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.

 

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

 

Photo:  Rachael Griffin - aquagreenmarine.org
The extensive wear seen on the teeth of offshore killer whales may be caused by preying on sharks.

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.

Morgan just wants to have fun!

Morgan displaying beaching play behaviour

Animal-rights groups always want to put a very negative interpretation on any of these activities animals display.  It is always considered that the animal is displaying some kind of suffering.  However, the animal behaviourist Dr Martha Kiley-Worthington, made a very valid point that whilst animals can display signs of “suffering” they can also display signs of “joy”. 

Recently the media have been feverishly displaying video of the behaviour of the young killer whale Morgan at the Spanish zoological collection Loro Parque at Puerto de la Cruz on Tenerife, Spain.  Video footage shows the animal beaching itself on the platform surrounding its pool.  Various animal-rights groups – who are opposed to animals being maintained in zoological collections – immediately made claims that the animal was distressed and suggested this might be a suicide attempt.  However, closer investigation reveals that this is in point of fact play behaviour by this animal that she has displayed for quite some time and is not, as claimed, abnormal or a sign of self harm.

Morgan’s life has an interesting history.  She was rescued in an emaciated state from the Dutch coast and rehabilitated at Harderwijk Marine Mammal Park.  Because of her young age, it was decided that she could not be released back to the wild.  Moreover, it is believed that the social groups of whales she came from are resident for some periods time off the coast of Norway so she was a very long way from her original home.  The animal-rights groups tried three times in the Dutch courts to acquire this animal for an experimental release project.  Each time they failed to convince the judge that this was a feasible or indeed in the interests of the welfare of this animal.  The Dutch government decided that she should be relocated with other whales in an aquarium.  Since she moved to Loro Parque in the Canary Islands independent research has shown that she has a hearing impairment and may well be deaf which may explain why she stranded and had to be rescued.  Hearing impairment or deafness in a killer whale is extremely serious as they cannot hunt for food using echolocation or communicate with other whales.  This in itself would be a death sentence if she returned to the wild. 

Morgan’s full story can be found linked in the article below:

Morgan - The Rescued Female Killer Whale

Two animal keeping professionals who had worked with Morgan in the past responded on social media with the following comments.  These support the hypothesis that this animal is displaying play behaviour.  The first comment states:

“...I did observe this sliding out behaviour, not only in Morgan but in other whales as well, particularly Adán, and sometimes Skyla and Kohana as well. There were different reasons, what you have to realize is, these land areas the stage, the slide out, are part of the whales environment, they have access to these areas during sessions and in free time so will utilize them. A few reasons whales would slide out include principally, playtime, Morgan and Adan would often interact with one whale on the slide out and the other in the water, and then they would "drop in" on each other, almost like a game of hide and seek. Other reasons include inquisitiveness, if Morgan can't see the trainers as they are backstage, maybe discussing the plans for a show or evaluating how a show went, she would slide out and try and peek through the gap in the stage to see the trainers!  This slide out behaviour is in no way abnormal for her or the other whales.  The main times I spent around Morgan would be during playtime sessions with her, giving her enrichment or simply having fun whilst other whales were doing a show or a session. She did everything the other whales did. And she thrived in it as well, when it came to speed or high energy behaviours, Morgan would always be one of the fastest or the highest.  Morgan was part of the group, she is a very strong social animal that held her own within the group. She especially has a great relationship with Adán, the youngest whale. I compared it to two young children that just loved being in each other’s company playing around...”

Statement by Loro Parque regarding Morgan’s behaviour.

A second animal keeping professional observed:

“...Back in 2012 - 2013 when I worked with her we saw her playing a lot on land with the other whales. She is so extremely agile on land it was incredible...”

In a similar vein, Dr. Kelly Jaakkola, the Director of Research for the Dolphin Research Center (DRC) was asked about this beaching behaviour and responded:

"Morgan is not nearly the only animal that does this. At Dolphin Research Center, our young dolphins often beach themselves for short periods of time. In fact, they make a game out of it. I have no reason to think it's any different for Morgan", she explained. "I see no more reason to worry about that than I do when a human child who knows how to swim jumps in a pool… and then comes back out again, all on his own. This is a trained behavior. Morgan does it all the time, for medical check-ups, public demonstrations, hearing tests, etc. She knows how to get up and how to get down, and once she's learned that, it's not "unusual" for her at all."

It has always been a problem when a facility is open to the public and people can freely take photographs or video.  The animal-rights movement  have a habit of taking relatively straightforward and innocent video footage and turning it into some kind of distorted narrative which the naive media then unthinkingly distribute.   

Animal-rights groups always want to put a very negative interpretation on any of these activities animals display.  It is always considered that the animal is displaying some kind of suffering.  However, the animal behaviourist Dr Martha Kiley-Worthington, made a very valid point that whilst animals can display signs of “suffering” they can also display signs of “joy”.  Whilst this may seem an anthropomorphic statement, it puts in context the reality of the situation.  The animal-rights supporters always want to label any behaviour they see displayed by animals in captivity as aberrant and disturbed.  Whereas the reality might be very different as far as the animal is concerned.  Loro Parque could, of course, try to dissuade Morgan from displaying these behaviours.  However, this in itself would be wrong as she obviously enjoys (finds pleasurable) presenting these behaviours. Moreover, on many occasions these are interactive displays between the other whales or her trainers.

One final point that needs to be repeated, the animal-rights activists who continue to protest against Morgan being in a Spanish zoo have an underlying agenda.  As mentioned above, these groups and individuals want to acquire Morgan for a cruel and ill-conceived experimental release project.  Therefore, they are using every tactic to try and discredit Loro Parque and its high standards of animal husbandry at every opportunity using misinformation and sometimes blatant falsehoods.

The Facebook page dolphinaria.truth has also produced a video and links of Morgan's beaching play behaviour HERE.

Further reading

Intentional stranding apprenticeship and social play in killer whales (Orcinus orca)

Do dolphin commit suicide in captivity?

Recent video of Morgan swimming with other whales at the park

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