The Case against Marine Mammals in Captivity - The Humane ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of the wild tamarin population within the first 10 years of the program.Thus, a total of 16 percent of all free-ranging golden liontamarins are reintroduced captive-born animals or their descendants.105 However, through the decades that bottlenose dolphinshave been kept in captivity, very few captive-bred animals havebeen released into the wild by the public display industry. Infact, we were able to document only six: four as part of a largerAustralian release project on 13 January 1992, 106 and two animalsreleased in the Black Sea in 2004. However, the release of theselatter two animals was controversial, due to several factors,including poor post-release monitoring. 107Few captive whales and dolphins have been deliberately rehabilitatedand released after long-term captivity. 108 In several countries,animals have been released after the closure of facilities, includingone bottlenose dolphin in Brazil, 109 three bottlenose dolphinsfrom U.K. facilities, 110 nine dolphins in Australia, 111 two dolphinsin Guatemala, 112 and two dolphins in Nicaragua. 113 In the UnitedStates, four bottlenose dolphins have been released from captiveresearch facilities, 114 with one of the releases involving a considerableeffort to monitor the fate of the animals after their release.This latter effort demonstrated scientifically that wild-caughtdolphins kept in captivity can be returned to the wild. Probablythe best-known released captive cetacean was Keiko, the orcafrom the movie Free Willy. 115However, the releases above have primarily been from researchfacilities or as the result of the closure of public facilities, with themajority of the cost of rehabilitation and release being funded byIf the industry’s principal justification for captive breeding is to developsuccessful enhancement programs for current or future endangered orthreatened cetacean species, then the industry should foster rehabilitationand reintroduction research rather than oppose it.academic institutions and animal protection groups rather thanpublic display facilities. The lack of industry-backed rehabilitationand release programs for captive cetaceans or industry fundingfor the development of such is very marked.In fact, the public display industry has actively hindered the effortsof those who wish to conduct the work necessary to determinesuccessful and safe methods of returning captive cetaceans to thewild. 116 If the industry’s principal justification for captive breedingis to develop successful enhancement programs for currentor future endangered or threatened cetacean species, then theindustry should foster rehabilitation and reintroduction researchrather than oppose it.There is an economic motive for the public display industry’sopposition to the rehabilitation and release of captive-bred or longtermcaptive cetaceans. Research might prove that cetaceans whohave been long-term captives can be successfully rehabilitated,returned to the wild, and reintegrated into a social group—or eventhe specific families from which they were removed. If so, forKeiko, star of the movie Free Willy, was captured very young,before he was able to acquire the cultural knowledge ofIcelandic orcas. Photo: The HSUShumane reasons, the general public might object even morestrongly to the maintenance in captivity of these intelligent,long-lived species and may advocate the release of all eligiblecandidates.Two typical arguments the industry makes against subjecting captivecetaceans to the admitted risks of reintroduction are that (1)it would be unethical, inhumane, and unfair to the individual animalschosen, and (2) reintroduction has never been done beforewith systematic and scientific methodology and monitoring. 117Neither of these arguments stands up to scrutiny.It seems clear that what the public display industry says and whatit does are two entirely different things. “Captive breeding” and“conservation” are simply buzzwords used to gain the approvalof an unsuspecting public.The first argument is hypocritical: the industry did not show thesame reluctance when, for example, dozens of orcas were originallybrought into captivity 40 to 45 years ago. Those animals wereexposed to unknown (and in many cases fatal) risks, treated assubjects in an ongoing trial-and-error experiment. The second argument,aside from being factually incorrect, implies an industry positionagainst all new scientific research that poses health or survivalrisks to living animals, even when there may be substantial benefitsto the individual or to the species. On the contrary, however, theindustry promotes a pro-research position (on most topics other12
than this one), even when there are risks, arguing the benefitsoutweigh the costs. So once again, there is a double standard.In the case of marine mammals, and cetaceans in particular,the behavior of the public display industry makes a mockeryof alleged intentions to foster the conservation of species throughspecies enhancement programs and captive breeding. It seemsclear that what the public display industry says and what itdoes are two entirely different things. “Captive breeding” and“conservation” are simply buzzwords used to gain the approvalof an unsuspecting public.ETHICS AND CAPTIVE BREEDINGAlong with the substantive arguments outlined above, one mustalso weigh the ethical considerations of captive breeding programs.Taking an individual from the wild for captive breedingpurposes obviously raises ethical concerns. Individuals are deniedfreedom and exposed to stress and other risks in order to preservean entire species. To make such programs morally justifiable, theanimals being placed in captivity should be better off, or no worse,than they would be in the wild. 118 This is not possible with regardto captive marine mammals, as exemplified by orcas, who experiencefar shorter lives in captivity when compared to the wild(see “Chapter 9: Mortality and Birth Rates”).If habitat is being destroyed and no viable options are availablefor a natural migration to a protected area, then there may be anethical justification for bringing animals into captivity. However,this again is not the case with marine mammals. Little—if any—research is conducted on the habitats from which marine mammalsare removed, so it is impossible to determine their status.In addition, most marine mammals currently in captivity are,or descend from, animals from relatively undisturbed or protectedhabitats (such as the waters around Iceland in the case of orcas,Stranding networks, to which many dolphinaria and aquariabelong, collect valuable data from living and dead animals.Animals rescued alive are sometimes kept for display. Photo:Regina Asmutis-Silviaor U.S. coastal waters in which marine mammals enjoy a varietyof legal protections like the MMPA). So the argument that speciesenhancement programs are ultimately for the benefit of marinemammals as a whole fails on moral and ethical grounds as wellas in practice.STRANDING PROGRAMSThe one area of activity in which dolphinaria and aquaria canlegitimately claim to serve a conservation function is work involvingthe rescue, rehabilitation, and release of stranded marinemammals. Indeed, there are some very good stranding rehabilitationprograms (although not all are associated with public displayfacilities); for example, the Sea Life Centre franchise in the UnitedKingdom takes pains to rehabilitate stranded young seals, teachingthem to forage for live fish, while minimizing direct exposureto humans. The seals are eventually released back into the areaswhere they were originally found (or as close to these areasas possible). 119The public receives a skewed picture in which an animal’s natural environmentis hostile and captivity is a benign alternative, a picture thatis implicitly contrary to both conservation and welfare principles.But even stranding programs, as they are now conducted, givecause for concern, especially in the United States. Often the rescueefforts of the industry seem motivated by the desire to create betterpublic relations. By saving injured manatees (Trichechus manatus)or by rehabilitating stranded dolphins, often spending many thousandsof dollars in the process, 120 facilities persuade the public thatthey are altruistic and that they care for marine mammals in thewild—a public relations benefit worth the large investment offunds. While rescues are frequently heavily advertised in the mediaand releases even more so, failed rescues (when an animal dieswhile in a facility’s care or soon after release) are played down.A more subtle facet of the issue is that the public display industrytakes every opportunity to use a stranding as proof that marinemammals’ natural habitat is a dangerous place full of humancausedand natural hazards. 121 The public receives a skewedpicture in which an animal’s natural environment is hostileand captivity is a benign alternative, a picture that is implicitlycontrary to both conservation and welfare principles. 122Also disturbing is the fact that public display facilities that rescuestranded animals appear to evaluate each animal in terms ofdisplay potential. Species that are highly desirable, such as orcas, 123or rarely observed in captivity, such as spotted dolphins (Stenellafrontalis) or Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus), may be determinedto be unsuitable for release; these determinations are madewith little oversight from either independent or government agencies.By rescuing these animals, a facility acquires an exotic exhibitat little cost, either financial or in terms of public relations. 12413
Page 1 and 2: THE CASE AGAINSTMarine Mammalsin Ca
Page 3 and 4: Authors: Naomi A. Rose, E.C.M. Pars
Page 5 and 6: Public display facilities often pro
Page 7 and 8: IntroductionWhen drafting the Marin
Page 9 and 10: Education, Conservation, and Resear
Page 11 and 12: habitat (known as in situ) or in ca
Page 13 and 14: having a well-organized group is cr
Page 15 and 16: took advantage of a period of gover
Page 17: Unfortunately, captive facilities r
Page 21 and 22: Most cutting-edge behavioral resear
Page 23 and 24: plans are often wholly inadequate).
Page 25 and 26: sanitation methods that kill vegeta
Page 27 and 28: A prime example of the inappropriat
Page 29 and 30: Cetaceans are difficult to diagnose
Page 31 and 32: allowed to enter the area and dolph
Page 33 and 34: A detailed survey of public display
Page 35 and 36: Curaçao. The facility tried to dow
Page 37 and 38: The irony of the ocean beckoning ju
Page 39 and 40: This dolphin has been fitted with a
Page 41 and 42: The very traits that make dolphins
Page 43 and 44: The behavior of cetaceans also impl
Page 45 and 46: Most zoos and aquaria currently obt
Page 47 and 48: Of at least 193 orcas held in capti
Page 49 and 50: What replaces, with equal impact, p
Page 51 and 52: only occurs in areas where there is
Page 53 and 54: sions. This facility had already co
Page 55 and 56: The Solomon Islands government has
Page 57 and 58: S. R. Kellert and J. Dunlap, “Inf
Page 59 and 60: in May 2006). When one considers th
Page 61 and 62: paper, from 1954, could be found th
Page 63 and 64: traits (e.g., docile disposition, s
Page 65 and 66: cial and non-profit sponsors, and s
Page 67 and 68: D. A. Carder, “Hearing deficits m
Page 69 and 70:
154 Stereotypies are generally nega
Page 71 and 72:
y J. P. Schroeder entitled “Breed
Page 73 and 74:
Washington Legal Times, stating tha
Page 75 and 76:
about the welfare of the dolphins a
Page 77 and 78:
251 Small and DeMaster, “Acclimat
Page 79 and 80:
Pinnipeds and Other Non-Cetaceans28
Page 81 and 82:
held for two years in a tank hidden
show all

The Case against Marine Mammals in Captivity - The Humane ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?