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.

 

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.

Whatever 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.