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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See: HSUS: Zoos, Sanctuaries and Accreditation

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

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

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

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

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

Jane Goodall: GMO & Echolocating Dolphins

Her allegation that the sounds the animals produce when using their echolocation bounce back from the walls of their tanks in their exhibits is correct but that is exactly how echolocation works.

Dr Jane Goodallis a scientist who became famous for her research in primatology particularly her work with wild chimpanzees in Africa specifically Gombe in Tanzania when she began her studies in the early 1960s. In 1986,  she published her first major work which was an accumulation of 25 years of original research in The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behaviour. She went on to found the Jane Goodall Institute in 1977 who amongst their mission statements state:

"Improve global understanding and treatment of great apes through research, public education and advocacy"

In later years, she became something of a wildlife celebrity and broadened her interests into other areas of environmentalism and animal-rights. 

From 1998 to 2008, she was a director of the animal-rights group Advocates for Animals: a group that was originally founded as the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection and was later rebranded as OneKind. She resigned this post in 2008 for reasons that some have suggested was due to her support of a new chimpanzee exhibit at Edinburgh zoo which went against OneKind's ethos of: "keeping animals in captivity for entertainment".   

She was later involved in more controversy with accusations of plagiarism in her 2012 book "Seeds of Hope".   

More recently she has been criticised for her support of "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth" an anti-GMO polemic written by the American lawyer Steve Druker. To this end, her position was also criticised in the sceptical pod cast Skeptic's Guide to the Universe under the section "The Dumbest Thing I Heard This Week"
 

However, Dr Goodall's most recent foray into areas of controversy is her attack on the SeaWorld marine parks and its keeping of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) reported in the Huffington Post and picked up by a number of other media outlets.   

This is not the first time that she has attacked the practice of keeping cetaceans in captive care as over a year ago she also attacked the non-profit Vancouver Public Aquarium for their public display of cetaceans. Unfortunately, there seems to be no evidence that she has visited either Vancouver Aquarium (or indeed the SeaWorld parks) or directly spoken to their staff and scientists regarding her concerns despite an open invitation to do so.

Of course, the major problem with Dr Goodall's vociferous opinions is that she does not actually have any direct research knowledge of whales and dolphins either in aquaria or the wild as she remains above all an expert on African fauna and specifically primates.

This is clearly obvious in her comments regarding dolphin echolocation(sonar). Further, she confuses the echolocation of dolphins with their communication skills - the two are unrelated.

Her statement that the sounds the animals produce when using their echolocation bounce back from the walls of their exhibits is correct - that is exactly how echolocation works - but at this point her understanding sadly falters.

Dolphin echolocation is very sophisticated and it is this very sophistication that make them exquisite tools the dolphins exploit when hunting or exploring their environment; the sophistication of the dolphins echolocation is believed by some to be the reason these animals have complex brains.

In using their echolocation, dolphins are fully capable of controlling their echolocation beam in both direction and strength (volume); it is not a blunt instrument and animals have total control of this function in a similar way we humans can vary the volume and pitch when we are talking. As stated, echolocation is used is for hunting or investigating objects.

Further, it should be realised that dolphins also have extremely good eyesight both above and below the surface (echolocation only works within the aquatic environment) and will sometime rely on their eye-sight and not their echolocation skills.

Moreover, there is no evidence to support Goodall's claim that dolphins in captivity live in an "acoustic hell" and such erroneous beliefs appear to have been lifted directly from animal-rights websites and are not accurate.  Dolphins actively control their sonar it is nether autonomous or an unconscious sense.

It is somewhat ironic that if Dr Goodall had taken the opportunity to research dolphin echolocation she may well have been surprised to learn that much of the pioneering research into this ability was undertaken in captivity in laboratories and aquariums; originally by scientists such as Arthur McBride at the Marine Studios (Marineland of Florida) in the 1940s and later Dr Winthrop Kellogg in the 1950s (Au, 1993). It is a further irony that prior to this Dr Kellogg had also undertaken chimpanzee language research and Dr Goodall may well have been familiar with his early endeavours.

In fact, if Dr Goodall and her followers are so concerned about the welfare of dolphins such as killer whales they need to be looking to the wild and groups living on the eastern Pacific as these appear to be having serious problems far more pressing than animals cosseted in a well run aquarium.

Finally, her comments that dolphins "have a emotion like ours" perhaps reveals how far she as a scientist has drifted from viewing things with true objectivity. 

To this end, Dr Goodall would be advised to review Dr Justin Gregg's recent book regarding dolphin cognition "Are Dolphins Really Smart: the Mammal behind the Myth" published in 2013.

In this book, Dr Greg puts into perspective the fallacy of the much vaulted intelligence of dolphins which is greatly exaggerated. He primarily lays the fault of this erroneous perception at the doors of neuroscientist DrJohn Lilly and his work with dolphins in the 1960s. Lilly was a man who became over time an incredibly controversial figure who (after the funding dried up for his dolphin language work from groups such as NASA) went on and experimented with floatation chambers and drugs. He even injected LSD into dolphins to see what effect it would have on them.

Unfortunately, Lilly later became a guru for the counter-culture movement in which he perpetuated and extolled many views which by this point had strayed considerably from rational science into the world of metaphysics and sadly pseudo-science.

Finally, it would be more accurate to maintain that chimpanzees are probably cognitively more sophisticated than dolphins. Which makes Dr Goodall's position on dolphins in captive care even more disappointing and contradictory in that she seems to be willing to accept and support chimpanzees in zoological establishments such as Edinburgh zoo; support elephants being transferred to a zoo rather an animal-rights run sanctuary but illogically attacks the keeping of dolphins in all well-run aquariums or zoos.

More of dolphin echolocation HERE

Not So Scientific American

The article is jaw dropping in its content and one could be forgiven as not to think this was written by Ingrid Newkirk of the animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

We live in strange times which have become even stranger if one is to judge by the recent editorial in the journal Scientific American (March, 2014) entitled "Free the Elephants and Orcas in Captivity".

This was an unashamed polemic on 'the rights' of large brained mammals such as elephants and killer whales in relation to their use and display in captive environments such as zoological collections clumsily dovetailed on the back of news of the recent restricting of biomedical testing on chimpanzees in the USA.

The article is jaw dropping in its content and one could be forgiven as to not to think this was written by Ingrid Newkirk of the animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

Unfortunately, the trend of dangerously mixing animal-rights (a political philosophy) and animal-welfare (scientific investgation) has become sadly common in magazines, journals and 'persons-in-the-public-eye' who should know better.

Recently, the well known sceptic Michael Shermer decided to suspend any of his critical thinking by supporting the animal-rights documentary 'Blackfish'.  Therefore, whilst he might want compelling proof in issues such as the (now discredited) claim that MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccines cause autism.  He was happy to support a film without any effort to check and cross-reference the 'facts' presented.

The above issue regarding MMR is relevant because David Kirby the author of the 2012 "Death at Seaworld: Shamu and the Dark Side of Killer Whales in Captivity" (whose work is interwoven within the film 'Blackfish') is also a published anti-vaccine supporter (Kirby, 2006) something that Shermer seems to sadly ignore.

Much of the information in this article is dubious opinion fuelled by the animal-rights movement.  One would have hoped that a journal of Scientific American's standing would at least produce decent peer review references to support these claims but alas, this was not the case.

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), elephants (Loxodonta africana, Elephas maximus) and  the killer whales (Orcinus orca) come in for special treatment in this editorial with various and questionable supportive observations that the authors use to try to convince the reader that these animals are 'highly intelligent' and need of some special status above other animals.

The authors cite tests for self-awareness as evidence to support their position for the captive prohibition of the above cited species.  However, as always, these situations are more complicated.

Indeed, Gallup (1970) showed that laboratory chimpanzees appear to be able to recognise themselves in mirror and dot tests.  Reiss and Marino (2001) suggested self-recognition in two bottlenose dolphins they studied at New York Aquarium and Plotnik, de Waal and Reiss (2006) suggested this with two Asian elephants housed at the Bronx Zoo, New York City; these last two experiments involved self-recognition via mirrors.

However, something not mentioned in the editorial is that both African Grey Parrots(Psittacus erithacus) (Pepperburg, 1995) and Magpies (Pica pica) (Schwarz and Güntürkün, 2008) have shown self-recognition abilities.  Are the authors suggesting these species also need specialist consideration and outlawed from captive care?  Moreover, it is not with some small irony that all the test subjects from the above-cited research were in captive care in a zoo or laboratory.

The social life of elephants and killer whales was also alluded to as proof of special treatment.  Much was made of the social groups in killer whales and their aggregations as being "akin to tribes and nations" and that they had language with "dialects".  Unfortunately, this is sadly ambiguous language designed to hide thinly veiled anthropomorphism. 

In 2013, Professor Alice Roberts presented a BBC Horizon documentary on what exactly makes human beings different from the animal kingdom called "What Makes Us Human".  Spotlighting chimpanzees and other great ape she revealed that although these animals appear on the surface 'intelligent' this intelligence is inconsistent and it is not comparable to that of a humans understanding and cognition despite these animals being genetically our nearest relatives.

In the case of Killer whales, these animals do not have social structures that approach that of humans and their social, aggregative behaviour is primarily for foraging and breeding. 

Nor do they possess language that approaches humans.  As Gregg (2012) points out animals (including killer whales) communicate, they do not a possess the hugely diverse complexity of human native language.

Further, it is a fact, that many other animals show extensive social structures which is are least as complex as killer whales such as bees with their specific and structured communication (von Frisch,1967).

Much has been made of the vaulted intelligence of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) but those who actually have undertaken research of these animals are not so convinced. 

In his 2012 book "Are Dolphins Really Smart?" The Mammal Behind the Myth" Dr Justin Gregg addresses the disparity given to dolphins compared to other species.  He challenges the common dogma that dolphins should be given some form of special treatment due to their mythical 'intelligence' - the killer whale is the largest member of the dolphin family. 

Such observations are, of course, not new and as far back as 1992, the cetacean biologist Dr Margaret Klinowska made a similar published observation.

"There is another less anthropomorphic or "speciesist" way of looking at the question of general "intelligence". All living species must be highly "intelligent" in a broad sense in order to survive. From this point of view, humans are no more and no less than one of the species living on this planet with particular adaptations (specialised "intelligence") for their own way of life. This perspective allows us to view the superb professionalism of all species with equal respect, and not in some artificial ranking order of higher or lower "intelligence" (with the hidden assumption that they are more or less worthy of conservation and consideration, and that as humans are, of course, in the first rank, their wishes have priority)" (Klinowska, 1992)

It is unfortunate that the article states that zoo elephants are often obese and infertile as this is not borne out when one looks at animals within modern zoo breeding programmes; elephants can and do breed successfully in good zoological collections.

In addition, so do killer whales with the majority of the animals held at parks like SeaWorld having been captive bred with the first successful birth in 1985. It should be noted that 21 of SeaWorld's 26 killer whales were born in captivity; these figures excludes the four animals born at SeaWorld that are now displayed at Loro Park in Spain.

The fact that both these species are able to give birth and successfully rear young in captive care should be at least one indicator that their welfare is not as compromised as this article suggests and should not be dismissed out of hand. 

This is not to say that caring for and breeding animals in zoological collections is not without challenge.  Nonetheless, it should be noted that animal welfare is after all a science and can be objectively measured in zoos and other animal keeping enterprises (Stamp-Dawkins, 2012) unlike the more grey area which depends on the idealogical considerations of animal-rights.

The authors also fall into the trap of comparing the dynamics of wild life with that of animals under human care in zoological collections that are different for many and various reasons.

Indeed, elephants are large mammals, which is exactly why they have to travel distances in the wild to obtain optimum amounts of food to survive.  Elephants feed on large amounts of herbivorous forage that is low in calories, so it can be of no surprise they travel miles to gain enough nutrients to sustain their physiology.  Likewise, killer whales have to adapt similar strategies when hunting for prey.  Therefore, it is clear that these animals undertake these activities as a matter of biological survival not recreation.  Moreover, when they are supplied with food in captivity such long distance travel is not a behavioural need for their welfare.

Further, the suggestion that captive elephants live in cramped conditions is certainly not true in contemporary accommodation found in good zoological collection. It should be noted that in the UK's Noah's Ark Zoo has just finished one of the largest elephant facilities in the world. Oregon Zoo has also just finalising construction of it new Elephant Land which is destined for full opening in 2015.  It should be noted that these are not isolated developments within the zoo world.

As far as killer whales are concerned accommodation has over the years been improved and expanded.  It is telling that the editorial could not resist comparing the exhibits of killer whales by using the word 'bathtub'; the kind of meaningless, emotive rhetoric that the animal-rights movement is so fond of using

Moreover, they also misleadingly suggest as typical the accommodation of the killer whale "Lolita" housed in the Miami Seaquarium; this animal was captured some 44 years ago and has been housed at the park since that time.  She is the only killer whale in the USA held in isolation of other killer whales since the death of her companion Hugo in 1980; she currently shares her pool with a group of white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens).  However, as stated, "Lolita" is not representative of killer whales exhibits in the USA and countries such as France, Spain and Japan.

It is probably not without a bit of irony that the authors decided to rename the article after first calling it "Free Willy—And All His Pals".  More so, when it comments in the article about releasing animals back to the wild.

"Free Willy" was a fictional 1993 adventure film about a young boy who releases a captive killer whale from a theme park.  

The real killer whale featured in the film was an animal called "Keiko" originally caught in Iceland in 1979 that eventually lived in isolation in a theme park in Mexico.  

After the film was released, various animal-rights groups began campaigning for the release of this animal back to the wild.  Money was raised and he was acquired and eventually after a number of stages was taken to a sea pen in Iceland in 1998.

However, despite much effort, he never reintegrated back into wild and post release found his way to the Norwegian coast seeking human company and begging for food.  He ended his days in semi-captivity being care for by appointed caretakers.  He died of suspected pneumonia in December 2003.  The project to release 'Keiko' is estimated to have cost around 20 million US dollars.

In a paper that reviewed the attempts to release 'Keiko' published in 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 a long-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 stated above, SeaWorld displays 26 whales in the USA of which only 5 where were obtained by wild capture.  The last was caught in Iceland in 1983 over 30 years ago.  None of these animals are suitable for release and as the experiment with 'Keiko' reveals any attempts are likely to badly fail; a position supported by Jean-Michel Cousteau who organisation Ocean Futures was directly involved in the 'Keiko' release project.

As to claims of unusually aggressive behaviour of killer whales in zoological collections, we see again selective reasoning and speculation.  The facts are that these animals are not consistently aggressive towards each other or their human caretakers.

The facts are that thousands upon thousands of interactions have taken place over many years with these animals without aggression.  Incidences of alleged aggressive behaviour have been well documented but as these situations are unusual they have received disproportionate importance in the media.

Further, killer whales are large powerful animals that could easily kill a human but there has to date been three incidents leading to the deaths of trainers: 1991, Sealand of The Pacific; 2009, Loro Park, Spain; 2010 and SeaWorld, Orlando, Florida. 

Moreover, despite these tragic accidents, it should be noted that aggressive behaviour on humans by large captive animals (both wild and domestic) are not just exclusive to killer whales.  In addition, many of the so-called aggressive behaviours listed by captive killer whales could be consider play and other types of behaviour.

Killer whales - like many other animals - have dominance and social hierarchies, which in this species is primarily matriarchal.  It has been suggested that aggressive behaviour within captive groups is an anomaly for these animals and not seen in the wild.

One area that is cited to support this is rake marks on captive killer whales; rake marks are tooth abrasions on the skin surface seen in most if not all toothed cetaceans.  It is popularly promoted that wild killer whales do not sustain rake marks and this is only seen in captive animals and is evidence of poor welfare.  However this is not the case and it has been cited in numerous research papers on wild whales, e.g.

"Resident and transient whales typically showed extensive rake marks on their dorsal fins and body made by the conical-shaped teeth of conspecifics" (Ford et al. 1992, Black et al. 1997, Dahlheim et al. 1997). Cited in Dahlheim, Schulman-Janiger, Black, Ternullo, Ellifrit and Balcomb (2008).

The claim that there have been no reports of humans being killed by wild killer whales may be correct but this statement needs some qualification.  Wild killer whales have attempted to prey on humans in certain situations.  One incident was during a filming session of wild killer whales by the BBC for the series Frozen Planet; the whales attempted to "wave wash" the film crew's boat; a techniques the whales used to dislodge seals and penguins from ice.

However, perhaps the main reason there has been no incidences of overt aggressive behaviour in wild killer whales is that they tend to live in areas where recreational swimming does not occur to any large degree and observations of these animals take place from the land or boats.

However, other wild cetaceans have behaved aggressively towards humans.  In wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) there have been a number of well documented cases of animals behaving aggressively towards humans.  In Brazil in 1992 a man was killed by a wild lone social dolphin which caused him fatal internal bleeding after ramming him and breaking his ribs.

A diver was subjected to apparent aggression by a wild pilot whale(Globicephala macrorhynchus) in Hawaiian waters in 1992.  While swimming with a group of pilot whales  one animal grabbed her thigh and dragged her 40 feet under water. The diver managed to escape and sustained minor injuries (Shane, Tepley and Costello, 1993).

Finally, we have speculative claims from 'researchers' that captive killer whales are 'stressed' and 'psychotic'.  Unfortunately, like so much else within this editorial, no names or bona fida research to such claims is presented.

In conclusion, this editorial in Scientific American is disturbing particularly as scientific journals like this should be leading the way in objective and critical thinking.  Why is it when the subject of animal welfare is commented on people who should know better seem drawn away from science to embrace the ideology of animal rights.


References

Dahlheim, M.E., Schulman-Janiger, A., Black, N., Ternullo, R., Ellifrit, D. and Balcom III, K.C. (2008) Eastern temperate North Pacific offshore killer whales (Orcinus orca): Occurrence, movements, and insights into feeding ecology. Marine Mammal Science, 24(3): 719–729

Gallup, G.  (1970) Self-Recognition in Primates. American Psychologist. May. 329-338

Gregg, J. (2012). Are Dolphins Really Smart: The Mammal Behind the Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 

Kirby, D. (2012). Death at Seaworld: Shamu and the Dark Side of Killer Whales in Captivity. New York: St Martin's Griffin.

Kirby, D. (2006). Evidence of Harm: Mercury In Vaccines And The Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy. New York: St Martin's Press.

Klinowska, M. (1992).  Brains, Behaviour and Intelligence in Cetaceans (Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises) - In: Whales and Ethics. Iceland: University of Iceland Press

Stamp-Dawkins, M. (2012). Why Animals Matter: Animal consciousness, animal welfare and human well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shane, S. H., Tepley, L and Costello, L, (1993). Life-threatening contact between a woman and a pilot whale captured on film. Marine Mammal Science. 9(3): 331-336

Pepperberg, I. M.; Garcia, S. E.; Jackson, E, C.; Marconi, S. (1995) Mirror use by African Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus).  Journal of Comparative Psychology, Vol 109(2), Jun 1995, 182-195.

Plotnik JM, de Waal, FBM, Reiss, D. (2006) Self-recognition in an Asian elephant. PNAS. 103: 17053–17057.

Prior H, Schwarz A, Güntürkün O (2008) Mirror-Induced Behavior in the Magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of Self-Recognition . PLoS Biol 6(8): e202. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202

Reiss, D. and Marino, L.  (2001) Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence. PNAS. vol. 98. no. 10.

von Frisch, K. The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees. (1967) Harvard: Harvard University Press. Translated Reprint, 1993

Sea Pens: Not the Panacea They Are Perceived.

"Numa" the first purposed acquired captive killer whale being moved in the sea-pen in 1966.

Perhaps one of the most irksome comments that come from the animal-rights community and self-styled marine mammals expert is that of the use of sea pens.   

This has again been muted with the fanciful idea that 'Lolita' -  the killer whale at Miami's Seaquarium - will be given over to animal-rights activists to be moved to a proposed but yet unbuilt sea pen in Washington State - due to her possible listing as an 'endangered' species.  

Of course, it is not the case that marine mammals have not been successfully house in sea pens, as many facilities of this nature exist worldwide.  Nevertheless, the misguided view that these facilities are promoted as the panacea to alleged welfare problems in facilities with closed life-support systems (LSS) is erroneous.  In addition, and as is so often the case in these matters, this subject is more complicated than it appears.

Some years ago in 1988, the UK Government published an independent scientific report they commissioned into the welfare of cetaceans by Dr Margaret Klinowska assisted by Dr Susanne Brown.  This report: A Review of Dolphinaria, still remains one of the most comprehensive research documents published and it led to the codification of new standards in cetacean care in the UK.  Moreover, despite some reports, the review and subsequent Steering Committee Report did not recommend a ban on cetacean keeping in the UK.

In the report, Klinowska addressed the issue of sea pens and highlighted some of the problems with this system of accommodation.  

"...Some groups and individuals believe that cetaceans should only be kept in open sea pens, with water changed by tidal flow. There are practical problems with sea pens, relating to ensuring the provision of good quality water at all times, to the prevention of the build-up of pathogens and parasites and to the safety of animals in extreme weather conditions. These can only be solved by having provision for water treatment if necessary, by constructing pens so that they can be easily cleaned and by having alternative accommodation available to which animals can be moved, when required. It therefore appears that all the facilities of a conventional establishment would be required to provide the back-up necessary to ensure the welfare of animals at all times, making the use of sea pens a very expensive option..."

In the United States, their Animal Welfare Act (Subpart E—Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Marine Mammals) makes clear statements as regards sea pens and water quality for marine mammals:

"...Ws (27) Any plans to keep cetaceans in sea pens need to include provisions to ensure the health and safety of the animals at all times.

(b) Water and power supply. Reliable and adequate sources of water and electric power must be provided by the facility housing marine mammals. Written contingency plans must be submitted to and approved by the Deputy Administrator regarding emergency sources of water and electric power in the event of failure of the primary sources, when such failure could reasonably be expected to be detrimental to the good health and well-being of the marine mammals housed in the facility. Contingency plans must include, but not be limited to, specific animal evacuation plans in the event of a disaster and should describe back-up systems and/or arrangements for relocating marine mammals requiring artificially cooled or heated water. If the emergency contingency plan includes release of marine mammals, the plan must include provision for recall training and retrieval of such animals..."

The UK regulations for zoo and aquariums is also very clear that facilities must be able to control standards in aquatic exhibits so as not to work to the detriment of the animals.

This is a major issue for sea pens, if there is a serious environmental problem such as a pollution incident, there is little that can be done to intervene to addressing problem other than sealing the environment and supplement water treatment and flow by artificial means, e.g., a water treatment systems.  Or removing the animals from the facility; which in many cases may be impossible.  Unlike a closed systems used by zoos like SeaWorld's which has a module pool design which can allow isolation of pool units and water treatment systems that can be precisely adjusted and controlled.

Another pressing issue would be how would animals be rescued and removed from such environments.  In the case of small cetaceans like bottlenose dolphins, this may not be a major problem but with large mammals such as killer whales, this certainly would be problematic without adequate holding areas and heavy-duty mechanical lifting equipment with access to safe alternate facilities.

Therefore, it can be seen that once again those protesting against the care of marine mammals in human care and demanding their release to coastal sea-pens are at least misguided and they have not fully considered the animal welfare implications of such schemes.

Links

Blackfish: Please Release Me Let Me Go 
 
Principles Of Water Treatment In Aquatic Mammal Pools