproduction do not help them to improve the recovery rate of these animals.

Today, sharks face an uncertain future full of risks in a world troubled by environmental problems. If the rate of extinctions increases considerably, in a few years, the seas may be without sharks bringing an enormous amount of environmental consequences with this. Action needs to be taken; there is still time!
Sources:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://sharkopedia.discovery.com/shark-topics/shark-conservation/

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/shark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_threatened_sharks
BioExpedition Publishing © 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many types of sharks are at risk of becoming extinct which is why conservation efforts are in place. Keeping pollution and human food items out of the waters is

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kamilo, on the Big Island of Hawaii, is no ordinary beach. While it has sand, most of the island is made up of cooled chunks of lava rock that formed when

# data[].attributes.headline
There's a Horrifying Amount of Plastic in the Ocean. This chart shows who is to blame. 

# data[].attributes.subject
There's a Horrifying Amount of Plastic in the Ocean. This chart shows who is to blame. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marine scientists have long known that plastic pollution in the ocean is a huge problem. The most visible sign of it is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an accumulation of waste (actually spanning several distinct patches) floating in the ocean. It's at least twice the size of Texas and can be seen from space. This pollution has an incalculably lethal effect on everything from plankton to whales.

So just how much plastic is there? A new study in Science yesterday put out some pretty horrifying numbers: In 2010, the study finds, between 4.8 and 12.7 million metric tons (that's about 10.5 billion to 28 billion pounds) of plastic entered the oceans-the median of those estimates is 1.3 times the weight of the Great Pyramid at Giza.

If we want to crack down on all that plastic, knowing where it all comes from could be as important as knowing how much there is. That's the main idea behind this study. A team of scientists led by University of Georgia environmental engineer Jenna Jambeck set out to calculate how much plastic every one of the world's 192 coastal countries dumps into the ocean. To do it, they combined data on each country's per-capita waste generation, the size of the population living within 50 kilometers of the ocean, the percentage of waste that is plastic, and the percentage of plastic waste that is "mismanaged" (defined as "either littered or inadequately disposed").

The last step is to estimate how much of the mismanaged coastal plastic waste actually washes into the sea. (This is the step that explains the wide uncertainty range in the grand totals above.) Jambeck drew on existing literature on waste streams from places like South Africa and the Bay Area to reach an estimate of 15-40 percent; she then applied that range across the board.

The chart below shows the worst offenders, in terms of total plastic pollution in the ocean in 2010, using data from the study. The top-ranks belong to middle-income countries with rapidly growing coastal populations that lack the resources to keep pace with waste management infrastructure. By contrast, even though the United States has relatively good waste management, its per-capita waste production is so high that it makes the top 20.

That's right: China alone dumped nearly 5 billion pounds of plastic waste into the ocean in 2010. But what's even worse is just how much the study projects these numbers will grow in the future, based on predictions of population growth in each country by 2025. The chart below shows the top-ranked countries in terms of total mismanaged plastic waste (in other words, not all of this plastic is necessarily winding up in the ocean). China is still very much in the lead, and India shows a disturbing explosion of plastic pollution:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There's a horrifying amount of plastic in the ocean. This chart shows who's to blame.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marine scientists have long known that plastic pollution in the ocean is a huge problem. The most visible sign of it is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an accumulation of waste (actually spanning several distinct patches) floating in the ocean. It's at least twice the size of Texas and can be seen from space.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Celebrities and Bottled Water: Spoiled, Misinformed, or Just Plain Weird

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Celebrities live in a different world. Perhaps the weirdest expression of this is seen in the bottled water demands in contracts that celebrities require when they appear in public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain. In my three years of volunteering, I have never seen, nor had any reason to suspect, any foul play at my zoo. The allegations in "The Modern Zoo" that all zoos are inhumane and cruel is false, I believe.

According to the article in Teen Ink, "Zoos claim to educate visitors. Yet we've all seen the one-sentence signs that describe monkeys. What can be learned from this? Certainly not enough to justify inhumane captivity." One-sentence signs are not the end of zoos' efforts to educate. At my zoo an entire department is devoted to educating the public about conservation of animals and our planet. If zoos didn't care about education, why would they have this? While exhibits may display signs with brief information, staff work daily at the zoo to educate visitors about conservation and other critical topics.

Some zoo employees visit schools and businesses to educate the public about how to be more responsible with our environment. This department even organizes conservation projects around Ohio, such as the community effort to remove waste from Big Creek. Volunteers spent a day restoring the creek to a more healthy ecosystem. The zoo is also part of a national conservation campaign called Year of the Frog, dedicated to saving amphibian species from extinction. Zoos put forth tremendous effort to educate people, and to say that they do not is just not true in my experience.

"Zoo animals endure inadequate living conditions with no space," claims the article. It's not fair to make this generalization. My own zoo, for example, is planning a one-of-a-kind, spacious exhibit for its elephants. The exhibit encompasses many acres, and will be large enough to support a breeding population. If zoos didn't care about adequate space for their animals, why would they waste time raising millions of dollars to build this type of exhibit? Also, my zoo cares a lot for its animals; it houses the second oldest hippo in North America and its polar bears are twice the age of those in the wild.

I witnessed a life-saving surgery on a 13-year-old wolf. Veterinarians worked for two hours to save his life. Thirteen is very old for a wolf. Zoos do care for their animals, and do what they can to keep them strong and healthy.

"These animals are simply meant to entertain," claims "The Modern Zoo." That too is false. At the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, animals are never forced to do anything for the sake of visitors' entertainment. We believe in positive animal/ human interaction. Zoo staff never force or coerce an animal due to this policy.

The author of "The Modern Zoo" is obviously very passionate in his opinion about zoos. I am also very passionate. I have not written this to personally attack him. Rather, I am simply stating facts. "The Modern Zoo" paints zoos as cruel, inhumane facilities, but it is both unfair and untrue to claim this about all of them. Many have state-of-the-art veterinary facilities and work hard to save endangered species.

I hope that readers will see that zoos seek to protect and save endangered species, as well as educate and encourage the public to do the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever went to a zoo and saw a polar bear in a small cage, a small swimming pool to where it can't even go fully underwater, and the fur of the creature wasn't even white anymore? If you think this is okay, then you are not realizing that these animals that they hold in zoos are becoming depressed because they don't have enough space to live a life they deserve. Many people think zoos are a learning opportunity, I agree in a way but there are many different opportunities that you can take instead of viewing animals through a small cage because these animals aren't even acting like themselves. They are being forced to live in such a small environment, some backgrounds are different from others, most are taken from their mothers as babies and others were injured and have to be looked after for the rest of their life because they can't live fully on their own. I agree to the extent that zoos are good assistance to injured animals but they shouldn't be forced into such a small cage, they should be put in sanctuaries that has millions and millions of acres of land where they can roam free as they are being looked after at the same time. Many people do not see this different for what is right or wrong, they look past all of the depressed animals behind bars, because they are too excited to think from the animal's point of view because they have never seen such a mysterious creature and they are blindsided. Zoos are prisons for animals. Do we go to a prison just to view the inmates or would that be weird? Exactly. That is the same concept I am making at this point. You wouldn't view your own species behind bars, then why should you force other species into cages just so that you can see them behind bars for your own use. Its not benefitting all of the animals, some in a way but there are better options than putting animals in zoos.

There are many reasons why animals shouldn't be placed in zoos, according to the article 5 Reasons You Should Boycott the Zoo by Abigail Geer, makes great points on why people should help boycott zoos. The first reason is that zoos cannot provide enough space for each animal. In the wild, these animals have a tremendous amount of space that is never ending. In zoos they are placed on an acre or two per animal. That isn't enough for a wild animal to live on. Second, animals suffer from abnormal behaviors. People come to zoos hoping to experience the whole package of what it feels like being in a different country as if watching these animals in their natural habitat. In reality, most of the animals you see behind the fences are depressed because they are kept in captivity. Zoos do provide the animals with anti-depressants, but is this what people think is right? If this hasn't convinced you then this next reason that Geer states will. Surplus animals are killed. Most zoos state that they are helping animals that are becoming extinct in the wild so they are trying to help reproduce species. Truth is that all the extra animals that are unwanted because zoos were overbreeding, they are killed because they don't have enough space to take care of these animals. Another reason why zoos should be banned is because most animals that are presented at the zoo were once taken from their mother at a small age. They never lived in the wild, so they are not even a good representation of how that animal should act because they didn't grow up in a free environment because they were forced to be in a zoo. So technically the animals that take up the cages at zoos they don't serve an educational purpose because that is not how the animal acts when they are in their actual environment. The fifth reason that will convince you to boycott zoos is that zoos don't serve conservation. Zoos try o hard to make the public believe that when a baby is born that when it grows old it will be released into the wild, but should we really believe them? The answer is no. The baby never knows how to live on its own so they could never just let the baby go on its own even when it does get older. It would know how to take care of itself because zoos do all of it for them, they bring them food and water. In the wild they would have to go hunt for their own food which they would end up starving and dying because they don't know how to do so.

Most people who are pro zoos are blindsided by the excitement of zoos. They never seen a wild creature like this before so they looked passed the sadness in the animal's eyes. An article on the PETA website The reality of Zoos written by Michelle Carr, is an article that supports the reason why zoos are bad for all animals. Carr states that, "I thought being able to see them in person would be neat. But once I saw them "up close and personal," I realized that the animals were miserable. It instantly became very clear to me that the animals imprisoned in zoos are sad and don't want to be kept in artificial environments, have people gawk at them, listen to children who bang on the windows of their enclosures, or have cameras flashing in their faces. To put it simply, zoos are imprisoning animals who want to be free." In this statement, it instantly made me feel guilty from going to zoos when I was little. People need to face up to reality because I know for a fact that everyone has had an experience like Michelle Carr and they need to live up to it and help close zoos down because they are just torturing these animals for their own beneficial use. If everyone became aware of these conditions, then they would proudly help shut them down. Haven't you realized that when you go to zoos you stand there for ten to fifteen minute but they don't move a bit? It's because they don't want to be there. They will never be with their blood family which the animals depend on for their whole life in the wild. They will never know the true meaning of life as if they were in the wild, they will be forced to live in the zoo for the rest of their life with sadness and boredom.

The world needs to come to realize that zoos are bad for animals, PETA explains to us that the animals are on anti-depressants, once an animal outlives their usefulness they are killed, animals are instantly killed if they escape their cages, they transport animals from other countries to satisfy the human eye, surplus animals are mistreated and killed, they will sell animals to circuses or to livestock auctions, they don't have the appropriate veterinarian service they need, and some animals are starved to death. If any one thinks that this is okay in anyway they definitely need to see the difference of zoos and animals in their natural habitat. We need to take action and educate the public before its too late and before they bring in any other animals into their exhibits where they will never be able to step free into the wild ever again. Last Chance for Animals explains to us, "Animals in zoos are forced to live in artificial, stressful, and downright boring conditions. Removed from their natural habitats and social structures, they are confined to small, restrictive environments that deprive them of mental and physical stimulation. While zoos claim to provide conservation, education, and entertainment, their primary goal is to sustain public support in order to increase profits." This is inhumane, there is nothing right about this situation.

There are many problems with zoos because once an animal gets brought in, it can never go out into the wild on their own ever again. Zoos claim they are saving the lives of these animals but they're not, they are torturing them because they don't have a big enough cage to run around and live in a natural way. Zoos take in animals to make money. If we shut down zoos there will be nowhere for these animals to go, unless sanctuaries take them in. Sanctuaries are a good resource when and if zoos go out of business because they are non profit and they promise to take care of the animals till the end of their life. They rescue these animals from abuse and rehabilitate these animals so that they can live a long happy life. Sanctuaries are inspected and they have to meet the guidelines of a true sanctuary according to Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. So this proves that if zoos are forced to shut down they will have somewhere to go, they will have an enormous area to roam free and be taken care because zoos took them from their natural habitat before and can no longer be let back into the wild on their own so they need a back up environment where they wont be in small cages and will not be displayed to the public for others entertainment. A National Geographic article Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals? Written by Rachel Shea states that sanctuaries don't have a sign saying to come in to view our tigers, they don't want to make money, they are just trying to protect these animals so they can have an enjoyable life. Zoo do not try at all to protect these animals, all they want to do is make money off of these animals. We need to find a way to convince the public that there are other ways to view these animals whether it is in person or on television. We do not need to keep these animals hostage so we can satisfy our own entertainment.

Yes, some animals are truly saved by joining zoos because they are in bad shape but they don't deserve to be in a small cage getting viewed by the public as they are making their way to recovery. They deserve to be in sanctuary so that they are protected by the ones who actually want to help and not make money off of them, instead they are protect their rights as animals and doing anything in their power to make sure they are living a life they deserve.

Here are some ways that you could learn about exotic animals without going to zoos, you watch documentaries or travel around the world volunteering at animal sanctuaries. You are not invading their space, you are helping them but not to the point to where they are depressed. They have a lot of open space, they are able to run freely, but they still receive the help they need. If you watch a documentary you are watching them from a screen in their natural habitat without taking them from their home, you see how they truly act and you'll get a more valuable experience from watching them from a TV because they are happy and energize instead of in a corner suffering because they are not with their family living the life they truly deserve.

Animals deserve to live free. They do not deserve to live in a small cage their whole life. No one on earth could stand being in a cage everyday of their life, being viewed by others to satisfy others. They don't get to roam free anymore. Their freedom is taken away from them at such a young age, so young they never experienced the true life as a regular wild animal. So lets put a stop to this and boycott Zoos.

Work Cited

Geer, Abigail. "5 Reasons You Should Boycott the Zoo." 5 Reasons You Should Boycott The Zoo | Care2 Causes. Care 2, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Carr, Michelle. "The Reality of Zoos." PETA. PETA, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Editors of the Site. "Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Shea, Rachel. "Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

User, Super. "Last Chance for Animals - Zoos." Last Chance for Animals - Zoos. LCA, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

@peta. "13 Times Zoos Were Bad for Animals." PETA. PETA, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Healy, Patrick. "Giraffes, Towering and Otherworldly, Are 'Vulnerable' to Extinction." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Dec. 2016. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

"Zoos." Animal Cruelty - Zoos. Vegan Peace, 2015. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever went to a zoo and saw a polar bear in a small cage, a small swimming pool to where it can't even go fully underwater, and the fur of the creature wasn't even white anymore? If you think...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the most widely used AZA statistics, updated annually.

Annual Survey Results

AZA members (Individual Professional category members and Primary Contacts of Conservation Partner, Commercial, Related Facility and Institution Members) may log in and download the results of the most recent AZA Annual Survey of Members.

Accreditation

237 accredited zoos and aquariums in 13 countries (Updated September 2023)

USA: 213 in 46 states and the District of Columbia

Canada: 7

Mexico: 4

Bahamas: 1

Bermuda: 1

Dominican Republic: 1

Argentina: 1

Colombia: 1

Spain: 1

Hong Kong: 1

Singapore: 2

South Korea: 2

United Arab Emirates: 2

15 accredited related facilities
Accreditation occurs every 5 years
Approximately 25 facilities undergo the accreditation process every 6 months

Types of Accredited Facilities

134 zoos

59 aquariums

9 both zoo and aquariums

16 safari and theme parks

15 science and nature centers

2 aviaries

2 butterfly houses

54% non-profit

35% public

11% for-profit

Animals in AZA-Accredited Facilities

Over 780,000 animals in the care of AZA-accredited zoo and aquarium professionals

Over 8,600 species

Over 800 Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Extinct In The Wild species as categorized by the IUCN Red List

Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Programs

42 Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs)

Nearly 500 Species Survival Plan Programs

AZA Reproductive Management Center

Supports SSP ® programs by monitoring the safety and efficacy of contraceptives used for all mammalian species and helping bring new contraceptive methods to the zoo, aquarium, and wildlife community

AZA Population Management Center

Population planning for 500 species for the next 100 years

Conservation

$252.2 million was spent on field conservation in 119 countries in 2022

232 species and subspecies that benefited are listed as Endangered or Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

$29 million was spent on AZA SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction species programs in 2022

AZA's Conservation Grants Fund

Over $8.7 million supporting over 470 conservation projects since 1991

Economy

In the most recent survey in 2018, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums:

Contributed more than $22.5 billion to U.S. economy

Supported more than 198,000 full-time jobs in the U.S.

Served more than 200 million annual visitors worldwide (183 million in the U.S.)

Informal Science Education

Based on the Education Programs survey data from 2019,

AZA members provided teacher professional development, curriculum resources and free planning visits that reached more than 96,000 teachers

5.5 million individuals were reached through field trips, outreach programs and education resources targeted to K-12 students

124 facilities reported more than 1,200 education programs that include content about connecting to nature, reaching more than 33 million.

(Updated April 2023)

Over 785 zoo and aquarium professionals have completed in-person AZA courses from 2020-present

Almost 250 zoo and aquarium professionals participated in virtual AZA courses from 2021-2022

AZA offers 18 in-person courses that are team-taught by professionals in the field, designed to develop a variety of animal management, education, and leadership skills

AZA's Executive Leadership Development Program prepares the next generation of executive leaders to successfully advance the zoo and aquarium movement in the future. More than 80 leaders have completed the program since 2014, with 27 having been promoted to the role of Executive Director or CEO.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the Association for Zoos and Aquariums' members, educational programs, and conservation efforts, as well as the kinds of facilities we support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | SeaWorld tanks or sea pens? Dispute over which is best for orcas continues

# data[].attributes.headline
Should zoos and aquariums have beluga whale exhibits?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should zoos and aquariums have beluga whale exhibits?

# data[].attributes.headline
Sea World to expand killer whale exhibits

# data[].attributes.subject
Sea World to expand killer whale exhibits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SeaWorld plans to spend upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars to build an expanded killer whale environment and programs to protect the creatures in the wild, the company announced Friday.

This announcement comes two days after SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. released a report showing a significant drop in revenue for the first half of 2014. The company has also come under fire from animal-rights activists who claim the company was mistreating its killer whales.

In addition to the new habitat, SeaWorld is pledging $10 million in matching funds for killer whale research. The company said it is embarking on a multi-million dollar partnership focused on ocean health, the leading concern for all killer whales and marine mammals. The total investment will be hundreds of millions of dollars, officials told NBC 7.

SeaWorld San Diego will be first park to debut the new killer whale environments, named the Blue World project, with a planned total water volume of 10 million gallons, nearly twice as much as the existing facility. The new environment will also provide the world's largest underwater viewing experience for guests.

"Our guests will be able to walk alongside the whales as if they were at the shore, watch them interact at the depths found in the ocean, or a birds-eye view from above," Jim Atchison, chief executive officer and president of SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., said in Friday's announcement.

PETA Foundation Director of Animal Law Jared Goodman called the announcement "a desperate drop-in-the-bucket move to try to turn back the hands of time."

In a written statement obtained by NBC 7, Goodman said, "It will not save the company. What could save it would be the recognition that it needs not to make larger tanks but to turn the orcas out in seaside sanctuaries so that they can feel and experience the ocean again, hear their families, and one day be reunited with them. A bigger prison is still a prison."

Images: Changes Coming for SeaWorld San Diego's Orca Exhibit

At a special announcement in San Diego, SeaWorld lead veterinarian Dr. Christopher Dold said the park has invited a number of experts to be part of an advisory panel to help design the project.

Plans will include a fast-water current. "A treadmill for killer whales," Dold said. "The whales can swim through this and be exercised and stimulated."

Each animal will react differently but they will all explore it and staffers will monitor their reactions, Dold said.

The announcement comes midway through a challenging year for the major theme park. Officials have launched a new publicity campaign to combat the effects of the documentary "Blackfish," which focuses on claims of whale mistreatment. The park also successfully fought a proposed bill in California that would ban using killer whales as performers.

In June, dozens of riders stranded for hours hundreds of feet off the ground in the park's iconic SkyTower ride. Then, in July, a controversial anti-SeaWorld ad was unveiled in time to greet Comic-Con crowds in San Diego.

City Council President Todd Gloria and other city leaders attended Friday's announcement.

The city has a vested interest in how SeaWorld San Diego conducts business because the 190-acre theme park sits on city-owned property in Mission Bay Park.

The city earns revenue in a number of ways from ticket to alcohol sales - an estimated $14 million a year.

It's also one of the city's largest employers with a staff of 2,500 to 4,500 depending on the season.

"This new habitat enriches the experiences for our visitors to our region expanding on their appreciation for killer whales and all marine life and our environment as a whole ," Gloria said. "I think we can all agree that's an important message and one that's worth investing in.
-NBC San Diego's R. Stickney contributed to this report. Editor's note: An earlier version of this story stated that the new environment will cost upwards of $10 million. SeaWorld says the project will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SeaWorld to Expand Killer Whale Environments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sea World plans to spend hundreds of millions to build an expanded killer whale environment and programs to protect the creatures in the wild, the company announced Friday. to build an expanded killer whale environment and programs to protect killer whales in the wild, the company announced Friday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aquariums and marine mammal theme parks like SeaWorld, the Miami Seaquarium, and Canada's Marineland are part of a billion-dollar industry built on the suffering of intelligent social beings who are denied everything that's natural and important to them.

Wild orcas and other dolphins live in large, complex social groups and swim vast distances every day in the open ocean. In captivity, they can only swim in endless circles inside tanks that, to them, are the equivalent of bathtubs and they're denied the opportunity to engage in almost any natural behavior. They are forced to perform meaningless tricks and are often torn away from family members when they're shuffled between parks. Many die far short of their species' natural life expectancy.

Families Torn Apart

Countless marine animals (even the original Shamu) were taken from their rightful ocean homes and placed in tanks. Tilikum, the orca who lashed out and killed SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau and two other people, died in a concrete prison 33 years after he was taken away from his Icelandic family. Lolita, torn away from her family when she was just a baby, has spent half a century in the same tank at the Miami Seaquarium. Some countries continue to capture wild dolphins and whales.

Captivity's Tragic Consequences

Frequently housed with incompatible tankmates, dolphins, whales, and other marine mammals are often drugged in order to manage stress-induced aggressive behavior and relieve the endless monotony of swimming in circles. They break their teeth chewing on the metal bars and concrete sides of their tanks and are forced to perform tricks for tourists in exchange for food-all in the name of entertainment.

While wild female orcas can live to be more than 100 years old, orcas at SeaWorld often die by the time they reach their teens and rarely approach even the average life expectancy of wild orcas. More than 40 orcas have died at SeaWorld from causes such as bacterial infections and fractured skulls. More than 300 other dolphins and whales along with approximately 400 pinnipeds have also died at the parks.

While Marineland can no longer breed whales and dolphins or confine new ones-thanks to Canada's recent ban on their captivity-it's still imprisoning the animals currently languishing there. Dozens of dolphins, whales, and walruses have died there-including a walrus named Apollo who recently suffered a heart attack. An orca named Kiska-who was abducted from her family in the ocean as a baby 40 years ago-is confined in isolation and can do nothing but swim in endless circles inside her cramped tank.

The Trouble With 'Interactive' Programs

Touch tanks as well as "swim with dolphins" and "paint with dolphins" programs allow the public to pet, kiss, paint with, or even ride these animals. Such programs invade their already diminished worlds and are intrusive, stressful, and even dangerous for them, as well as being risky for human participants.

Animals in "petting pools" are frequently exposed to foreign bacteria and other pathogens, and they can become anxious, frustrated, aggressive, and even neurotic as a result of being confined to shallow tanks and exposed to constant interaction with humans. Members of the public have been injured at SeaWorld's dolphin-petting pools.

Even programs that enable people to swim with dolphins in nature can be invasive. Boats and swimmers may chase, harass, and scare them, interfering with their natural feeding, resting, migrating, and playing behavior.

Poor Government Regulations

Captive marine mammals have some federal protections in the U.S., but enforcement is lax. There are simply too many animal exhibitors for the limited number of U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors-as of February 2020, there were 104 inspectors for 12,851 facilities. Even when exhibitors are cited for violating the federal Animal Welfare Act, they're rarely assessed fines or meaningful penalties.

Keeping Dolphins Free

In nature, orcas work cooperatively in search of food. They share complex relationships in a matrilineal society and-in some populations-rarely leave their mother's pod. They have group-specific food preferences and behavior. These attributes, along with their pods' unique dialects, are considered a form of culture that is unrivaled by any species other than humans.

Other dolphins, too, maintain dynamic relationships within a large social network. They live with up to a few dozen others in a pod and can swim as many as 60 miles each day and dive to depths of nearly 1,500 feet in nature.

The world is moving away from keeping intelligent, sensitive cetaceans in captivity. In the U.S., the National Aquarium is building the dolphins in its care a seaside sanctuary-a safe ocean cove in which captive marine mammals can be released into a protected area of the sea to dive deep, feel the ocean currents, and finally live like they should, all while still receiving care, food, and veterinary support. Two whales have been moved from a marine park in China to a seaside sanctuary in Iceland, and The Whale Sanctuary Project just announced plans for a seaside sanctuary for rescued orcas and belugas in Nova Scotia, Canada.

Governments around the world are also recognizing that dolphins (including orcas) and other cetaceans do not belong in tanks. Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, and Croatia have all banned the practice of keeping cetaceans in captivity. In 2013, India's Ministry of Environment & Forests banned the practice of keeping dolphins captive for public entertainment. Other countries, including Brazil, Luxembourg, Nicaragua, and Norway, have highly restrictive standards that make it nearly impossible to keep cetaceans in captivity. The last dolphinarium in the U.K. closed more than 20 years ago.

What You Can Do

Please don't visit marine parks, and never buy tickets to roadside zoos or aquariums that keep ocean animals in captivity. Encourage your local aquarium to create more space for rehabilitating (and releasing) injured wildlife by refusing to breed more animals.

You can also leaflet at local roadside aquariums or marine parks, pressure officials to avoid subsidizing these facilities with taxpayer money, write letters to the editor of local publications, and support legislation that prohibits the capture or restricts the display of marine mammals.
Please join PETA in urging SeaWorld and other marine parks to stop using animals and to relocate the orcas, bottlenose dolphins, and other animals to seaside sanctuaries, where they can thrive in the enrichment and diversity of the sea while still receiving the care that they require.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aquariums and Marine Parks are no safe havens for marine mammals like dolphins and whales. Learn more on how you can help animals and not support these facilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Has Mount Everest become a tourist trap?

# data[].attributes.subject
Has Mount Everest become a tourist trap?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The route to the top of the world has become too crowded.

The first American to reach the summit of Mount Everest was James Whittaker, who accomplished that towering feat in 1963. As he stood at the summit, accompanied his Sherpa guide, both men were very much alone.

Fast forward to 2013, when a team from National Geographic Magazine trekked up the mountain to mark the anniversary of Whittaker's quest; they found that in 2013, the challenge isn't nearly as....challenging.

A crowd of climbers slog up the Lhotse Face, heading toward Camp IV, last stop before the summit. Loose regulations and a boom in commercial guiding over the past two decades have made Everest far more accessible to experts and novices alike.

According to an article in the current National Geographic Magazine, about nine out of ten who reach the summit now are guided "clients," people who pay up to $120,000 for this "tour." Not that climbing Everest is easy, even under those conditions: Ten deaths were reported in 2012, including three Sherpa guides. But today-as if the altitude, the winds, the lack of oxygen wasn't enough to deter them-climbers walk up trails that are polluted, with garbage leaking out of the glaciers and pyramids of human excrement befouling the high camps.

In more than a few places, climbers face a more gruesome encounter: corpses of the dead who didn't make it to the top.

The cover of the June 2013 issue of National Geographic magazine.

"When I arrived at the apex ..., it was so crowded I couldn't find a place to stand," writes author Mark Jenkins in the June issue of the National Geographic. "Meanwhile, down below at the Hillary Step the lines were so long that some people going up waited more than two hours, shivering, growing weak-this even though the weather was excellent. If these throngs of climbers had been caught in a storm, as others were in 1996, the death toll could have been staggering.

"Clearly the world's highest peak is broke," he writes. "But if you talk to the people who know it best, they'll tell you it's not beyond repair."

Headlamps trace a path to the summit a few hours before dawn. Says one guide, "The most dangerous thing about Everest is everyone else who's trying to climb it."

There are about 35,000 visitors to the Everest region annually, and the money they spend for guides and permits is crucial to Nepal's economy, where the average national wage is less than $900. It has become, in the words of one climber, "a commercial mountain."

The crowding has led to altercations, and worse, on the mount. In 1996, eight climbers were killed and several others stranded in a sudden blizzard near the summit. The tragedy was documented by Jon Krakauer, a journalist and climber on that expedition, in his 1997 best-selling book, "Into Thin Air."

Crowded, yes, but still risky: Team member Hilaree O'Neill steps across a bridge of aluminum ladders lashed together above a crevasse in the Khumbu Icefall, considered one of the most unpredictable hazards on Everest.

There are still memorable moments at Everest. Earlier this month, Arunima Sinha, 26, a trainee police officer from India, became the first female amputee to reach the top. Just two days later, an 80-year-old Japanese mountaineer became the oldest man to scale Everest; while in 2010, Jordan Romero, a 13-year-old American boy, was became the youngest to trek to the top.

As the Everest climb becomes more of an "extreme sport" and less of a unique, life-changing event, the crowds and queues are likely to increase. In his piece, Jenkins lays out some way to improve the climbing environment, including issuing fewer permits to climbers, restricting the size of the climber teams to lessen congestion, and to require all climbers to remove all their waste and garbage from the mountain.

One crucial element is to ensure that climbers have the experience necessary; without the training, some just don't recognize that at some point, it might be time to turn around and go back.

"Only half the people here have the experience to climb this mountain," a Sherpa told the magazine. "The half without experience are the most likely to die."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Has the summit of Mount Everest become an overcrowded tourist trap?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The route to the top of the world has become too crowded. The first American to reach the summit of Mount Everest was James Whittaker, who accomplished that towering feat in 1963. As he stood at the summit, accompanied his Sherpa guide, both men were ver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climbing Mount Everest is always an extreme challenge. But experts say tackling the world's highest peak-located in Asia on the border between Nepal and China-became much, much riskier this year.

That's because of a huge increase in the number of climbers allowed on the mountain, which recently led to deadly human traffic jams along the stretch to the top. At 29,029 feet, Everest is so high that humans must rely on bottled oxygen to breathe near the summit. Stuck waiting for hours in lines to reach Everest's peak, some climbers ran low on oxygen. That was likely a key factor in many of the at least 11 deaths on the mountain this year.

Most people start their climbs from Nepal. One of the poorest nations in Asia, Nepal relies heavily on money from Everest expeditions. Its government issued more permits to climb the mountain in 2019 than ever before-many to inexperienced climbers, experts say.

In response to a global outcry following one of the deadliest Everest seasons on record, officials in Nepal say they may start requiring climbers to prove their experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A huge increase in the number of climbers made tackling the world's highest peak extra risky this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Teaching Tools | Resources for Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore Scholastic Teaching Tools for teaching resources, printables, book lists, and more. Enhance your classroom experience with expert advice!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This infographic by visual.ly, is a small sampling of how climbers died on the tallest mountain in the world, Mount Everest and what happened to them. Have a look at the details of the infographic...

The infographic by visual.ly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How People Die On Mount Everest [Infographic] | WordlessTech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This infographic by visual.ly, is a small sampling of how climbers died on the tallest mountain in the world, Mount Everest and what happened to them. Have a look at the details of the infographic... The infographic by visual.ly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Extreme Sports Addiction [Infographic]

"The more fearful a certain sport makes you, the greater the release of chemicals. The greater the release of these chemicals, the greater the addiction-like symptoms." -Dr. Marvin Zuckerman, Professor Emeritus, University of Delaware CHASING THE HIGH WHAT IS THE E TREME SPORTS ADDICTION? What is it that drives risk-takers to pursue dangerous situations willingly and repeatedly? Who are they and what makes them keep going back for more? Does this "addiction factor" contribute to the advancement of action sports as well? Krush takes you behind the scenes of the extreme sports addiction to give you some answers! WHAT ARE THEY ADDICTED TO? THE ADRENALINE RUSH Adrenaline, aka Epinephrine A hormone released from the adrenal gland in the body when faced with stressful or dangerous situations (fight or flight response), elevating your heart rate and giving you a boost of energy and alertness. It can give people a sense of superhuman strength, HO speed, and other abilities that allow them to respond to traumatic situations. OH но The release of adrenaline (the adrenaline rush) stimulates the brain's reward system, triggering the release of dopamine... THE REWARDING BUZZ Dopamine A chemical in the brain that is responsible for the "high" or euphoric feeling you experience when you overcome danger or perceived extreme risk. When dopamine is HO released it provides feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. Chronic risk-takers or extreme sports enthusiasts tend to have a higher saturation of dopamine in the brain. HO DOPAMINE LEVEL IN RISK-TAKERS VS. NON RISK-TAKERS Normal Level Risk-taker -the amount of dopamine released in the brain due to a rewarding experience + "In high novelty-seeking individuals, the brain is less able to regulate dopamine [thus releasing a greater amount], and this may lead these individuals to be particularly responsive to novel and rewarding situations that normally induce dopamine release." -Dr. David H. Zald, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at Vanderbilt University THE EUPHORIC FEELING DOPAMINE GIVES EXTREME SPORTS ENTHUSIASTS WHEN IT FLOODS THE BLOODSTREAM WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE ? "TYPE I" 10-15% | * Type T (for thrill-seeking) personality types of the population are classified as Type T. can be described as "risk-takers and adventurers who seek excitement and stimulation wherever they can find or create it." (Psychologist Frank Farley) * These types of people tend to seek out unique experiences, the theory being that they need to stimulate low dopamine levels. Sensation-seeking trait is about bU% genetic THE DANGEROUS SIDE OF TYPE T PERSONALITIES DRUG ABUSE ALCOHOL ABUSE GAMBLING Using stimulating drugs such as amphetamines or cocaine synthetically raises the amount of dopamine in the brain, producing a short-lived artificial high. EXTREME SPORTS ADDICTION LEADS TO PROGRESSION THE ENDLESS PURSUIT... * Sensation seekers can become addicted to the "high" they get from the adrenaline and dopamine rush. This addiction drives them to chase the next high repeatedly. * Tolerance builds as the body gets used to the same rush over and over, which is why extreme sports athletes are constantly pushing the envelope and upping the ante. "You need risk to trigger reward and the body gets used to risk. In other words, just like drug addicts who need to take more and more of a substance to get back to the level of high they desire, action sports addicts need to up their danger quotient to achieve the same effect." -Dr. Greg Berns, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory University THE SEARCH FOR THE NEXT BIG THING, THE NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE TRICK, IS WHAT DRIVES THE CONSTANT PROGRESSION OF EXTREME SPORTS A FEW EXAMPLES... THEN NOW fmx 2X WHAT'S NEXT Ist Backflip Double Backflip 2006 2002 skydiving WIHAT'S NEXT Became a sport BASE Jumping Wing Suit Flying 128,000 ft. jump mid-1950's 2012 snowhoarding Double Alley-Oop Rodeo & Double McTwist 1260 2012 McTwists & 1080's 720's & 900's 1998 2005 3.5x SPINS 2x FLIPS WHAT'S NEXT 15 IL 11.5 t HALFPIPE WALL HEIGHTS HALFPIPE TRICKS & AIR HEIGHT WITH EXTREME SPORTS ATHLETES CONTINUING TO CHASE THE ELUSIVE HIGH AND PUSH THE BOUNDARIES, IT'S NO WONDER WE VE SEEN THE TRICKS BECOME INSANELY MORE TECHNICAL AND THE LEVEL OF RISK RAPIDLY INCREASING. WE CAN ONLY WONDER, WHERE WILL THE EXTREME SPORTS ADDICTION TAKE US NEXT? SOURCES KRUSH K http://www.jneurosci.org http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7802751.stm https://dana.org/media/detail.aspx?id=23620 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748420/pdf/nihms85634.pdf https://dana.org/media/detail.aspx?id=23620 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-177868123/action-sports-participation-consumer.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869106,00.html?iref=werecommend?id=perma_share http://www.livestrong.com/article/532699-dopamine-sports/ http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2008/12/risk-takers-drug-abusers-driven-by-decreased-ability-to-process-dopamine-69546/ -seekers-chasing-a-craving/ w.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/200803/the-addicitve-nature-adrenaline-sport .ca/2012/01/thrill- http://www. http://www. http://www.summitpost.org/living-on-the-edge-extreme-sports-and-their-role-in-society/214107 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13126284 http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7578873352trx0g/ http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/extreme-sports-whats-appeal?page=2 .charlatan. "The more fearful a certain sport makes you, the greater the release of chemicals. The greater the release of these chemicals, the greater the addiction-like symptoms." -Dr. Marvin Zuckerman, Professor Emeritus, University of Delaware CHASING THE HIGH WHAT IS THE E TREME SPORTS ADDICTION? What is it that drives risk-takers to pursue dangerous situations willingly and repeatedly? Who are they and what makes them keep going back for more? Does this "addiction factor" contribute to the advancement of action sports as well? Krush takes you behind the scenes of the extreme sports addiction to give you some answers! WHAT ARE THEY ADDICTED TO? THE ADRENALINE RUSH Adrenaline, aka Epinephrine A hormone released from the adrenal gland in the body when faced with stressful or dangerous situations (fight or flight response), elevating your heart rate and giving you a boost of energy and alertness. It can give people a sense of superhuman strength, HO speed, and other abilities that allow them to respond to traumatic situations. OH но The release of adrenaline (the adrenaline rush) stimulates the brain's reward system, triggering the release of dopamine... THE REWARDING BUZZ Dopamine A chemical in the brain that is responsible for the "high" or euphoric feeling you experience when you overcome danger or perceived extreme risk. When dopamine is HO released it provides feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. Chronic risk-takers or extreme sports enthusiasts tend to have a higher saturation of dopamine in the brain. HO DOPAMINE LEVEL IN RISK-TAKERS VS. NON RISK-TAKERS Normal Level Risk-taker -the amount of dopamine released in the brain due to a rewarding experience + "In high novelty-seeking individuals, the brain is less able to regulate dopamine [thus releasing a greater amount], and this may lead these individuals to be particularly responsive to novel and rewarding situations that normally induce dopamine release." -Dr. David H. Zald, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at Vanderbilt University THE EUPHORIC FEELING DOPAMINE GIVES EXTREME SPORTS ENTHUSIASTS WHEN IT FLOODS THE BLOODSTREAM WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE ? "TYPE I" 10-15% | * Type T (for thrill-seeking) personality types of the population are classified as Type T. can be described as "risk-takers and adventurers who seek excitement and stimulation wherever they can find or create it." (Psychologist Frank Farley) * These types of people tend to seek out unique experiences, the theory being that they need to stimulate low dopamine levels. Sensation-seeking trait is about bU% genetic THE DANGEROUS SIDE OF TYPE T PERSONALITIES DRUG ABUSE ALCOHOL ABUSE GAMBLING Using stimulating drugs such as amphetamines or cocaine synthetically raises the amount of dopamine in the brain, producing a short-lived artificial high. EXTREME SPORTS ADDICTION LEADS TO PROGRESSION THE ENDLESS PURSUIT... * Sensation seekers can become addicted to the "high" they get from the adrenaline and dopamine rush. This addiction drives them to chase the next high repeatedly. * Tolerance builds as the body gets used to the same rush over and over, which is why extreme sports athletes are constantly pushing the envelope and upping the ante. "You need risk to trigger reward and the body gets used to risk. In other words, just like drug addicts who need to take more and more of a substance to get back to the level of high they desire, action sports addicts need to up their danger quotient to achieve the same effect." -Dr. Greg Berns, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory University THE SEARCH FOR THE NEXT BIG THING, THE NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE TRICK, IS WHAT DRIVES THE CONSTANT PROGRESSION OF EXTREME SPORTS A FEW EXAMPLES... THEN NOW fmx 2X WHAT'S NEXT Ist Backflip Double Backflip 2006 2002 skydiving WIHAT'S NEXT Became a sport BASE Jumping Wing Suit Flying 128,000 ft. jump mid-1950's 2012 snowhoarding Double Alley-Oop Rodeo & Double McTwist 1260 2012 McTwists & 1080's 720's & 900's 1998 2005 3.5x SPINS 2x FLIPS WHAT'S NEXT 15 IL 11.5 t HALFPIPE WALL HEIGHTS HALFPIPE TRICKS & AIR HEIGHT WITH EXTREME SPORTS ATHLETES CONTINUING TO CHASE THE ELUSIVE HIGH AND PUSH THE BOUNDARIES, IT'S NO WONDER WE VE SEEN THE TRICKS BECOME INSANELY MORE TECHNICAL AND THE LEVEL OF RISK RAPIDLY INCREASING. WE CAN ONLY WONDER, WHERE WILL THE EXTREME SPORTS ADDICTION TAKE US NEXT? SOURCES KRUSH K http://www.jneurosci.org http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7802751.stm https://dana.org/media/detail.aspx?id=23620 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748420/pdf/nihms85634.pdf https://dana.org/media/detail.aspx?id=23620 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-177868123/action-sports-participation-consumer.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869106,00.html?iref=werecommend?id=perma_share http://www.livestrong.com/article/532699-dopamine-sports/ http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2008/12/risk-takers-drug-abusers-driven-by-decreased-ability-to-process-dopamine-69546/ -seekers-chasing-a-craving/ w.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/200803/the-addicitve-nature-adrenaline-sport .ca/2012/01/thrill- http://www. http://www. http://www.summitpost.org/living-on-the-edge-extreme-sports-and-their-role-in-society/214107 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13126284 http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7578873352trx0g/ http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/extreme-sports-whats-appeal?page=2 .charlatan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Extreme Sports Addiction [Infographic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is it that drives risk-takers to pursue dangerous situations willingly and repeatedly? Who are they and what makes them keep going back for more?

# data[].attributes.headline
Would you let your child do extreme sports?

# data[].attributes.subject
Would you let your child do extreme sports?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kaid Jaret Olson-Weston isn't out of grade school yet, but later this month he'll drive his own custom-built monster truck at a monster truck show in Wildwood, N.J.. Lane Huszar was riding bulls by age 10. And Jay Cramer began competing in motocross races at the age of 4.

These kids are all doing what some may call extreme sports with their parents' permission. Sometimes, injuries happen: Cramer once broke his arm during racing practice when his bike sputtered just before a jump and then broke it again just months later. He is now recovering. His father said his son wants to return to racing and hopes to be cleared by doctors to participate again by Thanksgiving.

"We take every precaution we can to keep him safe," Cramer's father, Jason Cramer, told "20/20? after the first accident. He noted that his son wears a protective neck brace, a Kevlar vest and other equipment when he rides. "He could have broken his arm playing football too. It's just a risk that you take when you're involved in what could be a contact sport."

Would you let your child participate in an extreme sport? Vote below and learn more about these incredible children and their parents Friday on "20/20? at a special time, 9 p.m. ET.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extreme Sports for Kids: Would You Let Your Child Do Them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get breaking national and world news, broadcast video coverage, and exclusive interviews. Find the top news online at ABC news.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aquariums support conservation and promote education through meaningful encounters
By Bruce Carlson
I am seated in front of a massive window that holds back 6.3 million gallons of sea water at the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta. It's a Thursday afternoon and about 125 people are in this gallery, including several dozen children seated on the floor, mesmerized by the amazing creatures just on the other side of the glass. We are watching two whale sharks being fed while a narrator explains that they are plankton feeders. The kids are enthralled; not only by the whale sharks, but also by the thousands of other animals they have access to in these exhibits. During the past five years, more than 11 million people have had this same experience. I am certain that more than just one of the millions of children who have been here will decide to dedicate their lives to marine biology and conservation as a result of their trip to the aquarium.

Scuba Diving readers are among the lucky few who have seen and interacted with the magnificent creatures that live in the ocean. An even smaller group has had up-close encounters with the largest animals in the sea: whales, dolphins, whale sharks and manta rays. These encounters are unpredictable and brief, yet they are experiences that make a lifelong impression on the people who have them. And not only does the sport of diving require specific training and physical prowess, the trips to dive in the places where these most interesting creatures live cost a considerable sum. Airfare, boat charters, gear rentals and more make these encounters a luxury many people cannot afford. But thanks to places like the Georgia Aquarium, the thrill of seeing a whale shark or a manta ray is no longer an exclusive experience, but rather an accessible encounter for the masses.

What aquariums and zoos do best is help bring people and animals closer together. And the more we learn about animals, the more we care about them and their environments. So how could a place like this not encourage people to be active in the conservation of these creatures? As I write this, I can see the impact of this tremendous educational and empowering experience in the eyes of these young children.

But the impact goes beyond education. The revenue generated from guest attendance at many zoological parks and aquariums around the world is used to support research and conservation. For instance, the Georgia Aquarium has provided research grants to scientists in the U.S. and Mexico to document the aggregation of whale sharks that appears each year off the town of Holbox on the Yucatan peninsula. From 2003-2010, more than 700 whale sharks were tagged and photographed, and over many years this data will give us a good understanding of population dynamics of whale sharks in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Aerial surveys funded by the aquarium have also contributed valuable data on where to establish boundaries for the new Whale Shark Biosphere Preserve created in Holbox in 2009. The new preserve will help protect whale sharks from possible exploitation and ensure that their food supply -- plankton and fish eggs -- is not endangered from pollution.

This is just one example of how aquariums give back to nature. Over from 2005-2010, aquariums and zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums provided nearly $89 million to more than 3,700 conservation projects all over the world. These programs for species ranging from tiny Banggai cardinal fish in Indonesia to great white sharks off California to beluga whales in Alaska are giving the animals a better chance to thrive in the wild.

When people ask me whether or not large animals, like whale sharks, should be kept in aquariums or zoos, I tell them to ask the children at the aquarium that day. I am sure they would give you a resounding "yes." The awe they are feeling will turn into appreciation and respect for living creatures they might otherwise have never known.
Bruce Carlson was the Chief Science Officer at the Georgia Aquarium from 2002-2011. A diver since 1967, he is also the former Director of the Waikiki Aquarium in Honolulu.
Large Marine Animals Do Not Belong in Bath Tubs
By Kim McCoy
Captive marine animals are often referred to as "ambassadors for their kind," as though they have some choice in the matter or this is somehow a noble pursuit. My question is always: What did these innocent beings do to deserve the extreme trauma of a potentially lethal wild capture (yes, these still happen routinely around the world) followed by a life sentence in a liquid prison that is unnatural in every conceivable way; an environment rife with stress, boredom, frustration of natural instincts, forced human interactions, increased mortality rates and decreased quality of life? Wouldn't they be much better ambassadors in the wild?

With startlingly few exceptions, most aquariums worldwide (and certainly entities such as casinos and marine "abusement" parks) exist exclusively for the purpose of generating profits through commercial exploitation. Animals are regarded as expendable commodities, high death and illness rates are anticipated costs of doing business, and the underlying message is that confinement of animals for profit and human entertainment is acceptable.

While nearly all aquariums attempt to justify this exploitation under the guise of conservation, education and research, only a tiny percentage actually conduct legitimate conservation programs. Even then, the money spent on conservation represents a fraction of the overall income generated off the backs of these animals and begs the question: Wouldn't the money spent finding ways to keep animals alive in artificial environments be better spent solving conservation issues in their natural habitats in the first place?

The standard argument is that aquariums are necessary because they educate people and create awareness of the plight of wild animals, resulting in a call to action. But there is no solid evidence that viewing captive animals translates directly into any sort of practical conservation action. To the contrary, viewing animals in unnaturally small, often chlorinated enclosures desensitizes people to the cruelty inherent in their removal from the wild. It encourages the false notion of animals in isolation that are dependent upon humans for survival, rather than integral elements of ocean ecosystems that are fully competent to care for themselves. More important, it discourages the correct view of marine animals as sentient beings with their own intrinsic value, deserving of the right to live their lives free from human interference.

Aquariums and the research conducted therein teach us nothing of migratory or foraging patterns, actual life spans or complex natural behaviors exhibited by large marine animals in the wild. How, for example, is a young child supposed to learn, by looking into a concrete and Plexiglas enclosure only 30 feet deep, that whale sharks routinely dive to almost 5,000 feet? That child sees an animal swimming in endless circles. Whale sharks can live for up to 150 years in the wild, yet we applaud facilities that can keep them alive for three to 10 years in captivity, as if that is somehow an accomplishment.

No man-made enclosure can adequately simulate the tides, the biodiversity, or the sheer vastness and freedom of the open ocean in order to meet the complex physical and psychological needs of large captive animals. Enclosures are designed for human convenience and comfort, not the animals' well being, and even the best-designed enclosures frustrate and confuse critical senses relied upon in the wild for navigation, danger avoidance or locating prey, such as dolphin echolocation or a shark's ability to detect and interpret vibrations and electrical activity.

While it is legitimate to conclude that some facilities are more or less damaging than others, the lives led by large captive marine animals are so contrary to the natural experiences of their wild counterparts - and the purported benefits of confinement are such a stretch - that it is simply unforgivable to keep these animals in captivity.

Wouldn't we all be much better off funneling the billions of dollars spent supporting commercial captive enterprises into learning about our oceans through more compassionate and accurate means, such as observation in the wild (with responsible operators), virtual reality simulations, books, DVDs and/or IMAX theatres? Don't we owe it to our children, to the animals and to our planet to move forward in a way that inflicts no harm?
Kim McCoy is the Executive Director of Big Life Foundation, and was the Director of Campaigns for Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a nonprofit organization specializing in international ocean wildlife conservation, from 2007-2009. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.com Editor's Note: This story was originally published in Scuba Diving magazine in 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should big marine animals like killer whales and whale sharks be kept in aquariums or at parks like SeaWorld? Two experts debate the pros and cons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | SeaWorld tanks or sea pens? Dispute over which is best for orcas continues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sea World says movie 'Blackfish' is wrong

# data[].attributes.subject
Sea World says movie 'Blackfish' is wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | SeaWorld, activists make questionable claims on killer whale life spans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Both sides use different numbers that support their arguments. Scientists don’t know for sure how long orcas live.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When a kid in Malibu, California forced the rest of her classmates to miss out on a day at SeaWorld because she was misled by Blackfish, it made national news.

Ever since that girl forced the radical agenda of animal rights groups like PETA, The Dodo and others, they have claimed that children are rejecting accredited zoological organizations in favor of a debunked documentary.

However, we are learning this isn't the case, and in fact quite the opposite is happening nationwide!

Children of all ages are rejecting the radical agenda being shoved in their faces and asking for alternatives. Not only are they analyzing the source material the school is presenting to them, they're demanding they be allowed to think critically by hearing both sides of the issue, which is a victory for anyone interested in education.

Here we have a few stories of kids who are standing up to radical activists and demanding that they hear the full story and learn the truth:

Austin and Goliath in San Antonio, Texas

When one of Austin's teachers announced that they would be required to watch Blackfish in school, Austin stood up and demanded that they allow a SeaWorld trainer from SeaWorld San Antonio to come in afterwards to comment about the film.

The teacher responded, "We don't have time for that." Austin quickly countered, "Then we don't have time for Blackfish." The teacher agreed and the class was spared 80 minutes of out-of-context YouTube clips and propaganda.

Chris Brings Keiko to Texas

When Chris learned about the new book "Killing Keiko" by Mark Simmons, he went straight to his school's library. When he found out it wasn't available, but other radical animal rights books were, he kindly asked if "Killing Keiko" could be included. The librarians happily agreed and ordered the book. It is now available to all the students at his high school.

We have begun to learn that students in Florida, California, Idaho, Utah, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and more are all requesting that their libraries stock Killing Keiko.

Nikki vs. The Debate Team in New York, New York

When Nikki learned that her debate team would have to debate "Pro: SeaWorld should be closed" she had to fight other class members to represent the "Con" which was to defend SeaWorld in the debate. After days of research and preparation, she ended the debate convincing numerous audience members from the rival school that SeaWorld does incredible good in the world and should NOT be closed!

These 3 stories are just the tip of the iceberg. There has been so much interest in SeaWorld's real story that SeaWorld has been piloting an education program that would allow their trainers to virtually talk with any classroom about the amazing animal care their animals receive.

It is a new era and children around the country are demanding that they get to hear both sides and learn the truth!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kids Nationwide Reject the Blackfish Agenda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids of all ages are rejecting the radical agenda being shoved in their faces and asking to be allowed to think critically about the issues.

# data[].attributes.headline
What's best for kids - bottled water or water fountains?

# data[].attributes.subject
What's best for kids - bottled water or water fountains?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of a special series that explores the global water crisis. For more clean water news, photos, and information, visit National Geographic's Freshwater Web site.

As the U.S. taste for bottled water grows, environmentalists have been trying to sell people on good old-fashioned-and free-tap water.

But tap water's place in schools is thorny, since some experts say children should actually be drinking more bottled water to head off two stubborn health threats: obesity due to sugary drinks and lead poisoning.

"If children go from sugary beverages to bottled water, you get a benefit to public health, but not so much the environment," said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

"If they go from sugar beverages to [clean] tap water, you get a public health home run and environmental home run."

Bottled water is a drain on the environment: The U.S. public goes through about 50 billion water bottles a year, and most of those plastic containers are not recycled, according to Elizabeth Royte's 2008 book Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It. Transporting the bottles and keeping them cold also burns fossil fuels, which give off greenhouse gases.

Groundwater pumping by bottled-water companies also draws heavily on underground aquifers and harms watersheds, according to the environmental nonprofit the Sierra Club. And a 2008 investigation by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found some bottled water is sullied with untested industrial chemicals, and may not necessarily be cleaner than tap water.

(Related: "Bottled Water Isn't Healthier Than Tap, Report Reveals.")
Lead Dangers

But switching to tap water could be a bad idea in some schools where the risk of lead contamination from old pipes-known to affect physical and mental development-is high, particularly in large urban areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

For instance in September 2009, the Associated Press published a nationwide investigation showing that the drinking water in schools in 27 states is contaminated with lead and other toxic substances from lead-soldered pipes generally installed before 1985.

(Related: "Cocaine, Spices, Hormones Found in Drinking Water.")

Schools that rely on their own wells are subject to regular testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But the agency does not regulate drinking-water quality for the rest of the nation's schools, which get their water from local utilities.

Most school districts do not test their water because of the costs associated with lead remediation, said Marc Edwards, a civil engineer at Virginia Tech.

"Even when we offer to do the analysis for free, the majority of schools don't want to know," Edwards said.

But some solutions are much less costly than replacing a whole pipe system, he said. Those range from putting filters on taps to remove lead, to flushing water fountains after a period of stagnation.

Still, for some school districts, the most cost-effective measure may be providing kids with bottled water.

In 2007, Baltimore City public schools switched their entire system to bottled water after a study of 84 randomly selected water fountains found 10 with lead levels high than the EPA's cutoff of 20 parts per billion. The school district decided it would be cheaper to provide bottled water than testing and remediation efforts.

Edwards applauds Baltimore's decision.

"I'm a huge proponent of tap water, but if your child going to one of schools where pieces of lead are falling into the tap water on a random basis, that risk pales in comparison to the small cost of bottled water."
Sugar High

Margo Wootan, director of nutrition for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), added that environmental groups that have demonized bottled water should refocus their campaigns on all bottled beverages, including soda.

"Environmentalists place a higher burden on people who drink water instead of soda, and that isn't fair," Wootan said.

School beverages, particularly sugar-laden soda and sports drinks sold in vending machines, have come under increasing fire from nutrition-advocacy groups such as CSPI.

Obesity rates among children aged 6 to 11 have more than doubled in the past 20 years, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A 2006 study by Harvard nutritionists found sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is linked to higher body weight among adolescents.

"Soda in schools has been such a huge problem for the last couple of decades, and getting rid of sugar-sweetened beverages and shifting to bottled water should be a top priority," Wootan said.

The School Nutrition Association is also advocating for the elimination of all sugar-sweetened beverages from all schools when Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act in March 2010.

Low-fat milk, 100-percent juices, and bottled water are the new recommended beverages for school meal programs and vending machines.

But other health experts intend to keep fighting for tap water.

"There's more demand for bottled water now in schools, and the beverage industry says they have public health in mind," Yale's Brownell said. "But we're hoping to do a big campaign to encourage consumption of tap water instead."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's Best for Kids: Bottled Water or Fountains?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story is part of a special series that explores the global water crisis. For more clean water news, photos, and information, visit National Geographic's Freshwater Web site. As the U.S. taste for bottled water grows, environmentalists have been trying to sell people on good old-fashioned-and free-tap water.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you heard of Ethos Water?

I first learned about it while waiting for my coffee in a downtown Chicago Starbucks this morning.

It's a bottled water company that aims to "help children around the world get clean water and to raise awareness of the world water crisis." Apparently, for every bottle of the water bought, $.05 will be donated to the cause.

Sounds kind of nice, right? Helping people and all. That's good, right?

But the more I think about this product, the more I think it's the most ridiculous thing ever created.

I mean, this water is being sold in Chicago, a city on the banks of Lake Michigan, one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world and home to 1,180 cubic miles of good-quality drinking water (can you even imagine how much water that is?). But, even though Chicagoans have huge amounts good tap water available nearly free of charge, we are for some reason spending more than $1.50 per bottle for Ethos Water .

Yep. There are 1 billion people in the world without access to clean drinking water, and instead of celebrating the fact that we are lucky enough to have potable tap water, we are buying ultra-expensive "purified" water and, in turn, implying that our tap water isn't good enough.

It's just so ridiculous.

Ethos Water, which will indeed help people without clean drinking water, is like a hypothetical slap in the face to the same people it's trying to help.

It gives me the creeps (even without considering how plastic waste plays into this).

My suggestion: if you're ever tempted to buy a bottle of Ethos water, grab a glass of tap water instead and then donate a full $1.50 towards clean drinking water. Check out the Universal Giving website to find a charity you like.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you heard of Ethos Water? I first learned about it while waiting for my coffee in a downtown Chicago Starbucks this morning. It's a bottled water company that aims to "help children around the world get clean water and to raise awareness of the world water crisis."

# data[].attributes.headline
Humanitarian campaign to sell bottled water

# data[].attributes.subject
Humanitarian campaign to sell bottled water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Submitted by Anne Landman on

As more major U.S. cities are endorsing an effort to reduce use of bottled drinking water because of energy consumption and pollution concerns, PepsiCo announced it is teaming up with Starbucks and harnessing the movie star power of Matt Damon to help distribute a brand of "charitable" bottled water called Ethos. The marketing campaign for Ethos calls attention to the plight of impoverished Africans who lack access to safe, clean drinking water. For every bottle of Ethos water purchased, five cents goes to programs that provide African children with clean water. Ethos sells for $1.80 a bottle. Critics of Ethos water say it is a profit-making enterprise disguised as humanitarian relief, that Ethos is exploiting the plight of Africans to sell more bottled water in the United States, and donating directly to a reputable charity dedicated to water projects in Africa is a better way to address the issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A 'Humanitarian Campaign' to Sell Bottled Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As more major U.S. cities are endorsing an effort to reduce use of bottled drinking water because of energy consumption and pollution concerns, PepsiCo announced it is teaming up with Starbucks and harnessing the movie star power of Matt Damon to help distribute a brand of "charitable" bottled water called Ethos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. They're 100% recyclable and highly reused. Studies show that alternatives which seem "greener" actually place a greater burden on the environment because they require more natural resources to produce and transport, they emit more carbon throughout their lifecycles and they need more energy to recycle - if they're recyclable at all. On top of that, studies show bag bans and taxes haven't meaningfully reduced overall litter or waste anywhere they've been tried. ¹

ENERGY SAVINGS: Plastic bags require 70% less energy to manufacture and consume 96% less water than what's used to make paper bags.

DISPOSAL ADVANTAGES: Once disposed, reusable bags take up to 9.3% more space than plastic bags in landfills.

REUSABLE COTTON BAGS AREN'T REUSED ENOUGH: Standard reusable cotton grocery bags must be reused at least 131 times "to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than" a plastic bag used only once.² In fact, one study found that organic cotton bags need to be reused 20,000 times to have the same environment performance of a plastic bag reused once.³

NO OIL INVOLVED: American-made plastic bags are produced from byproducts of natural gas, not oil.⁴

The results are in: Bag bans and taxes don't help to reduce waste, litter, or marine debris.
Ban and tax ordinances have never been successful at meaningfully reducing litter, waste or marine debris. Not anywhere. What they have been shown to do is heap unfair costs on low and fixed-income families and add more red tape to local businesses. The environment doesn't benefit, and neither do people.

LANDFILL WASTE INCREASES: According to the EPA, "plastic bags and sacks" account for 0.3% of municipal solid waste.⁵ Plastic retail bags are a fraction of this number. Without plastic grocery bags, people purchase replacement bags - often made of thicker, heavier plastic - and then send those bags to the landfill instead.⁶
In Austin, landfill waste increased after a bag ban because shoppers used and disposed of thicker plastic reusable bags in the place of standard plastic grocery bags.⁷

LITTLE TO NO IMPACT ON OVERALL LITTER: Plastic retail bags comprise a very small portion of litter - typically less than 1% - making bans and taxes ineffective when it comes to reducing overall litter.⁸

In Washington, D.C., a bag tax hasn't improved litter or reduced bag use at all.⁹ According to a Washington Post investigation, D.C. collected roughly $10 million since 2010 without making any environmental progress. And the tax revenue keeps growing every year.¹⁰

A year after California implemented a statewide ban on plastic bags in 2016, an Ocean Conservancy survey showed a negligible 0.2% decrease in plastic bag litter as a percentage of overall litter.¹¹

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES:

California's plastic bag ban led to an increase in carbon emissions due to a surge in trash bag purchases (which use more plastic than traditional retail bags) as well as an increase in paper bag usage.¹²

In Thurston County, Washington, a bag ban resulted in double the use of more resource-intensive paper bags.¹³

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bags and the Environment - Bag the Ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. They're 100% recyclable and highly reused. Studies show that alternatives which seem "greener" actually place a greater burden on the environment because they require more natural resources to produce and transport, they emit more carbon throughout their lifecycles and they need more energy to [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
California governor orders people to use less water

# data[].attributes.subject
California governor orders people to use less water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | For first time ever, mandatory water restrictions ordered in California

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Australia to the U.K., and all across the U.S., politicians and corporations are pondering banning or taxing plastic bags.

A hefty surcharge that began in 2003 in Ireland has spurred the public there to spurn plastic bags almost completely in favor of reusable cloth totes.

Plastic sacks are also taxed in Italy and Belgium. Grocery shoppers must pay for the bags in Switzerland, Germany, and Holland. Spain, Norway, and now the U.K. are considering a ban or tax as well.

The political action in the U.K. on single-use plastic bags follows similar gestures earlier this year in Australia.

There a national ban or tax is being hotly debated, though the state of South Australia, which includes the city of Adelaide, has promised a ban on free single-use bags by year's end no matter what.

The state's premier, Mike Rann, listed familiar reasons for the ban: The bags contribute to greenhouse gases, clog up landfills, litter streets and streams, and kill wildlife.

Banished Bags

Unsightly pollution appears to be behind China's January announcement of a countrywide ban on the thinnest totes and a tax on others. It begins June 1, two months before the Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Taiwan taxes the bags, and the cities of Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Mumbai, India, ban them to prevent flood-inducing storm-drain clogs during monsoon season.

Once jokingly called the "national flower," thin plastic bags have been banned in South Africa since 2003; thicker ones are taxed. Similar measures exist in Eritrea, Rwanda, Somalia, Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda.

In the U.S., the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, California, ban the bags and promote reusable and compostable sacks. Elsewhere in the state supermarkets are required to take back and recycle the bags.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic-Bag Bans Gaining Momentum Around the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Australia to the U.K., plastic bags seem to be going out of style.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paper or plastic: which hurts the environment more?

# data[].attributes.subject
Paper or plastic: which hurts the environment more?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paper or Plastic: Which Bags Hurt the Environment More?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blackfish Official Trailer #1 (2013) - Documentary Movie HD