Killer whales, car parks and The Whale Sanctuary.

The entertainment website LAD Bible perpetuating pseudoscience rather than objective journalism

"...there is no evidence to suggest the size of zoo car park should determine the size of their animal exhibits…"

One of the arguments against having large animals in human care such as whales and dolphins is that in the wild these animals range over large areas. This is then presented juxtaposed to the habitats these animals are provided with within human care. 

One such animal-rights meme (promoted by the animal rights group the Orca Project) has been an aerial photograph of one of the SeaWorld parks comparing the killer whale habitat with the size of the car park and an ornamental lake. As always this is an appeal to emotion from the animal rights industry. Moreover, as regards animal welfare it is not valid, particularly when comparing the life of animals in the wild with those in human care.

First, there is the obvious observation that there is no scientific correlation between the size of a car park in a zoological collection with the size of the facilities needed for the successful care of the animals they exhibit. Further, such a comparison is erroneous because in the wild many animal species may travel long distances for two primary reasons: one is to forage for food and the other is reproduction. They have to undertake these behaviours as a matter of survival: they are not undertaking this for recreational reasons. 

In fact, research that looked into the provisioning (feeding) of wild animals actually demonstrates that these animals do not move away from the area where they are being fed. This is why many countries like the USA prohibit the feeding of wild animals by the public because it distorts their natural behaviour; makes animals dependent on humans for their food and it can compromise their welfare. A case in point is the wild dolphins living in Australia at Monkey Mai where provisioning of the animals by the public has caused serious problems as regards animals welfare.

Moreover, animals in human care are living in artificial environments and therefore the dynamics are different than the wild. They are dependent on their food from their caretakers which does not involve the animals having to travel long distances. Therefore, giving them environments to live in that reflect travelling distance when foraging for food in the wild serves no useful purpose.

This is not to say that in human care animals can be kept in any form of restricted environment but these considerations need to be objectively assessed. Again, using the travelling distances that animals need to forage in the wild is not an appropriate parameter. It should be noted that a number of countries including the United States, have specific legislation that regulates the parameters of care that animals must be given. 

The Whale Sanctuary Project and their need for animals.

Perhaps it's worth considering why the animal rights industry is taking so much time and trouble with these kinds of campaigns. 

Originally, SeaWorld was going to extend their killer whale facilities in a project called the Blue World Project. However, problems developed in California in October 2015 when the California Coastline Commission (under pressure from animal rights activists) try to dictate SeaWorld's animal husbandry policy. The Commission stated that SeaWorld must undertake a breeding ban of their killer whales before they will give permission for the new facility to be built. SeaWorld then commenced suing the California Coastline Commission. 

However, Joel Manby - who became CEO of SeaWorld in December 2014 - announced in March 2016 that the group would discontinue breeding their killer whales in all their parks. Manby stated that his reason for instigating a group ban was due to the California Coastline Commission's decision. 

However, with a breeding ban in place across all the parks, SeaWorld made a business decision to cancelled its expansion plans for all their killer whale exhibits. As there were no plans to add additional animals to their current killer whale population, expansion plans were considered not viable due to the diminishing number of animals that would occur over the years.

In the meantime various animal rights activists meet in Vancouver, Canada to discussed the possibility of setting up a facility for holding killer whales. 

In April 2016, the Whale Sanctuary Project, as it was to be called, was officially launched; at this current time the Sanctuary only publicly exists as a website and they have yet to find a suitable location for the construction of the project. However, and perhaps more importantly, they have yet to raise the huge amounts of money needed to construct such a facility. In a meeting in Washington State in July 2019, The Whale Sanctuary stated the estimated cost of the project was 15 to 20 million US dollars for initial construction and 2 million dollars a year running costs which would maintain 6 to 8 whales. SeaWorld current display 20 killer whales at their parks.

Nevertheless, if such an animal rights run marine facility is going to be viable it needs to be populated with animals to attract visitors and generate income to secure its future. Therefore, these groups are targeting facilities such as SeaWorld's because they want their animals for there own marine park. With this in mind, it is easy to see why they continue to target SeaWorld despite the park being committed to a breeding ban with the current existing killer whales being the last to be displayed at the parks.

Other related blogs

Sea Pens: Not the Panacea They Are Perceived

Killer Whales, SeaWorld and Media Credibility

Not So Scientific American

No the killer whale did not say "set me free"

No the killer whale did not say "set me free"

Being a public broadcaster it would be hoped that the BBC would use a little bit more rigour when reporting issues particularly those that involve science. A case in point is an article in the Newsbeat strand written by reporter Talia Shadwell regarding research done on the mimicking behaviour of killer whales at an aquarium in France entitled: "Killer whale could be saying 'set me free'. 

The article is very disappointing due to the obvious lack of research and which appear to be based on views from the animal rights groups The Born Free Foundation and Whale and Dolphin Conversation - both known for their objection to animals maintained in captive care.  Further, there appears to be absolutely no effort to contact Marineland in France whose animals and facilities were used in the research cited or indeed any other zoos or aquarium that display whales or dolphins.

First, the breeding ban on whales and dolphins in France mentioned in the report has been lifted by the French courts after being successfully challenged as it was not based on science or in the best interest of animal welfare. This would have been made clear to the reporter if they had bothered to contact Marineland.

The picture of a killer whale in captivity in the Netherlands was also deceptive because it did not explain that this was Morgan a young killer whale that was rescued in a distressed state suffering from malnutrition on the Dutch coast in 2010. The picture is her in temporary accommodation while she underwent rehabilitation.  

Picture of a killer whale in the BBC article was, in fact, Morgan a rescued animals in temporary accommodation in the Netherlands while she was being rehabilitated.

She successfully returned to full health but unfortunately due to her young age and the inability to find her original social group, which was believed to be located possibly in Norwegian waters, she was relocated to a large facility for killer whales in the Canary Islands in November 2011. This was undertaken under the direction of the Dutch government. 

Morgan remains there today in the company of other captive bred killer whales. Since that time it has been discovered that she was either deaf or has a severe hearing impairment which is possibly one of the reasons she stranded and had to be rescued. This again would make any attempts to release her back the wild inappropriate. 

Second, the issue of the bent dorsal fin in some male killer whales in captivity is often cited by animal rights groups as a sign of compromised welfare. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this contention and in fact, bent dorsal fins can be seen in wild killer whales and this has been cited in published research.

"....The collapsing, collapsed and bent  dorsal fins found on the New Zealand killer whales do not appear to be uncommon in this population,  with 23%, of the adult males having some form of abnormal fin..." (Visser, 1993).

Further, as this seems to be a gender specific issue regarding some male killer whales (either in captive care or the wild) as a measurement of fitness and health it cannot be used as an accurate determination of such criteria as compared with more standardised physiological parameters such as blood analysis.

Third, the comments regarding releasing animals back to the wild cited the release of a former captive killer whale called Keiko. This project was claimed to be a success and this is incorrect. 

Keiko was released back to the wild but failed to integrate into wild groups of other whales.  He eventually found his way to Norway and ended his days being cared for by humans in a fjord before dying of suspected pneumonia some months later.

In the review of the release, published in the peer review journal Marine Mammal Science, the authors concluded.

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.  (Simon, Hanson, Murrey,Tougaard, and Ugarte. 2009)

As to the actual research which - demonstrated that mammals were capable of mimicking human speech - this is not actually that new.

Research of this nature was conducted back in the 1960s by the controversial dolphin researcher Dr John Lilly. Ironically, the BBC showed a documentary in 2014 entitled "The Girl Who Talked to Dolphins" which highlighted his research and had recorded footage of one of the dolphins mimic English words and phrases. 

Further, it's not just dolphins that have been known to imitate human speech as it has also been seen in belugas such as an animal called Noc that was studied by Dr Sam Ridgeway under the US Navy marine mammal program (Ridgway, Carder, Jeffries and Todd, 2012). There was even in one instance of a seal called Hoover who lived at the Boston Aquarium in Massachusetts imitating human speech. 

Nevertheless, various scientific projects in the past (predominately the 1960s) where efforts were made to teach animals (such as dolphins or chimpanzees) human language, were abandoned as researchers could not produce any tangible evidence that the animals could be effectively taught to communicate with human beings in anything approaching a discernible human language structure. The net result was that funding from such organisations as NASA, who funded some of John Lilly's work, was withdrawn.  

Further, chimpanzee research also faulted when the psychologist Herb Terence maintained that much of his research was the result of the Clever Hans effect and not the animals actually having the ability to communicate with humans. 

Perhaps one of the fundamental problems is that animals are generally incapable of speaking a language in the same terms as human beings. As Dr Justin Gregg points out in his 2013 book "Are Dolphins Really Smart - The Myth Behind the Mammal" human beings (Homo sapiens) are the only animal species that have a native language; the reality is that humans have language and animals communication. The depth and sophistication of human language exceed anything that we know regarding animals in the wild and their ability to communicate with each other. 

In conclusion, the premise that the killer whales (if they could speak and communicate with humans) would be that they wanted to be set free could turn out to be the fact that they are quite happy where they are in the protective environment of a zoo and aquarium.

A section from the 1983 Nova documentary "Signs of Apes and Songs of the Whales" featuring cognition research featuring dolphins and sea lions. At the University of Hawaii, two dolphins are being taught to comprehend the rudiments of grammar. And in California, the controversial John Lilly is teaching dolphins to mimic--and perhaps one day reply to--the computerized human voice.

 

SeaWorld & The Humane Society of the United States: Betrayal of the Zoological Community?

In bed with the enemy? Joel Manby the president and chief executive officer of SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment with Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States on Fox News.

It is not unreasonable to question whether or not the zoological community would feel comfortable in working with an organisation such as SeaWorld when they have decided to affiliate themselves with a known animal-rights group.

On Thursday, March 17, 2016, the SeaWorld group of marine parks announced that they have decided to discontinue its successful breeding programme with their killer whales from immediate effect.  This was announced on their website and in a letter to the Los Angeles Times from Joel Manby the president and chief executive officer of SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment.  Moreover, in a further revelation, it was announced that SeaWorld had also decided to go into collaboration with the animal-rights group the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

This news of the cessation of the breeding programme and the collaboration between SeaWorld and the Humane Society of the United States came as a shock to many supporters of SeaWorld and members of the zoological community across the world.  Although, it is quite clear that this was undertaken as a business decision by Manby and specifically to reassure company stockholders and Wall Street.  This is after all why Manby was placed in the position of CEO less than a year ago with a remit to turn the business around.

Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States stated after the official announcement that:

"We don't come to this discussion, or this collaboration with any naivete or any lack of knowledge about the operations of SeaWorld. We didn't want to be endlessly mired in conflict with SeaWorld. The goal was to make progress for animal rights."   

 The fact that Pacelle uses the words “animal-rights” in his statement rather than “animal welfare” should be a huge concern to anyone who is disturbed about the motivation of this partnership.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a controversial organisation and was heavily involved in the promotion of the film “Blackfish”.  This organisation has regularly attacked SeaWorld and is opposed to keeping of all marine mammals in captivity with little ambiguity to this fact stated on their website:

“...Life for captive whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals is nothing like a life in the ocean. It is almost impossible to maintain a family group in captivity, a tragedy for whales and dolphins. When you see marine mammals in tanks or pools, consider what they have lost in order to entertain us...”

HSUS is also not a friend to zoos and aquariums around the world.  It recently has been lobbying to stop the export from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in the United States which is going to donate a group of retired chimpanzees to a Wingham Wildlife Park in the United Kingdom. HSUS claims that the receiving zoo is not accredited.  However, this is completely misleading.  Since 1981 all British zoos must comply with the Zoo Licensing Act which lays down a comprehensive, stringent and evolving set of standards for zoos to operate – the Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice – which subject zoos to periodic inspection and licensing.  This legislation goes far beyond accreditation by a trade body such as The American Association of Zoos.

See: HSUS: Zoos, Sanctuaries and Accreditation

SeaWorld holds the biggest genetic pool of captive-bred killer whales and has been leaders in the world regarding the reproduction of this species.  However, it is not the only facility to hold or breed killer whales with countries such as France and Japan exhibiting breeding groups of killer whales.  Moreover, China announced in early 2017 that it is commencing a killer whale breeding programme.  With the removal of the breeding programme at SeaWorld and the effective discontinuation of reproductive cooperation between zoological collections around the world (which would include the supply of semen for Artificial Insemination), many aquariums and parks that wish to continue to breed killer whales are going to have to reassess their positions.

Further, one of the major repercussions of this decision from SeaWorld is that inevitably this will mean that more killer whales will now be caught from the wild to satisfy the growing aquarium and theme park business particularly its growth market in Asia and specifically China.  It is likely that Russian animal dealers will be considerably pleased that they now have a very lucrative market in supplying animals to these areas of the world as well as their own home market.  One projection suggests that within the next decade China may well be displaying at least 50 killer whales in their aquariums and theme parks.

Finally, one of the issues that have not really been addressed regarding this situation is a question of trust.  The zoological community are subject to continuing campaigns regarding their operations from the animal-rights lobby.  It is not unreasonable to question whether or not the zoological community would feel comfortable in working with an organisation such as SeaWorld when they have decided to affiliate themselves with a known animal-rights group.  Whilst SeaWorld might try and offer assurance that confidential discussions between zoological facilities would not be revealed to their associates at the Humane Society for the United States, after what has happened would anyone blame them for not believing such reassurances.

In conclusion, it is clear that Joel Manby believed his first priority was to the shareholders and investors in SeaWorld.  Unfortunately, he may come to reflect that his decision has created a number of problems and repercussions that possibly did not first occur to him when running what was a world-class zoological collection specialising in marine mammals.

Update February 2018: Joe Manby stepped down as CEO of SeaWorld on the 27th of February 2018. This follows the resignation of Wayne Pacelle CEO of the Humane Society United States earlier that same month after allegations of sexual harassment.

Captain Paul Watson's Moral Compass Loses Its Way

Paul Watson standing in front of the renamed Sea Shepherd Vessel the Steve Irwin. It is ironic that Steve Irwin was not only a conservationist but a zoo owner and his daughter, Bindi Irwin, is now an ambassador for SeaWorld.

"Actually oceanariums are in many ways are victims of their own success. They educated the public so well about dolphins, whales, and other marine life that a public that didn't care a fig about these animals [...] Unfortunately this compassion for whales and dolphins is not harnessed as a force against the killing industry, but is instead turned against the teacher. Paul Watson, 1995"

Many might be aware of the activities of the conservation organisation Sea Shepherd and its controversial founder Paul Watson. In recent years, Sea Shepherd seems to have lost its way and has drifted into the realms of animal-rights. Rather than just opposing the killing of whales and dolphins in whaling and drive fisheries, in such countries as Japan and the Faroe Isles, they have moved their sites to attacking the maintenance of whales and dolphins in captivity.

In a recent commentary on their website Paul Watson decries the death of a killer whale at the Marineland in Antibes, France. The whale called Valentin died some time after a serious flooding incident that seriously affected not only the marine park but also the surrounding area and involved the death of at least 19 people.

Watson berates the death and  - without any supporting evidence - makes the statement that it was the flooding that killed this animal due to the ingress of contaminated water into the killer whale exhibit. In actual fact, the post-mortem revealed that the animal died of a twisted gut (torsion) which veterinarians believe is unrelated to the flooding incident. The other whales in the same exhibit remain at the time of writing healthy and well.  He also blames Marineland for being built on a floodplain. Although, during its 45 years of existence this is the worst flooding experienced by this facility. Moreover, as stated, this didn't just affect the park but the large area surrounding it.

Watson finishes his polemic in a predictable way with the now familiar rhetoric and unrealistic aspiration that:

"Marineland must be shut down and the animals rehabilitated and released to the wild [...] These tanks must be emptied and these facilities shut down. Marineland, SeaWorld and other cetacean prisons around the world are a disgrace to humanity and an ongoing ordeal of suffering for hundreds of animals denied their rights to be free and to live a full and productive life..."

This is of course a totally unrealistic objective for many and various reasons. The first of which is that all the killer whales at Marineland (including the recently deceased Valentin) were all born in captivity and have never been in the wild – as is the case for the vast majority of the 50+ killer whales currently displayed around the world in zoological collections.

Further, as the well-known failed release of the wild caught killer whale Keiko demonstrated,  that even with wild caught animals such endeavours are highly risky and likely to not only be hugely costly but also inevitably not successful. It is interesting to note that this fact has also now been accepted by Jean-Michel Cousteau whose organisation Ocean Futures were directly involved in the Keiko experimental release. 

Interestingly, this hasn't always been Paul Watson's position regarding whales and dolphins is in captivity. In a commentary in the June edition of animal people magazine in 1995 entitled The Cult of Animal Celebrity his position was very different.

Watson makes the very good point that:

"Not all facilities holding marine animals are the enemy. And the huge sums raised to free a few individuals could be more positively directed toward ending the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of nameless whales, dolphins, and seals on the world's oceans"

He goes on to say something that many believe are truisms when it comes to the public's changed perception over the years regarding whales and dolphins.

"Actually oceanariums are in many ways are victims of their own success. They educated the public so well about dolphins, whales, and other marine life that a public that didn't care a fig about these animals before 20 years ago now cares a great deal. Unfortunately this compassion for whales and dolphins is not harnessed as a force against the killing industry, but is instead turned against the teacher."

His final statement here is indeed very ironic because Watson is now engaging in the very behaviour he rightly criticises in this cited article.

In the closing passage of this article he makes a judgement that many feel is not without truth.

"There are hundreds of dolphins held in tanks around the world. There are millions whose numbers diminished daily in the world's largest human controlled killing tank of all: the ocean. If we don't hold the wanton killing in the wild, the only place dolphins will survive will be in captive facilities." 

So why has Watson apparently changed his mind completely regarding the captive care of whales and dolphins? Certainly, the situation for these animals in the wild has not really changed substantially. Animals are still being killed as is graphically shown in documentaries.  Watson's own efforts to highlight the drive fishery killings in Japan have failed to have little impact on the continuation of these hunts.

What seems to be happening is that Watson and others have decided that there might be a more lucrative return in targeting the small numbers of animals that are currently being caught in the Japanese drive fisheries for display in aquaria as this would generate better publicity and more public donations. The fact that these operations (which run in tandem within the drive hunt) have only been going on for decades compared with the hundreds of years history of the drive hunts seems unimportant.

This fact became very clear with the release of the 2009documentary The Cove. Whilst this film was very successful one criticism of its presentation was the overemphasis of the role of the live capture of dolphins in the drive hunt against the slaughter of the majority of the animals.  This of course comes as no surprise as the main protagonist featured in this documentary was the former dolphin trainer now animal-rights activist Ric O'Barry.

Whilst, there seems to be a considerable amount of common ground between the animal-rights lobby and the zoological communityregarding the use of drive fisheries for the acquisition of animals for captive display.  It should be noted that the USA and mainland European zoological collections now exclusively use self-sustaining captive breeding for the acquisition of display animals and not wild capture.  Unfortunately, opinions about the role that the captive display of whales and dolphins can positively provide in awareness to the protection and conservation of their wild counterparts seems to have been polarised. 

Sadly and ultimately the only ones that will suffer from this consequence will be wild dolphins, whales and the marine environment.  A situation recognised by Paul Watson in 1995 but seemingly now lost .

Further reading and links

Drive Hunts and Animals Acquired for Dolphinaria.

Cove Cultists?

Blackfish: Please Release Me Let Me Go

Killer Whales, SeaWorld and Media Credibility

As always the satirical web site The Onion gets it right.  Unfortunately, this could be reported as a fact by the mainstream press and science magazines.

Very little objective analysis by these news outlets as to the accuracy of the information presented within this documentary. Moreover, it is simply not the case that there is no alternative information available as this can easily be found on SeaWorld's supporting web sites and other legitimate sources. These go into a great deal of detail as to why Blackfish should not be viewed as a valid and objective documentary.

With yet another twist and turn in the saga of SeaWorld and its killer whales, it was erroneously announced by both popular and the scientific press that the San Diego Park would be phasing out its killer whale shows in 2016. 

  In point of fact, this is not exactly what was said at the SeaWorld press conference. The fact that both the mainstream (and even the scientific press) seem completely incapable of reporting anything to do with the whole issue of SeaWorld and its killer whales objectively should be a cause of serious alarm.  What SeaWorld has actually decided to do is to change the format of its killer whale show at San Diego to incorporate a more educational remit rather than the current more theatrical presentations that can be seen at the other two American parks. 

One of the worst offenders in the reporting of the issues regarding SeaWorld and its animal care is the U.K.'s The Guardian and The Independent newspapers. Within the last year alone The Guardian has produced over a dozen articles on SeaWorld - all with a negative spin on the issue of SeaWorld and its animal care. The Guardian even invited the producer of the film Blackfish Gabriela Cowperthwaite to write an article about this subject. As far as a review of the contents of the Guardian reveals not once has the newspaper invited anyone from SeaWorld to undertake a similar exercise or to directly comment on their articles – aside from comments lifted from other news agencies and press releases.  

Within the last year alone The Guardian alone has produced over a dozen articles on SeaWorld - all with a negative spin on the issue of SeaWorld and its animal care.

To compound these problems the majority of this copy is produced by the Guardian's regional reporters or syndicated from releases by Associated Press. This is disappointing because the Guardian has an excellent science reporting team who would inevitably have taken a more considered and scientific approach to the animal welfare issues which is at the heart of this debate.

Moreover, it is continually disturbing that the Guardian and other print and web-based news outlets somehow still seem to think that the film "Blackfish" should be taken on face value as being both accurate and factual. The actuality is there has been very little objective analysis by these news outlets as to the accuracy of the information presented within this documentary. Moreover, it is simply not the case that there is no alternative information available as this can easily be found on SeaWorld's supporting web sites and other legitimate sources. These go into a great deal of detail as to why Blackfish should not be viewed as a valid and objective documentary.

If reputable news and scientific-based magazine sites were reporting an issue such as the anti-vaccine movement there would be demanded a definitely more objective and rigorous examination of the facts. It is not without irony that the seminal work that was very much a trigger for the huge amounts of interest in SeaWorld and the care of its killer whales (and the production of the film "Blackfish") was written by investigative reporter David Kirby in his book Death at SeaWorld. If one looks at the body of Kirby's work prior to Death at SeaWorld he authored a book in 2006 entitled: Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy. This book promoted the notion that the Mumps Measles and Rubella (MMR) vaccine was responsible for autism in children; a view that David Kirby still seems to support.

It was a UK general practitioner Dr Andrew Wakefield who produced the now discredited research on the MMR vaccine and autism.  As a result, he was removed from practising medicine in the United Kingdom.  However, David Kirby seems to have escaped a similar fate from his peers as regards his credibility as an investigative journalist. Why this red flag has been to all intents and purposes completely ignored when reporting issues regarding SeaWorld and the care of its killer whales remain extremely puzzling.

It seems that unfortunately when it comes to reporting issues regarding the compromising of animal welfare in situations such as zoos and aquariums and other animal keeping enterprises many journalists appear to lose all sense of objective analysis and reporting that they would not do for many other subjects - such as the controversy over vaccination as cited above. Why this is happening is something of a mystery but it does not bode well when journalist do not report issues regarding animal welfare evenhandedly and by doing this they do a disservice to their readers. 

Further Background

Blackfish and the Black Arts of Propaganda

 More Blackfish Backlash – Tilikum’s Trainer Dives In

Blackfish Exposed by Former SeaWorld Trainer

Blackfish and the Selective Skeptic

Killer whales, Politics and Animal-Rights.