Special Issue Survey of Cetaceans in Captive Care

3. Survey of International Cetacean Facilities 315Number of species per facilityEuropean facilities IDFigure 3.5. Comparison of the variety of displayed cetacean species between Europe and AsiaAsian facilities IDIn sampled European facilities (n = 17), themedian number of species was 1 (maximum = 2),in accordance with the statistical analysis of thewhole European database. Only 2 of the 7 speciesdisplayed in Europe were represented in sampledfacilities.In sampled Asian facilities (n = 11), the mediannumber of species was 2 (maximum = 8). Theresult was identical to the statistical analysis of thewhole Asian database. All 13 species displayed inAsia were represented in sampled facilities.Sampled European facilities displayed significantlyfewer cetacean species than Asian facilities(Man Whitney U test, Z = -4.234, p < 0.0001).European facilities display mainly the bottlenosedolphins; the six other species were located in a smallnumber of facilities. In contrast, Asian facilities—mainly Japanese—displayed a wide variety of species.One possible reason for this is that bottlenosedolphins have been more successfully maintainedand bred than other species. Europe has a history ofimporting and trying to maintain and breed as manyas 12 species of cetaceans (Collet, 1984); however,the present regulations of many European countrieslimit or forbid the capture of additional animals fromthe wild. This makes the replacement of animals difficultand, therefore, promotes breeding and goodhusbandry. In Asia, capture and trade is not as wellregulatedor limited. This makes their acquisitionof animals easier. Moreover, Asian exhibits are stillgreatly oriented toward the display of a collectionof several species rather than a socially stable groupof any given species. This is a possible explanationfor the difference in species variety between Europeand Asia. Many animals from a variety of speciesthat were rescued from strandings are not released.Cetaceans have been part of Asian life, especiallyin Japan, for a long time—more for whaling purposesthan for entertainment and wildlife education.Public perception of cetaceans is slowly changing,as shown by the development of whale-watchingand the creation of numerous SWTD programmesin this country (Dudzinski, 1998). At the same time,the integration of husbandry training is progressivelyorienting facilities toward the sustainable managementof stable groups.Surface Area and Volume of Water per Animal inArtificial and Natural FacilitiesThe survey data provided information on pool andenclosure dimensions as well as the number of animals.It seemed relevant to determine the averagesurface area (water surface) and volume of waterwith which each animal is provided. Although thesample of natural facilities is small, it provided agood means for comparison with artificial facilities.Surface areas and volumes of all pools havebeen combined, which does not really reflect thereality because the animals are seldom evenlydistributed and not all of the pools are availableat any one time. Furthermore, social hierarchiesmight also restrict the space available for individualanimals. These theoretical maximum surfaceareas and volume of water available give a generalised,but still useful, picture of the differencesbetween artificial and natural facilities.Surface Area per Animal—The surface areais defined as the water surface available to theanimals. In sampled artificial facilities (n = 32),the median surface area/animal was 90.5 m 2