Showing posts with label Blackfish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blackfish. Show all posts

Monday, August 12, 2019

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









Saturday, October 14, 2017

A killer whale of a tale: when peer review sometimes fail.




It would be interesting to know how appropriate and stringent the peer review was undertaken on this paper before it was published.  Judging by the credentials of the authors and the methodology used this paper seems to be very poor and really does not elevate the reputation of the journal Archives of Oral Biology.

When examining claims in the scientific press one always tend to look to whether or not the evidence that this is based on has been subject to peer review.  Science journalism can be something of a mixed bag and with the ever increasing need to produce headlines that will generate attention (clickbait) and advertising revenue.

One such example is a recent news report in the web based science news outlet Phys.Org entitled: "Killer toothaches likely cause misery for captive orca". The article relates to a paper published in the Archives of Oral Biology that claims that tooth damage in captive killer whales is endemic and harmful to the animals. However a closer look at the paper and its authors give some calls for concern.
 
Looking at what is available in the original paper it seems that the assessments made were from photographs taken by various individuals whilst visiting various facilities.  None of the authors appears to have had direct access to physically examine the teeth of any of these animals. The methodology of the data gathering is questionable and it is unlikely that all animals within the groups studied were assessed effectively. The authors clearly wanted to fit their hypothesis to the available data.

Only one of the authors,  Carolina Loch, has any academic qualification in dentistry.
Although Dr Lock's claim in the Phys.Org article that the animals would have to have there teeth cavities flushed out with "chemicals” unfortunately resonates strongly with the mantra of the pseudo scientists when promoting An Appeal to Nature. These do not sound like the words of an objective scientist.

It should be noted that humans regularly the clean their teeth and wash their mouths out with chemicals to promote oral hygiene on the recommendation of a dentist. Moreover there is a growing trend in veterinary dentistry for both domestic and wild animals which would also use various chemicals to combat disease and promote the health of gums and teeth.

Moreover, the paper does acknowledge the fact that tooth erosion is seen commonly in wild cetaceans but it's not very clear on what kind of comparative analysis was used. Tooth erosion in wild killer whales is well documented.
A 5-metre wild killer whale that stranded on Saleens beach in Ireland in February 2015.  Extensive tooth erosion can be seen on this animal. Photo: Noel Browne. The MunsterExpress

Further, four of the authors are actively are opposed to killer whales in captive care:
 
Jeffrey Ventre and John Jett are former SeaWorld trainers who both left this facility in 1995 - with Ventre being dismissed for misconduct. They both appeared in the film Blackfish. Jett is now a biologists and lab coordinator and Ventre is now a physiotherapist

Ingrid Visser a scientist based in New Zealand who has undertaken work with wild killer whales. However her only direct contact with caring for a killer whale resulted in the death of a neonate killer whale due to her lack of experience in this field.

Jordan Waltz is a freelance graphic designer who has undertaken work for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation. Interestingly, his mailing address on the paper is the address of animal rights activist Ric O'Barry's Dolphin Project in Santa Monica an organisation Waltz actively contributes to in their news blogs. In his bio on this web site he states:
“...I am an artist by day, researcher by night. I served as archivist and researcher for the documentary films "Blackfish" and "Vancouver Aquarium: Uncovered." Most of my writings cater towards the lesser-known corners of the cetacean captivity issue...”

A small example of the large number of blogs and articles written by Jordan waltz for the Dolphin Project.

These facts alone should be a red flag to the actual objectivity and underlying agenda of this paper.

It would be interesting to know how appropriate and stringent the peer review was undertaken on this paper before it was published.  Judging by the credentials of the authors and the methodology used this paper seems to be very poor and really does not elevate the reputation of the journal Archives of Oral Biology.

Also see:  Response to the publication in The Journal of Oral Biology “Tooth damage in captive orcas”
 
Notes on tooth erosion in wild killer whales

Tooth erosion in wild killer whales is quite common but it is related to their diet. Broadly speaking killer whales dietary behaviour falls into three distinct areas: whales that exclusively feed on fish; whales thay exclusively feed on marine mammals and whales who adopted both behaviours which can be dependent on seasonality or migratory patterns.

It is the fish eating killer whales that appears to have the most evidence of tooth erosion with those that exclusively predatory mammals having the least.

A display of killer whales skulls and teeth accompanied by a video presentation was made regarding this subject at the British National History Museum special exhibition entitled: Whales Beneath the Waters which ran from June 2017 to February 2018.





Wednesday, March 23, 2016

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:



 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.


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.


Wednesday, November 11, 2015

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. 


Monday, June 15, 2015

John Michel Cousteau Wants To Save SeaWorld. Really?




 "...Marine-animal expert Jean-Michel Cou­steau — who worked on the successful release of Keiko, the star of “Free Willy,” into a seaside pen (before he died in the wild) — said SeaWorld Entertainment can move its orcas to seaside sanctuaries without costing it money.This brief news article is the musings of John Michel Cousteau (the son of Jacques Cousteau) whose organisation Ocean Futures was involved in the release project of "Keiko" the killer whale..."
  
The comments in the above-linked article in the New York Post by Claire Atkinson are of course misleading. Let us make it clear the "Keiko" project was not a success. In making this statement, I mean that the plan to reintegrate this animal back into a population of wild killer whales off the shores of Iceland did not succeed despite huge amounts of time, money and planning. This is not just my opinion this is the conclusion of the peer review paper published in 2009 in the journal Marine Mammal Science HERE.


John Michel Cousteau himself has also made it clear that he does not now consider it viable to release long-term captive killer whales back to the wild.  



My blog goes into more detail regarding returning captive cetaceans back to the wild HERE.

The releasing of former captive cetaceans has been given some extra impetus in 2012 with the Born Free Foundation's project to release two former captive Turkish dolphins after extensive rehabilitation. Although, details of this project have never been published in any scientific journals. Moreover, as with all these projects, there needs to be a considerable amount of context to understand what they actually mean. These two animals released had in fact not been in captivity for any particularly long period of time; they had been caught within the area they returned to and they were young male bottlenosed dolphins. These three criteria are the actual reason that this release project was likely to have a high degree of success. In addition, it should be noted that it followed a protocol that was used in a successful experimental capture and release project by the late Dr Ken Norris and cetacean biologist Dr Randall Wells published in 1998 HERE.

As to Cousteau's involvements with the eight bottlenose dolphins currently displayed at the Baltimore Aquarium (of which only one was caught in the wild) I have blogged this in some detail linked HERE.

As an opinion, I would say that removing these animals from an urban aquarium to Hawaii goes completely against any value that displaying these animals could have had as there are a number of both captive and wild dolphin viewing opportunities in this particular part of the world. The fact that somebody like Cousteau does not understand the value of urban zoological collections (particularly displaying animals that people are unlikely to experience) speaks volumes and sadly smacks of rather distasteful celebrity elitism.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Dolphinaria-Free Europe Coalition: It's a No From Me







Perhaps the most frustrating thing when reading these kinds of reports in the popular press is that there seems to be no acknowledgement of the independent and objective research that has been published as regards this matter. It seems that specific quotes by animal-rights supporters are being excepted verbatim and no effort been made to counter such specific claims with easily available scientific evidence.


The BBC's environment correspondent Claire Marshall recently reported onthe contentious suspension of the filming of a TV reality show in Portugal entitled "Dolphins with the Stars" due to a campaign by various animal-rights groups operating under the umbrella name of the Dolphinaria-Free Europe Coalition. This consortium of groups are currently lobbying to shut down all exhibits of dolphins and whales within the zoos and aquariums of Europe. This campaign is being orchestrated by the group ENDCAPwho are opposed to the concept of keeping wild animals in captivity
  

Ironically, is interesting to note that the animal-rights groups involved in this particular publicity stunt are often heard claiming that animals such as dolphins have no effective protection when in captive care. Yet, in this instance, the Portuguese authorities were concerned the programme may have contravened European zoo legislation and asked for the zoo involvement in this program to be suspended. Therefore, placing some doubt that the animals at least in this facility do have some oversight under the law to protect them.

Although, the actions of the various animal-rights lobby groups has very little to do with animal welfare but more to do promoting their own animal-rights political agenda in seeking the prohibition of animals displayed in European facilities which they state are "exploitative".

The reporting by the BBC did not really help balance the claims made by various members of the animal-rights lobby led by Daniel Turner of the Born Free Foundation who stated:
"Whales and dolphins are hugely intelligent and social species, which when deprived of space and environmental complexity, develop abnormal behaviours such as stereotypic behaviour (repetitive behaviour without any reason), heightened aggression and in some cases, early mortality."
It is unfortunate the BBC did not seem to make an effort to garner other opinions on the statements made by Daniel Turner from other professionals and scientists working with marine mammals who may certainly have a different opinion on what he stated.

To compound this problem the BBC reporter went on to voice her own opinion on the matter that seems to support much of the dubious allegations made by Daniel Turner:
"For a long time there has been a debate about the ethics and effect of confinement on cetaceans - the family of aquatic mammals that includes whales, dolphins and porpoises - especially as more is discovered about their intellectual and cognitive abilities. They are seen as among the more intelligent species on earth. They have complex social networks, recognise themselves in mirrors and have been shown to keep track of more than 100 words."
The disappointing statement of the reporter is clearly quite disturbing. More so as it demonstrates a lack of any actual research being undertaken before making this secondary quote as there is quite a bit of independent and objective research on the welfare of captive dolphins in the public domain that could have been easily reviewed.

As a case in point, in 1986 UK government commissioned an independent scientific investigation into the welfare of dolphins including the ethics and welfare of captive dolphins. This report "A Review of Dolphinaria" by Dr Margaret Klinowska and Dr Susan Brown was published in 1986 after extensive research both in the published peer review literature and field research observing dolphins in captive environments. It should be pointed out that if Drs Klinowska and Brown had found evidence to suggest that cetaceans (dolphins and whales) could not be successfully kept in captive care they had the power to recommend the banning of the keeping of these animals.

However, the conclusion of this report was that there was no evidence that dolphins could not be successfully maintained in captive care.  Therefore (and with the guidance of the subsequent Steering Committee) welfare regulations for the keeping of cetaceans were introduced and incorporated into the U.K.'s Zoo Licensing Act.

More recently independent research was commissioned by the Ontario provincial government in Canada who asked marine mammal scientist Dr.David Rosen (assisted by Dr Heather Koopman and Dr.Colleen Reichmuth) to look into the issue of the welfare of marine mammals with a special emphasis on dolphins.

The report "Developing Standards of Care for Marine Mammals in Captivity and Recommendations Regarding How Best to Ensure the Most Humane Treatment of Captive Cetaceans" was published in May 2014. Here again the researchers could find compelling evidence that prohibited the keeping of the smaller cetaceans in captivity. Nevertheless, in a similar vein to the "Review of Dolphinaria", they codified recommendations for the welfare of these animals that could be placed within a structured legal framework to ensure the consistency of welfare standards for these animals throughout the province of Ontario.

It is interesting to note that the issue of abnormal (stereotypical) behaviour in dolphins mentioned by Daniel Turner is addressed in the two reports cited above and do not appear commonplace and seem displayed under novel situations.
Three cases of stereotypic head-pressing behaviour in captive bottlenose dolphins are described by Greenwood (1977). The animals had been put into small enclosures, again for medical treatment, and the behaviours ceased on return to large pools. Bel'kovich, Krushinskaya and Gurevich (1969) note behavioural changes in animals moved to isolation in small research pools and Caldwell and Caldwell (1972) describe similar symptoms in a show animal in, similar circumstances (see above). (Klinowska and Brown, 1986)
Moreover, instances of high mortality (survivorship) of bottlenose dolphins also mentioned by Turner were found to be the not the case when scientifically reviewed as far back as 1986 by Klinowska and Brownand this has been replicated by other researchers.

Predictably, the article had to mention the animal-rights film "Blackfish"despite the fact that this documentary was exclusively focused on killer whales and not bottlenose dolphins the species being displayed in ZooMarine.

Furthermore, since it is release the film "Blackfish" has received considerable amounts of criticism for both its presentation and factual content.

However, this comes as no surprise as the groups opposing the programme "Dolphin with the Stars" have an active agenda to extend the original remit of such films as "Blackfish" to encompass many other animal species they wish to see prohibited currently displayed in zoos and aquariums.

The article is of course correct in citing the fact that the majority of the animals in the EU have been acquired through captive breeding. In fact, no animals have been imported from the wild to mainland Europe for over a decade with the bulk of imports ceasing in the mid-1980's (see note at the end of this article). The contention that the EU would now allow imports of wild caught cetaceans from outside European waters is extremely contentious.

Certainly, animals from drive fisheries in places such as the Japan are unlikely to get import permits as such capture operations would be considered inhumane. This has been the position of the United States since 1993 as regards animals derived from drive fisheries been imported into this country for public display. In any event, why would European zoological collections want to court such controversy when animals can be acquired successfully through captive breeding programmes.

As to the claims of the intellectual prowess of dolphins it is expedient to cite the recent published work in 2013 by Dr Justin Gregg: "Are Dolphins Really Smart: the mammal behind the myth". This book deftly rationalises the contention of the elevated intellect of dolphins that seems to pervade the popular psyche - this not least due to the controversial research work of Dr John Lilly in the 1960s with dolphins. It should be noted that mainstream scientists working with dolphins have for a number years disputed the claims of the likes of Dr Lilly.

Moreover such things as social complexity, self recognition (mirror experiments) and symbol recognition are not those exclusive domain of dolphins and has been seen in many and diverse species of bird and mammal including elephants, chimpanzeesand magpies.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing when reading these kinds of reports in the popular press is that there seems to be no acknowledgement of the independent and objective research (such as that cited above) that has been published as regards this matter. It seems that specific quotes by animal-rights supporters are being accepted verbatim and no effort seems to be made to counter such specific claims with what is in many instances easily accessed  scientific evidence.

As an example, one only has to look at Dolphinaria-Free Europe's website. Here they present a quote from a report EU Zoo Enquiry: Dolphinaria they co-authored with other animal-rights organisations in 2014.
Trade data records indicate that 285 live cetaceans have been imported into the EU between 1979 and 2008, in spite of a prohibition under EU CITES Regulation 338/97 on imports of cetaceans into the EU for primarily commercial purposes.
The issue with this statement is that it is misleading and factually distorted. Unfortunately, this is a common problem with these kinds of self published, quasi-scientific reports by the animal-rights lobby.

The statement seems to give the impression that this was homogeneous data between 1979 and 2008 as regards animals being imported which not correct. Unfortunately, "EU Zoo Enquiry: Dolphinaria" does not breakdown the figures it presents either into years or species.  Therefore, it cannot be ascertained as to what animals were imported either in numbers or years.
  
Further, the presentation of the time span of 29 years in EU history is also deceptive. In 1979, there were only nine members of the European Union. However, by 2008 there were 28: an increase in membership by 68%. Many of these new members already had zoos and aquaria that displayed dolphins such as Portugal, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, Malta, Bulgaria and Romania which would now be added in this data set.

Putting all these facts together, it can be seen that the statement from this report is statistically of no value and has been produced to mislead not to inform the reader.

W
hatever the atheistic merits of a television series entitled "Dolphins with the Stars" it seems unlikely that this would involve any compromise of the welfare of animals involved by ZooMarine  Moreover, it is possible that such a show would have been able to incorporate scientific and educational information within its framework for the benefit of the public as claimed by ZooMarine. Bearing in mind is that many people who watch entertainment shows such as this may well not be the same type of audience who would watch a wildlife documentary.

In conclusion, it was never the intention of the EU Zoo Directive to arbitrarily close zoos down. The whole idea of this legislation was to ensure good standards of animal husbandry and that zoos and aquariums promoted both education and conservation within these facilities. The use of the EU Zoo Directive by animal-rights groups such as ENDCAP and their various followers is not that of honest brokers trying to support and improve standards within zoological collections. Their clearly stated objectives is to see zoological collections closed down as they are anathema to these groups political ideology. No improvement in animal welfare would ever placate these organisations and their behaviour should be noted as belligerent mischief making and nothing more.






Notes on the importation of wild caught dolphins into the EU: The last importation of wild caught bottlenose dolphins into the EU was a number of dolphins imported to the Lithuania Sea Museum- the last of which was caught in the Black Sea 1998.  In addition, six animals were imported to Mediterraneo Marine Park in Malta from Cuba in 2000 and number of dolphins and two beluga were imported to L'Oceanogràfic in Valencia in Spain in 2003. It should be noted that generally most wild caught animals displayed in Europe were imported prior to 1990 with the  majority of dolphins now exhibited having been acquired through captive breeding programmes. In fact, some facilities such as ZooMarine, Italy and Palmitos Parkin the Canary Islands display animals entirely derived from captive breeding. As far as killer whales are concerned of the 12 animals displayed in the EU only one "Freya" was acquired by wild capture in Iceland in 1982 with one other being a rehabilitated animal "Morgan" that stranded in the Netherlands in 2010 which has been deemed unreleasable due to her age and hearing impairment.  Reference: Cetabase and CITES Database.