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.

 

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

Blackfish: Please Release Me Let Me Go

Up dated: 24 August 2015

'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.'

On the back of the ongoing debate regarding the film 'Blackfish' The New York Times' produced an interesting video in its Retro Report strand regarding the story of 'Keiko' the killer whale entitled: "The Whale Who Would Not Be Freed". 

The news items conclusion seems to be that the project was a failure.  This is even admitted by some of the supports of the project on video like Naomi Rose - former scientist to the Humane Society of the United States. 

One has to question what would (or could) happen to any other long term captive killer whales if the animal rights supporters got their hands on them - as they are still trying to do. In my opinion, the release of long-term captive animals is never justified on welfare grounds as 'Keiko' demonstrates. Releasing animals for conservation reasons is, of course, very different. It is acknowledge that animals could die during this process and it is likely not to serve the welfare interests of individual animals involved.

As stated, the 'Keiko' experiment was a failure.  Those who cannot grasp this are deluding themselves and showing contempt for the welfare of this animal.  Certainly, his move to Oregon Coast Aquarium was right; there is a consensus regarding this across all opinions.  However, releasing him to the wild was a grave and expensive mistake.  Those such as Naomi Rose who voice that 'Keiko' was better off having a number of years in the wild (with him not integrating and thus isolated from his con-species) are sadly just expressing their own self-serving and selfish interests against these animals being displayed in aquaria and zoos.

Those who continue to voice support for the release of animals such as 'Lolita' are also deluding themselves.  As despite the fact that her capture site and pod is known, she has been in captive care for 43 years; with many of her original sub-pod now dead and the dynamics of this group having completely changed with the passage of time; further there appears to be a dispute as to whom her mother might be.  More importantly, she is also totally habituated to humans in the same way as 'Keiko'. 

More details of the 'Keiko' experiment can be found in Killing Keiko: The True Story of Free Willy's Return to the Wild by Mark A. Simmons
 
See: Lolita The Killer Whale: Why She Can’t Be Released

In the report, it also mentioned the young stranded and rehabilitated killer whale 'Morgan' a female killer whale rescued in 2010. This animal was deemed unreleasable, as her family are not known; all that is known is she came from fish-eating Norwegian killer whales.  More importantly, she is also hearing impaired or actually deaf, which is why she may have stranded miles from her home range.

See: Morgan - A suitable candidate for rehabilitation and release?
 
As far as reintroduction is concerned, mention should be made of the story of 'Springer' an orphaned killer whale discovered in 2002 and eventually identified as a member of A-4 pod.  However, whilst this animal was successfully rehabilitated and reintroduced to her family, she was only held in captivity in a sea pen for a period of weeks (12 June to 13 July 2002); during that time, she was fed, treated and monitored.  She was then moved to a sea pen near her family and released the next day; fortunately, she did reintegrated back to her family and has been observed over a number of years. 

The key point about 'Springer' is that she was held for weeks not years; never in an aquarium; and all efforts were made to ensure she did not become habituated to humans.  Any comparison to this successful reintroduction is clearly bogus when related to long-term whales caught decades ago and their captive bred off-spring which now are producing second generation of captive bred animals; all of which have been totally habituated to humans. 

Finally an interesting comment from Jean-Michel Cousteau who organisation Ocean Futures was directly involved in the 'Keiko' release project.

Addendum.  24 August 2015
 
Could Vancouver be home to the first sea sanctuary for cetaceans?
 
It will be interesting to see what proposals there are when this workshop proceedings published because as in many things the devil is in the details. Clearly from things that are being stated in the article – particular from Howard Garratt – the comprehension of what is involved in keeping large marine mammals such as killer whales healthy in captive environments is not fully grasp.

The idea that you could place a large animal into a sea pen without any fundamental facility to contain the animal and to remove it from this environment for full and comprehensive physical examination and treatment for any illnesses demonstrates the fantasyland that some of these people are living in. Getting an animal to cooperate when it maybe ill to voluntarily beach itself on a "rubber tarp" would be amusing if the welfare implications for the animal were not so serious. And what if there were to be a major environmental incident how will these animals be protected or indeed removed to a place of safety. This is feasible with something like a bottlenose dolphin but for a large mammal like killer whale this is going to be a very difficult proposition.

See: Sea Pens: Not the Panacea They Are Perceived.

Nonetheless, one of the fundamental issues that seems to be always overlooked when the animal-rights lobby propose such projects is how it is going to be financed. If we take for example the project to release Keiko the killer whale some have estimated that this project cost in the region of 20 million dollars.

So it would be prudent to ask where are these huge sums of money coming from. The only feasible way would be from public donation and I cannot see the sums of money required being raised; do not expect the likes of PeTA to give any sums of money to such projects as this would jeopardise the directors of such "charities" their comfortable salaries and generous pensions. Getting a plane to fly over SeaWorld's with a banner saying "SeaWorld sucks" is a world of difference from committing serious financial investment in the project alluded to in the article.

There is some research to suggest that whilst many people on social media may be happy to make various comments or sign online petitions their commitment and interest does not extend to physically taking part even in demonstrations let alone putting their hands in their pockets and giving relatively large amounts of money to such projects outlined above.

Of course, there are celebrities who would be prepared to donate money to such projects but as these kinds of projects are now proliferating at quite a great rate (not only involving cetaceans but other carnivores such as lions and tigers and, of course, elephants) that the money supply is not going to be infinite. And of course we also have the situation of "donor fatigue" even if people wish to give money to such projects.

Finally, we come to the thorny issue of whether such a project would be allowed in British Columbia if the muted ban on cetaceans in captivity – promoted by various politicians – is passed into law. How could such a project be justified particularly if it is open to the general public; which for financial reasons is going to be quite likely.

Despite the fact that many would like to label such facilities as "sanctuaries" they are fundamentally no different from any other zoological collection. And the terms sanctuary is to me a weasel word used by the animal-rights lobby to somehow put them above other zoological establishments. These facilities will use exactly the same animal husbandry technologies, veterinary science and training protocols that has been developed over the decades in zoos and aquariums. They are fundamentally the same and as far as the animals are concerned, they would notice no difference.

Morgan: No Damsel In Distress

Anyone who begins an article, which compares the slave trade to animals in zoological collections, could be said to be allegedly as morally bankrupt as the suggestion itself: also invoking Godwin's law with comments on Auschwitz are equally repugnant but sadly a disappointing reflection on the calibre of the below cited article. 

Nonetheless, slavery is exactly what Matthew Spiegl suggests at the beginning of his recent article in The Huffington Post regarding the care of killer whales at the US Sea World marine parks. 

See HERE

Of course, this is not the first time that human slavery and zoo animal care has been put forward. In October 2011, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) brought a case against the Sea World theme parks citing slavery and involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States for five killer whales displayed at the parks.  The lawsuit failed and was dismissed.   Thus PeTA again exposed itself to ridicule from most right-minded people and the probable anger of many African Caribbean's who families were real slaves.

 

Spiegl's article was triggered by the news that the Sea World parks are to be floated on the US stock market and to promote yet another propaganda exercise by the animal-rights movement in the form of the film "Blackfish".

The article continues along a predictable course of an animal-rights advocate.  Sea World are portrayed as scheming villains with no good intent with his colleagues in the animal-rights industry portrayed as gallant knights, out to slay the ruthless dragon of commercial greed and free the damsel in distress. 

One particular damsel in this case is a young female killer whale that stranded on the Dutch coast starving and near death in June 2010.  The animal was rescued by the group SOS Delfijn and employees from Dolfinarium Harderwijk, which provided care for the animal at their facility in the Netherlands.  Due to the hard work and dedication of the parks staff Morgan (as she became known)  was rehabilitated but deemed unfit for release and moved  to live with a group of captive bred killer whales at Loro Park Tenerife, Spain in November 2011.

Details of Mogan's rescue and recovery can be found HERE.

Spiegl's argues for the release of Morgan but provides very little in the way of compelling or new evidence that would be appropriate to overturn original conclusion not to return her to the wild.

He comments that because Sea World were involved in giving advice in Morgan's rehabilitation this is something sinister but fails to understand that they would be asked as they are the leading specialists in the care and breeding of killer whales in zoological parks.

Moreover, his further citing of the movement of whales and dolphins between marine parks decades ago also has no contemporary relevance.  Neither is linking current animal acquisitions to Japanese and other drive fisheries, as Sea World displays no animals acquired in this way.  In fact, most animals displayed in the US and mainland Europe are from captive breeding.

Drive Fisheries and aquaria information HERE

More damning, Spiegl carefully leaves out the most recent evidence specifically regarding Morgan's health as specialist examination shows she is hearing impaired or deaf.  The reality of this finding is that she can never be released, as deaf cetaceans cannot survive in the wild environment.

Details HERE

Whilst Spiegl calls for a debate on these animals in captive care, his polemic is no more than special pleading for the position of his fellow animal-rights travellers and is not a debate at all as no alternative position is given.

Unfortunately, these discussions of animals as quasi-humans say little about the animals themselves - as they are not and never will be humans-  but say much about those promoting this position.  As always, these dialogues are about the human condition and the stark difference between the ideology of animal-rights and the promotion of animal-welfare.

As an "Ocean Advocate" Spiegl would be better placed to continue to promote such issues as plastics pollution of the ocean and sea environment that is a genuine danger to marine wildlife than the fate of a disabled whale living in a marine park.

Tragic death of whale exploited by animal-rights activists.

The dead female humpback whale

After several failed court actions in The Netherlands to secure into custody the young stranded killer whale “Morgan” the future plans of the Orca Coalition and it animal-right partners - such as the group The Black Fish - have now become clear. 


Despite the possibility of initiating some form of further court action in Spain, the groups seem to have decided on another less costly tactic: that of the sabotaging the reputation of the very people responsible for the rescue and care of “Morgan” the killer whale namely the SOS Dolfijn Foundationand Harderwijk Dolfinarium .

The catalyst for this latest action seems to have come when a 12-metre female humpback whale was spotted stranded on sandbanks near the Dutch island of Texel on the early morning Wednesday 12 December 2012.  Efforts were made to return the animal back to deep water by staff at the nearby aquarium and environmental centre Ecomare who were then joined by the Dutch Lifeguards (KNRM) .  The animal was freed from the sandbar but due to its weakened state was washed back on shore to another sandbar an hour later.   During this operation advice was sort from staff at the SOS Dolfijn Foundation and a marine mammal veterinary of the Harderwijk Dolfinarium was sent to inspect the animal.  

Due to bad weather the animal was left overnight.   On Friday 14 December further efforts were made to move the animal into deep water.  It was reported that at one point a helicopter and a net were used.  But unfortunately due to the whale’s location the logistics of safely moving the animal were virtually impossible due to the animal’s size and its distance from deep water.  

The red dot marks the position of the humpback whale. Graphic from the KNRM web site,

Because of its failing health and the impossibility of getting the animal safely into deep waters it was decided that euthanasia was the most humane action to end this animals suffering. This was undertaken late Friday night by a large dose of tranquillizer administered by a veterinarian.  

Unfortunately, whilst the animal may well have been heavily sedated it did not die and a further injection was undertaken on Saturday afternoon.  

The whale was pronounced dead on the following Sunday morning.  

During this period of time the whale’s fate took the interest of various animal-rights organisations particularly those involved with the failed campaign to free the above mentioned stranded killer whale “Morgan”.   Having been thwarted in their attempts to obtain this animal from what they considered the evils of the captive animal industry (and seeking a strategy to maintain themselves in the public spotlight) it was decided to set-up their own rescue attempt of the stricken whale.

Putting together a rescue team of “independent experts” they set off to try and locate the whale.  The group consisted of Wietse van der Werfskipper of The Black Fish boat Zeno 1325 and founder of the Black Fish lobby group; Dutch animal rights activist and the founder of the Pieterburen seal rescue centre (Zeehondencrèche) Lenie 't Hart and seal centre staff member Andre van Gemmert;  Laura Lauta van Aysma a biologist with a special interest in whale song who had undertaken field research with humpback whales in Hawaii.  No veterinarian was present.  However, attempts to gain access to the whale initially were blocked by the Dutch authorities with a decision to euthanize the dying whale already taken.

Further, on the Saturday an attempt was made to view the whale by Black Fish along with Dutch MP and animal-rights activist Marianne Thiemebut it was abandon due to bad weather.  Thieme is a member of the Dutch parliament for the animal rights Party For Animals and an active supporter of the Free Morgan campaign.

At news of the whales death Lenie t'Hart (who runs the Zeehondencreche, a marine animal rescue centre that specialises in seal rehabilitation in northern Netherlands) told Dutch national broadcaster NOS: 

"Those who wanted him dead have won".

In a web release The Black Fish group also issued their own account of the rescue clearly linking their displeasure at once again not being given control over a stranded marine mammal stating: 

The stand-off with the humpback comes a day after a Dutch court ruled that the Minister's actions had been lawful when dealing with a previous controversial stranding case: that of orca Morgan. This new case will force another spotlight on how the Dutch authorities deal with these situations and The Black Fish, together with other organisations in the Orca Coalition, will continue their campaign for improved policies, giving similar animals a better chance at freedom in future.

Unfortunately, whilst the sentiments of people such as Lenie t'Hart and Black Fish might be supported by members of the various animal-rights groups the actual science says something a bit different.  Sadly, it appears that even if successfully re-floated the chances of the whale’s recovery and survival could have been compromised only after one hour after she fully beached let alone the several days of beaching this animal had been subjected to.

In the UK cetacean stranding are catalogued and where possible animals that have died or been euthanized are sent for post-mortem to a project run by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).  A news article in The New Scientistmagazine in March 2009 vets working for ZSL made a clear statement that rescuing large stranded whales may well be futile due to damage they sustain while beached:

“… the whales' large size makes them vulnerable to kidney failure if they beach themselves. Without the support of the surrounding seawater, their weight damages their muscles, releasing stores of damaging myoglobin into the bloodstream…According to the autopsy data from the ZSL, once the whales have been stranded for an hour, the renal damage is already irreversible. Attempting to refloat the whales at this point only makes the situation worse, as it allows their blood to circulate more freely, carrying even more myoglobin into the kidneys…”

The research suggests that unless re-floating can be undertaken swiftly killing the whale may be a more humane option. 

Not surprisingly, this kind of advice has not gone well with some whale rescue supporters who consider that efforts to refloat animals should continue more or less to the point of the animals death: 

“… the sentiment expressed …can be used as a banner for why stranded large whales have been abused, tortured and killed in UK, Ireland, USA, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Brazil and many other countries…”

To support this position they selectively cite a number of isolated situations of post-mortem findings not detecting kidney damage or rare examples of refloating success and animal survival.  

Unfortunately, they do not seem to grasp that the statement from ZSL scientists is based on their systematic year on year findings of whale standings on the UK coastline as part of the UK government funded UK Cetacean Stranding Investigation Programme (CSIP).

Moreover, reports of kidney failure in large whales that have stranded and died in the UK have been commonly reported in the popular media including the famous "Thames Whale":
No hope of saving beached whale ; Whale stranded on British beach is put to sleep ; We should have put stranded whale to sleep

To this end, it is now standard practise to euthanize large stranded whales in the UK when there is no realistic chance of them being re-floated quickly. 

A post-mortem of the whale was undertaken by Naturalis Biodiversity Center in Leiden, Netherlands.  This showed considerable muscle damage estimated to be anything from one to six days prior to death which was considered so extensive that the animal would have been unable to swim.  It also had an empty stomach and a cataract in its left eye.  

Due to the decomposing of the body some detailed examination of the pathology of the animal could not be carried out.  Therefore, kidney damage due to the release of large amounts of myoglobin from the muscle damage could not be confirmed but this would not be an unreasonable assumption as a contributing cause of death of the whale.

A claim that the whale was deliberately killed because it skeleton had been sold to the museum was found to be completely false and strongly condemned by the museum.  

Unfortunately, these kinds of erroneous and hysterical claims seemed to have dogged the whole sad story of the whale’s stranding which clearly has been exploited for various ideological reasons and agendas.  Attacks have been made on the various parties involved in trying to help the whale including claims of professional incompetence and profiteering. 

The actual facts are that everything that could have been done to help this distressed animal were properly undertaken.  The people involved were experts in the field of marine animal care – many working with these animals on a daily basis.  

SOS Dolfijn, for example, has an excellent record for the rescue and rehabilitation of cetaceans.  Animals that are deemed fit for release are returned to the wild.  Those that can not are displayed in high quality zoological exhibits and used for both educational and research purposes.  Testimony to this is the fact that these animals have not only thrived but also bred and reared young in these environments.  

It is ironic that there has been no acknowledgement from the critics of the rescue of Morgan the killer whale that it is because of the skill and dedication of the staff of the SOS Dolfijn Foundation and Harderwijk Dolfinarium that this animal was successfully rehabilitated back to health. 

As stated, it seems clear that many of the critics of the actions taken to help the suffering of the stranded humpback whale have agendas that have little to do with animal welfare and everything to do with the politics of animal rights. 

SOS Dolfijn statement regarding the whale can be found HERE.


The Ecomare statement regarding the whale can be found HERE.


Greenpeacestatement (translation from Dutch): 

"the organizations involved have done their utmost to save the animal. It even had little to Greenpeace can add or change anything". Greenpeace states unequivocally that there has been no failure and emergency specialists, as is written here and there. It is according to this respected organization "very regrettable that the very workers who have worked for the animal, now being criticized."

Greenpeace meldde: "de betrokken organisaties hebben hun uiterste best gedaan het dier nog te redden. Daar had zelfs Greenpeace weinig aan toe kunnen voegen of iets aan kunnen veranderen". Greenpeace stelt onomwonden vast dat er niet sprake is geweest van falende hulpdiensten en specialisten, zoals hier en daar wordt geschreven. Het is volgens deze gerespecteerde organisatie "erg spijtig dat juist de hulpverleners die zich voor het dier hebben ingezet, nu worden bekritiseerd".

Morgan Is Not The Only One Having Problems Hearing!

Thursday 13 November saw the yet another judgement from the Dutch courts on the fate of the young, female killer whale “Morgan” who stranded on the Dutch coast in June 2010 and was rehabilitated by the group SOS Delfijn and employees from Dolfinarium Harderwijk.  The animal was deemed unsuitable for release and was moved to live with a group of other killer whales at Loro Park Tenerife, Spain in November 2011.



The recent hearing stated that the permit to move “Morgan” should only be issued if the goal was research or teaching. The judgment conclude that the park on Tenerife conducts research and performs an educational function and therefore the whales move was legal.

The court further saw no reason to believe that the welfare of Morgan danger in Tenerife. If The Orca Coalition disagree they are open to take legal action in a Spanish court.

 Details of the background of this case can be found HERE

This current judgement is the latest litigation brought by The Orca Coalition a group of animal-rights activists including the Free Morgan Foundation who -along with their supporter Dr. Ingrid  Visser - wish to obtain this animal for a reintroduction experiment in Norway. 

Dr Visser has been for sometime an active critic of the care of cetaceans in zoos and aquariaparticularly killer whales.  Whilst she has researched killer whales in the wild and was founder of the New Zealand based Orca Research Trust, she was also a Plaintiffs Next Friend in the infamous law-suit in October 2011 by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA)against Sea Worldtheme parks; a case which citing slavery and involuntary servitude under the 13^thAmendment of the Constitution of the United States for five killer whales display at the parks.  The law suit failed and was subsequently dismissed. 

Ironically, Visser is now herself a possible recipient of legal action due various statements she made against those currently housing and caring for “Morgan” the killer whale in the above cited court hearing.

On the 10 December Dr Visser revealed in an article published in the Digital Journal that she had been threaten with legal action regarding her claims of aberrant behaviour and mistreatment of “Morgan” by Loro Park.  She stated that this was emailed to her on 30 October prior the appearance at the most recent court hearing on 1 November 2012 to which this current judgement relates.

The Digital Journal article was penned by Elizabeth Batt  who along with writers such as David Kirby and Tim Zimmerman have been active in promoting the activities of various animal-rights groups and individuals opposed to the display of cetaceans in zoos and aquaria.  Interestingly, Zimmerman’s web site was allegedly cited in the threatened legal action as a media outlet used by Visser.

This current development does beg some serious questions however as to the timing and motives of this revelation.  Primarily, why was Visser’s dramatic statement not presented at the time of the formal hearing on 1 November either in court or as a press release?  Rather than released via a sympathetic journalist to the public weeks later and a daysprior the publishing of the judges ruling on “Morgan” and her welfare.  It could be suggested this was undertaken for maximum publicly value not the fear of litigation.

The Orca Coalitioncould, of couse, counter such suggestions by raising the same kind of criticism with the Loro Park and their supporters as to the issue of “Morgan’s” alleged hearing impairment and possible deafness which was officially announced on 15 November 2012. 

The Orca Coalition position on this was predictable.  It claimed this was just a ploy by the park and: 

“another attempt by the commercial industry to keep the valuable animal in their possession”. 

 It also questioned the independence of the scientists undertaken the testing further stating: 

“the commercial industry itself selected and hired the scientists for the scientific research, and once again the specialized and experienced scientists of the Free Morgan Foundation are excluded. The involved researchers, who have examined whether Morgan is deaf, also have ties with the Dolphinarium and Sea World.”

 Although looking at the experts listed by the Coalition none have specific skills in the hearing assessment of cetaceans and in point of fact neither does Loro Park which is why they called in independent experts to undertake these tests.

The specialist used by Loro Park to test the killer whales hearing were from the Netherlands Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Study (IMARES), the National Foundation for Marine Mammals of the U.S.A., and the Office of Naval Research for the U.S. Armed Forces (U.S. Navy). 

Details of the hearing tests at Loro Park HERE

The researchers involved included:

Dr Dorian S. Houser:  Director of Biological and Bioacoustical Research for the The National Marine Mammal Foundation who won the Acoustical Society of America’s 2007 R. Bruce Lindsay Award for his contributions to animal bioacoustics and to understanding echolocation and hearing by dolphins.  Dr Houser’s work has been used (among other things) to ascertain hearing abilities of stranded marine mammals with a view to their suitably to be successful release back to the wild after rehabilitation by groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare’s Cape Cod standing network and The Marine Mammal Centre, Califorina.  A useful overview of some of Dr Houser’s work can be found in this video presented at the SCMM2011 Workshop.

Dr. Klaus Lucke: has been involved and published research on anthropogenic (human-caused) noise and it’s affects on cetaceans and his work has involved both wildand captive animals.  He was appointed in 2000 to the International Advisory Panel of Experts on Marine Ecology (IAPEME)Danish Energy Authority to comment on the environmental monitoring programme on the observed impacts of the wind farms on birds, mammals, fish and benthos ecosystems.  He was an invited speaker papers Electrophysiological Measures of Hearing in Marine Mammals at the 2006 European Cetacean Society (ECS) Conference in Gdynia presenting a paper on measuring hearing of cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

Reviewing the background of the scientists undertaking the tests on “Morgan” and the other whales at Loro Park one can not help think how disingenuous The Orca Coalition is being with it’s comments.  

Indeed, both scientist mentioned have worked with captive cetaceans but also extensively with wild animals.  Dr Houser has also been involved with hearing assessments of stranded/rehabilitated animals for groups such as IFAW who have a position against the display of cetaceans in zoos and aquariums.   

To suggest that such international specialists in their field of cetacean hearing would jeopardise their professional standing to lie about test results to satisfy the Loro Park or any other zoo and aquariums is basically ridiculous and offensive.  In point of fact it sadly reveals more about the agenda, credibly and integrity of the The Orca Coalition and Free Morgan Foundation.

So what now for “Morgan”?  Clearly as an animal which is either deaf or hearing compromised the option of successful rehabilitation and release to the wild is impossible; dolphins require their hearing to survive in the wild environment not only to hunt but to communicate. 

The only option now for “Morgan” is long-term human care or euthanasia.

The Orca Coalition may still campaign for custody of this animal via courts in Spain.  To this end, they may wish to place her in an other environment such a sea-pen but unless they can obtain at least one other killer whale for company this would mean isolation for this animal; something both sides in this argument have clearly indicated is not acceptable for the long-term health of this animal.  Further, it should be noted that one of the reasons “Morgan” was moved to Loro Park in the first place was so that she could be in the company of other whales.