Zoological Collections and Animal-Rights. They do not make good bedfellows.

"Perhaps those planning this demonstration are unaware they are targeting the same company that orchestrated the return to the wild of former Brighton Aquarium dolphins Missie and Silver.." Sea Life Centre Spokesperson

Some zoological collections and their staff think there is nothing wrong with supporting or forming alliances with the animal-right movement.  To this end, I commented about this some weeks ago with reference to the sheer gullibility of some zoo and aquarium keepers in voicing their support for the film 'Blackfish'.  

To this end, a case that comes to mind (of the folly of thinking you can curry favour with the animal-rights movement) is that of the Brighton Sea Life Centre.


In early 2006, Merlin Entertainment's Sea Life Centres wanted to build an otter and seal exhibit outside Brighton Aquarium; the company had acquired the site for its transformation into a Sea Life Centre in 1991.  

When they took over the aquarium, they also acquired two long-term captive bottlenose dolphins housed in the aquarium.  Sea Life's management decided rather than relocate these animals to another zoological collection they would collude with various animal-rights groups and give the animals over to the ill-fated 'Into the Blue' dolphin release project.

Rather naively, Sea Life thought it was likely that when they submitted their plans for the proposed development of a seal and otter exhibits they would get little or no opposition from animal-rights groups particularly those they had assisted some years earlier.  

However, despite the councils initially passing these plans this was where the real problems began.  Under the headline 'Waves of outrage at seal pool bid' a campaign was born by various animal-rights groups, factions and individuals to block the development of the seal and otter exhibits.

Local politicians soon became involved with the Green Party national spokeswoman on animal-rights and a member of Brighton Animal Aid Sue Baumgardt stating: 

"The Sea Life Centre is not an animal welfare organisation, it's not a charity: it's a money-making venture."

The Green party would later cite its involvement in the Sea Life protests as one of its achievements in its 2007 Manifesto claiming it as a successful campaign "against a cruel and unnatural seal and otter enclosure at the Sea Life Centre". 

One activist noted that:

"We fought against the dolphinarium at the Sea Life Centre about 15 years ago and were successful.  We hope to achieve the same this time."

Therefore, with numerous and mostly negative articles appearing in the local newspapers, Sea Life decided it might gain public support by citing its involvement in the 'Into The Blue' project stating:

"Perhaps those planning this demonstration are unaware they are targeting the same company that orchestrated the return to the wild of former Brighton Aquarium dolphins Missie and Silver.."

Unfortunately, these remarks drew stinging comments in a letter from Virginia McKenna of the Born Free Foundation and a founder of the 'Into the Blue' project. 

At the suggestion that the Sea Life Centre had been involved in the 'Into The Blue' project she stated:

"This is simply not the case... The only participation from Sea Life Centres (Holdings) Ltd, as it was then, was to agree to transfer ownership and welfare of the dolphins to Into the Blue and permit their removal by the project team from Brighton Dolphinarium."

In addition, in a further letter to the Brighton Argos she also observed:

"I was surprised to hear plans by the Brighton Sea Life Centre to exhibit otters and seals have been approved by Brighton and Hove City Council's planning applications sub-committee.  How can anyone believe it acceptable to hold wild animals in artificial conditions so much smaller than their natural habitats?  Three minutes of potential curiosity for a young child set against a lifetime of captive boredom and distress for a wild animal is not an acceptable trade-off.  My thanks goes to those councillors who, although bizarrely instructed by the chairman not to consider the animal welfare implications of the proposal, felt they could not morally support the Sea Life plans."

Ultimately, after some months of wrangling with the press and various groups, Sea Life announced that the seal and otter exhibit plans had been suspended indefinitely.  Of course, they publically claimed the campaign had no part in them shelving the seal and otter project but judging from a review of the news reports of the time this is hard to credit and Sea Life's comments could be viewed as a face-saving exercise. 
 
More recently the Sea Life Centres continue to be subject of unwanted interest by members of the animal-rights movement with the planned development of a new aquarium in Manchester.  In 2012, the Captive Animals Protection Society (CAPS) - a vegan animal-rights charity which is against animals in circuses, zoos and the pet trade - began a campaign to stop the construction of a new Sea Life Centre in the Trafford Centre, Manchester. 

Once again, Sea Life made the mistake of trying to engage in constructive dialogue with CAPS but the net result was the predictable condemnation of their company values by this animal-rights group.  Fortunately, for Sea Life, they were not subjected to the same heated campaign as they experienced at Brighton.  Therefore, the Manchester Sea Life Centre opened in 2013.

Nonetheless, Sea Life seemed not to have learned from their experience and still has a working relationship with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation (formerly The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society).  An organisation who among its campaigns are against dolphins and whales (cetaceans) maintained in captive care; a position that Sea Life and its holding company supports and who have even claimed in past advertising that dolphin keeping in the UK had been banned; which it has not. 

Although Sea Life's aversion to keeping dolphins does not stop them desiring to display them.  In an article in The Sunday Times (30 December 2012) the aquarium chain stated as to having designs on acquiring dolphins for display but only in the context of having 'rescued' them from other facilities and placed in a sanctuary run by them; a position that smacks of opportunism and sheer hypocrisy.


Related Contemporary News Story

Brighton and Hove councillors want to say over Brighton Sealife Centre licence


Brighton Sea Life Centre Seal and Otter Exhibit News Coverage
Retrieved 6 December 2013. Unfortunately, these links have now become void.

JANUARY 

Wave of outrage at seal pool bid 

13 January 2006 

An aquariums plans for penguin and seal pools has prompted angry protests from animal lovers. 

Protest against seal pool plans
17 January 2006

Animal lovers are holding a protest against a proposal to open penguin and seal pools at the entrance to an aquarium. 

Campaigners give enclosure seal of disapproval
23 January 2006

Animal rights activists and Green Party members staged a protest against a proposed seal enclosure. 

Protest at retrograde sea life pool
27 January 2006

Animal rights activists are planning a second protest against proposed seal and penguin pools. 

Letter: City centre is no place for penguins
27 January 2006

Green Party national spokeswoman on animal rights Sue Baumgardt is right when she says the Sea Life Centres plans to build two pools at the entrance to its aquarium to enclose two seals or penguins is purely a money-making endeavour (The Argus, January 23). 

MARCH

Opponents of seal pens stage final protest
Wednesday 8 March 2006

Protesters are to make a final attempt to block an aqua zoo from building pools for seals and penguins. 

Seal pool plans delayed
Thursday 16 March 2006

Animal rights campaigners yesterday won a partial victory after plans for seal and penguin pools were put on hold. 

APRIL

Protesters vow to fight penguin pool
18 April 2006

Campaigners have vowed to continue their fight to stop an aquarium exhibiting live seals, penguins and otters. 

Dirty tricks claim in seal row
29 April 2006 

 A battle over a zoos plans to exhibit two seals has been soured by allegations of dirty tricks. 

MAY

Letter: Let seals and otters live free
3 May 2006

I am astounded Brighton Sealife Centre is considering plans to house seals and otters in its marine zoo. 

Fear for animal safety in new Sea Life plans
11 May 2006

Animal rights protesters have stepped up their campaign against an aquariums plans to create two seal and otter pools.

Outrage as Sea Life plan goes through
18 May 2006

Tanks for seals and otters, condemned by animal rights activists, will be built at an aquarium.

Letter: Wild animals should not be penned up
22 May 2006

I was surprised to hear plans by the Brighton Sea Life Centre to exhibit otters and seals have been approved by Brighton and Hove City Councils planning applications sub-committee.

Letter: Brighton Animal Charter is ignored
24 May 2006

How sad it was to witness the planning committee passing the application to house seals and otters in the aquarium at Brighton's Sea Life Centre.

Letter: Cruel exposure
25 May 2006

I protested at Hove Town Hall against the proposal for planning permission by the Sea Life Centre for two tanks, covered by a thin fabric roof, to house seals and otters.

Letter: They're not safe in the wild
26 May 2006

I beg to disagree with Virginia McKenna (Letters, May 22). Seals and otters housed at Brighton Sea Life Centre will be fed and well cared for, have expert veterinary treatment and there will be plenty of room for them to move around.

Why only seals?
30 May 2006

I have followed with interest the protests about the proposed seal enclosure at Brighton Sea Life centre.

Protect habitat
30 May 2006

Unfortunately for the seals and otters, places such as Brighton's Sea Life Centre are the only places left for them to go. Their natural habitat is being destroyed at such an alarming rate they have to go into small confined living areas such as these Sea Life Centres.

JUNE

Better outside
5 June 2006

Like so many others, Ron Wood considers it would be much safer for seals and otters to be inside the Brighton Sea Life Centre than outside in today's environment (Letters, May 26).

JULY

Aquariums seal pool plans scrapped
25 July 2006

An aquarium has scrapped its plans to exhibit seals, penguins and sea otters. 

Blackfish: Please Release Me Let Me Go

Up dated: 24 August 2015

'The release of Keiko demonstrated that release of long-term captive animals is especially challenging and while we as humans might find it appealing to free along-term captive animal, the survival and well being of the animal may be severely impacted in doing so.'

On the back of the ongoing debate regarding the film 'Blackfish' The New York Times' produced an interesting video in its Retro Report strand regarding the story of 'Keiko' the killer whale entitled: "The Whale Who Would Not Be Freed". 

The news items conclusion seems to be that the project was a failure.  This is even admitted by some of the supports of the project on video like Naomi Rose - former scientist to the Humane Society of the United States. 

One has to question what would (or could) happen to any other long term captive killer whales if the animal rights supporters got their hands on them - as they are still trying to do. In my opinion, the release of long-term captive animals is never justified on welfare grounds as 'Keiko' demonstrates. Releasing animals for conservation reasons is, of course, very different. It is acknowledge that animals could die during this process and it is likely not to serve the welfare interests of individual animals involved.

As stated, the 'Keiko' experiment was a failure.  Those who cannot grasp this are deluding themselves and showing contempt for the welfare of this animal.  Certainly, his move to Oregon Coast Aquarium was right; there is a consensus regarding this across all opinions.  However, releasing him to the wild was a grave and expensive mistake.  Those such as Naomi Rose who voice that 'Keiko' was better off having a number of years in the wild (with him not integrating and thus isolated from his con-species) are sadly just expressing their own self-serving and selfish interests against these animals being displayed in aquaria and zoos.

Those who continue to voice support for the release of animals such as 'Lolita' are also deluding themselves.  As despite the fact that her capture site and pod is known, she has been in captive care for 43 years; with many of her original sub-pod now dead and the dynamics of this group having completely changed with the passage of time; further there appears to be a dispute as to whom her mother might be.  More importantly, she is also totally habituated to humans in the same way as 'Keiko'. 

More details of the 'Keiko' experiment can be found in Killing Keiko: The True Story of Free Willy's Return to the Wild by Mark A. Simmons
 
See: Lolita The Killer Whale: Why She Can’t Be Released

In the report, it also mentioned the young stranded and rehabilitated killer whale 'Morgan' a female killer whale rescued in 2010. This animal was deemed unreleasable, as her family are not known; all that is known is she came from fish-eating Norwegian killer whales.  More importantly, she is also hearing impaired or actually deaf, which is why she may have stranded miles from her home range.

See: Morgan - A suitable candidate for rehabilitation and release?
 
As far as reintroduction is concerned, mention should be made of the story of 'Springer' an orphaned killer whale discovered in 2002 and eventually identified as a member of A-4 pod.  However, whilst this animal was successfully rehabilitated and reintroduced to her family, she was only held in captivity in a sea pen for a period of weeks (12 June to 13 July 2002); during that time, she was fed, treated and monitored.  She was then moved to a sea pen near her family and released the next day; fortunately, she did reintegrated back to her family and has been observed over a number of years. 

The key point about 'Springer' is that she was held for weeks not years; never in an aquarium; and all efforts were made to ensure she did not become habituated to humans.  Any comparison to this successful reintroduction is clearly bogus when related to long-term whales caught decades ago and their captive bred off-spring which now are producing second generation of captive bred animals; all of which have been totally habituated to humans. 

Finally an interesting comment from Jean-Michel Cousteau who organisation Ocean Futures was directly involved in the 'Keiko' release project.

Addendum.  24 August 2015
 
Could Vancouver be home to the first sea sanctuary for cetaceans?
 
It will be interesting to see what proposals there are when this workshop proceedings published because as in many things the devil is in the details. Clearly from things that are being stated in the article – particular from Howard Garratt – the comprehension of what is involved in keeping large marine mammals such as killer whales healthy in captive environments is not fully grasp.

The idea that you could place a large animal into a sea pen without any fundamental facility to contain the animal and to remove it from this environment for full and comprehensive physical examination and treatment for any illnesses demonstrates the fantasyland that some of these people are living in. Getting an animal to cooperate when it maybe ill to voluntarily beach itself on a "rubber tarp" would be amusing if the welfare implications for the animal were not so serious. And what if there were to be a major environmental incident how will these animals be protected or indeed removed to a place of safety. This is feasible with something like a bottlenose dolphin but for a large mammal like killer whale this is going to be a very difficult proposition.

See: Sea Pens: Not the Panacea They Are Perceived.

Nonetheless, one of the fundamental issues that seems to be always overlooked when the animal-rights lobby propose such projects is how it is going to be financed. If we take for example the project to release Keiko the killer whale some have estimated that this project cost in the region of 20 million dollars.

So it would be prudent to ask where are these huge sums of money coming from. The only feasible way would be from public donation and I cannot see the sums of money required being raised; do not expect the likes of PeTA to give any sums of money to such projects as this would jeopardise the directors of such "charities" their comfortable salaries and generous pensions. Getting a plane to fly over SeaWorld's with a banner saying "SeaWorld sucks" is a world of difference from committing serious financial investment in the project alluded to in the article.

There is some research to suggest that whilst many people on social media may be happy to make various comments or sign online petitions their commitment and interest does not extend to physically taking part even in demonstrations let alone putting their hands in their pockets and giving relatively large amounts of money to such projects outlined above.

Of course, there are celebrities who would be prepared to donate money to such projects but as these kinds of projects are now proliferating at quite a great rate (not only involving cetaceans but other carnivores such as lions and tigers and, of course, elephants) that the money supply is not going to be infinite. And of course we also have the situation of "donor fatigue" even if people wish to give money to such projects.

Finally, we come to the thorny issue of whether such a project would be allowed in British Columbia if the muted ban on cetaceans in captivity – promoted by various politicians – is passed into law. How could such a project be justified particularly if it is open to the general public; which for financial reasons is going to be quite likely.

Despite the fact that many would like to label such facilities as "sanctuaries" they are fundamentally no different from any other zoological collection. And the terms sanctuary is to me a weasel word used by the animal-rights lobby to somehow put them above other zoological establishments. These facilities will use exactly the same animal husbandry technologies, veterinary science and training protocols that has been developed over the decades in zoos and aquariums. They are fundamentally the same and as far as the animals are concerned, they would notice no difference.

Blackfish and the Black Arts of Propaganda

"...Blackfish” represents the worst of documentary filmmaking: poorly researched, presenting emotional conviction as truth and assembled for maximum impact over maximum illumination..." 

10 Worst Films of 2013. Jake Cole. Film.com

It is hard to be objective about such a partisan movie with it melodrama and noise.  Presenting skewed information without historical context involving former employers of Sea World with an axe to grind and the collusion of anti-captive bloggers such as David Kirby, writer of the infamous 'Death At Sea World'.

It is no surprise that both Dawn Brancheau's family (a trainer killed in a tragic accident at Sea World in February 2010) and the marine parks wanted nothing to do with either Kirby's above cited book or the 'Blackfish' film. They knew this was a ruse by members and supporters of the animal-rights industry (such as PeTA) to attack them and realised that both fairness and objectivity would play no part.

Most of the information presented in the film has been in the public domain for many years and the various incidence and 'facts' have been the substance of spin and propaganda from the animal-rights movement.  Having seen the film, I could write reams on what was wrong with it but I think a good starting point is the below linked pdf document that dissects the film minute by minute and points out (with references) the errors and misreporting in the film:

BLACKFISH ANALYSIS: Misleading and/or Inaccurate Content

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the film is its covert 'mission creep' which moves its subject material from the care of killer whales in captivity to the keeping of all cetaceans in general such as bottle nose dolphins; a species that have successfully thrived in captivity for decades. 

Moreover, the film has been gleefully grabbed by animal-rights supporters to widen their agenda against the keeping of animals such as elephants and other species and generalising this to attacking all zoos and aquaria be they good or bad. 

As regards the zoo world, I find it ironic that I wrote an article on this matter in 1994, which was published in the Association of British Wild Animal Keepers journal Ratel.  At the time, many zoo people scoffed at the premise I was trying to alert them to. Sadly, today it is becoming true. 

However, the film seems now to become as much a curse as a blessing for the animal-rights groups and factions with many and various people coming forward - including a number of trainers who appeared in the film - to state their disquiet at the films message and how their comments had been twisted.  That fact that the film's director Gabriela Cowperthwaite, allegedly advised one disgruntled former trainer to: "wait until after the awards season" to make any public statement speaks volumes for the true intent of the film maker.

Further Reading:

Why “Blackfish” is Propaganda, not a Documentary

Blackfish: Not So Scientific American

Blackfish: Documentary or Propaganda?

The Truth about the Blackfish “Documentary” by Ken Maya

 More Blackfish Backlash – Tilikum’s Trainer Dives In

 Blackfish Exposed by Former SeaWorld Trainer

Do Politicians Really Consider Mockumentaries Like BlackfishTo Be Scientifically Sound?

Cove Cultists?

Yet, it could be a way forward because despite films like 'The Cove' nothing much has changed regarding drive hunts on a local level and animals are still getting killed in large numbers. 

Some time ago, a colleague within the zoological community - who had spent some considerable time on various animal chat forums putting forward considered views on the claims and counter claims of the animal rights movement - declared that surely these people's views can be only described as the mindset of a 'cult'.  This is probably not a wholly satisfactory explanation but certainly spending enough time exposed to these groups and factions one could be forgiven that indeed this is the case.

Of course, one of the prime difficulties when involved in such discussions is the blurring of the term animal-rights and animal-welfare.  There have been a number of interesting articles on this matter but for brevity, animal-rights can be defined as an ideological and/or political position treating animals as humans thus confirming them with human rights.  Whereas animal welfare is the act of ensuring we as humans treat animals humanely and spare them unnecessary pain and suffering.  The two terms are mistakenly interchanged but are in fact very, very different.

Now in the world of zoos and aquariums the animal-rights lobby groups are getting very excited about the film 'Blackfish' a melodramatic documentary that makes various claims regarding the welfare and treatment of killer whales at the US Sea World marine parks. 

However, prior to this in 2009 a film called 'The Cove' generated similar attention and once again parks like Sea World were targeted by animal-rights groups and their supporters. These attacks were even more transparently spurious as regarding the welfare of animals within Sea World and aquaria than the film 'Blackfish'.

'The Cove' was a documentary that featured the cetacean (whale and dolphin) drive hunts in Japan that happen in various parts of this country but the film concentrated on the whaling port of Taiji in Wakayama.

These hunts involve the driving of groups of dolphins and whales into bays and killing and butchering them for their meat.  This has been undertaken for hundreds of years but it was not until around the 1960's that the public became more aware of the hunt via magazines such as the National Geographic and wildlife documentary filmmakers including Cousteau. 

Most people rightly find the film and video of these animals being driven and killed very disturbing and have campaigned to have them stopped.  But a curious aspect of 'The Cove' is that is seemed to spend a large amount of time focussed on the relatively small numbers of cetaceans spared death to be sold for exhibit in aquariums as zoos in deference to the surrounding carnage of the hunt.

The obtaining of animals for zoos and marine parks as a by-product of drive hunts has been a recent development.  This seems to have began in the late 1970's and involved not only animals from Japan but also Taiwan.  Such animals were supplied not only for far-eastern facilities but also Europe and some to the USA.

That said, contemporarily live captures via drive hunts are now specific to supply animals to primarily new aquaria and parks in the Far and Middle east, Russia and members of the former Soviet Union. 

Mainland Europe and the USA do not acquire animals via drive hunts and captive breeding programmes now are used to sustain future animal acquisitions. 

Background and details can be found HERE.

Nonetheless, animal rights activists continue to make very tenuous claims that parks such as Sea World continue to be associated in the drive hunts. 

The facts are that Sea World (and the rest of the US) do not display animals from drive hunts.  Only one drive-fishery animal is held in the USA. It is a false-killer whale called Kina originally imported by the US Navy's Marine Mammal Program from Ocean Park, Hong Kong in 1987; it was transferred to the Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology in 2000. This animal was used for research and not was not on general public display.  In September 2015 Kina and her two bottlenose dolphin companions were transferred to SeaLife Park in Hawaii. Studies on these animals echolocation and biosonar abilities will continue at the park in partnership with the University of Hawaii.

In mainland Europe, no animals from drive hunts are displayed.  Historically, only two shipments of animals from drive hunts where ever imported into the UK.  In 1979, six animals collected via a Taiwan drive hunt were brought from Ocean Park, Hong Kong, where they had already spent some months in captivity. Two animals went to Brighton Aquarium and the rest were exported out of the UK.  The last animals acquired where from a Japanese hunt and shipped to the UK via a acclimation stop at Ocean Park in 1980.  Their capture and transport was featured in the BBC television show 'Animal Magic' featuring the late Terry Nutkins.

Animal Magic: Wanted Alive Not Dead.  Radio Times 15-12 August 1981.

Radio Times Article

One of these tenuous associations beloved by animal-rightists that is supposed to show Sea World 'supporting drive hunts' is it association with the above-mentioned Ocean Park.

Ocean Park opened in 1977 and was funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club and is at present managed by the Ocean Park Corporation, a financially independent, non-profit organisation. 

When it opened (and for a number of subsequent years) dolphins and some whale species were acquired as a adjunct to drive hunts in both Japan and Taiwan.  However, since that time the park has acquired animals via captive breeding.  The park was one of the first aquaria to successfully used artificial insemination of bottlenose dolphins, a technique that is also been used in many large zoo animals such as elephants.  The last dolphins to be imported to Ocean Park were a wild caught father 'Domino' and his captive bred daughter 'Dumisa' from Port Elizabeth in South Africa on extended breeding loan in July 2009.

No animals appear to have been imported to the park from drive hunts since at least the mid 1990's and more likely 1987.  See Reeves, R.R., DeMaster, D.P., Hill, C.L and Leatherwood, S. 1995. Survivorship of odontocete cetaceans at Ocean Park, Hong Kong, 1974-1994.

However, such details seemed to be ignored by animal-rights supporters who have jumped upon what they believe is evidence of 'professional relationships' between Sea World and Ocean Park and other marine attractions. 

But, of course, zoos and aquariums do have 'professional relationships' with other  zoological facilities with many belonging to groups and organisations supporting such actions as breeding loans, exchanged of animals, husbandry and veterinary advice.  This is not some form of covert operation and takes place in plain sight and the prime beneficiaries are actually the animals within the zoos and aquariums.  This seems something completely lost to animal-rights supporters. 

In addition, what if 'shock horror' zoos and aquariums have professional relationships with establishments that may display animals derived from a drive hunt?  What purpose would be served by isolating such establishments?  The only result as I see it is that the welfare of the animals being exhibited would be compromised by the lack of support and the communication of knowledge.  Although, I get the impression that many opposed to cetaceans in captivity from whatever source would rather the animals be dead.  This can be seen in the glee which some of these groups and individuals rapidly post news on forums reporting animals dying in aquariums or parks an action that seems depressingly widespread.

Recently, there was an interesting development regarding animals taken from drive hunts in Taiji in Japan.  On 1 September 70 bottlenose dolphins where driven into the cove of which 18 were retained for aquaria with the remaining animals released.   This seems to be an attempt to segregate live capture operation from drive hunts. 

Cynics have suggested that this is a ploy to enable aquaria to state that they acquired animals outside the normal drive hunt season where most of the animals are killed and butchered for meat. They point to a petition from animal-rights activists that soft-target groups such as the World Association of  Zoos and Aquariums  (WAZA) and The International Marine Animal Trainers Association (IMATA) as somehow being responsible for the drive hunts.  They state in the petition letter: 

[IMATA, WAZA] Do not purchase, contract for, or accept any dolphins from any hunt in which any dolphins have been intentionally killed.

Nonetheless, this is a fascinating development and on a pragmatic basis to save cetacean lives from the hunts perhaps the way forward would be to abandon hunting for live capture.  Many animal-rights activists would object and fisherman would have to be convinced to allow competition from cetaceans for fish and abandoning whale meat as a food source. 

Yet, it could be a way forward because despite films like 'The Cove' nothing much has changed regarding drive hunts on a local level and animals are still getting killed in large numbers.  As an illustration, early in the hunt season (September 2012 - February 2013) 1486 cetaceans were driven into the cove of which 899 were killed, 247 were live capture and 340 released.  Therefore, it remains that the majority of animals are still being killed.   Consequently, and ironically, it could be that the abandonment of hunting for live capture could be a away forward to save cetacean lives. 

During 2000 to 2012 only 7% of animals were taken for aquaria. CetaBase.

Unfortunately, one stumbling block seems to be a very odd underlying consensus of animal-rights supporters that live capture is the primary driving force for cetaceans hunts and if these stopped then the hunting would stop.  Clearly, looking at the history of drive hunts this is glaringly incorrect and also very naive.  

Although it fits in with the anti-captive position of people like Ric O'Barry who promoted this agenda a great deal in the film 'The Cove' making him probably the enabler of what could be called: covecultism.

Links and Further Information:

Animal Rights vs Animal Welfare?     They're the same thing, aren't they? 

Every Sparrow That Falls: Understanding Animal Rights Activism as Functional Religion


Building a Future for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy

Cetabase Drive Fisheries: Capture Results & Information

A View To A Kill

The Cove and animals acquired for dolphinaria.