Not Dying To Entertain...

The problem is - and as can be seen by the animal-rights lobbyists - that no sooner is one claim, i.e. they (marine mammals) die young in captivity is over turned another takes it places. The lobby groups just keep changing the goal posts; it is a well known ploy which makes true debate almost impossible as they are sadly fixed in their ideological position

A recent published analysis of federal data by The Associated Press shows that SeaWorld's annual survival rates for killer whales and some other marine mammals are very much the same or better than their wild counterparts.

However, this data is not that new. These trends have been published in peer review and other scientific publications for as far back as 1988 as regards bottlenose dolphins.

It was inevitable that over the period of time (and a better understanding of the husbandry of these species) captive survivorship would be greater than their wild counterparts which is true for both bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions with killer whales and belugas are not far behind.

The problem is - and as can be seen by the animal-rights lobbyists - that no sooner is one claim, i.e. they (marine mammals) die young in captivity is over turned another takes it places. The lobby groups just keep changing the goal posts; it is a well known ploy which makes true debate almost impossible as they are sadly fixed in their ideological position.

Here is a sample of the published data in chronological order as regards cetacean survivorship - most from peer review or official scientific data e.g. A Review of Dolphinaria.

Klinowska, M. and Brown, S (1986). Mortality Rates in A Review of Dolphinria. Department of the Environment. UK.

DeMaster, D.P. and J.K. Drevenak (1988) Survivorship patterns in three species of captive cetaceans. Marine Mammal Science 4(4): 297-311

Small, R.J. and D.P. DeMaster (1995) Survival of five species of captive marine mammals. Marine Mammal Science 11(2): 209-226

van der Toorn, J. (1997) A Survival guide to survival rates. Marine Mammals: Public Display and Research 3(1): 27-38

Innes, W. S, DeMaster, D.P., Rodriguez, A., and Crowder L.B.( 2005) Survival Rates Of Marine Mammals In Captivity. Duke University/NOAA

Links to the research and some of the papers can be found on one of my web page below:

http://www.marineanimalwelfare.com/survivorship.htm

Further Reading:

Not So Scientific American

Blackfish and the Black Arts of Propaganda

 

 

What's Wrong With Blackfish?

Cetacean-Captivity.Tumblr.Com

Blackfish and the Black Arts of Propaganda

 

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

Animal-Rights Group Attack Richard Branson's Virgin Travel

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) - now branded Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC) - is still banging the drum for the contentious and discredited animal-rights film 'Blackfish'.  Its latest efforts is a press release to travel journalists such as The Daily Telegraph alerting them to their campaign to put pressure of various travel firms (including Richard Branson's Virgin Travel) not to promote and sell packages that included trips to the SeaWorld marine park in Orlando, Florida claiming that companies such as Virgin are: "...profiting from the cruel captivity industry".

One interesting point that should be noted is that (as predicted) there is now a considerable amount of  'mission creep' from these groups protesting against captive killer whales as they have now moved on to protesting about the captive care of all whales and dolphins (cetaceans); a situation that all zoological collections should be aware of if they display marine mammals or other large charismatic species such as elephants.

The claims within the WDC press release follow the usual predictable pattern of 'cut and paste' animal-rights rhetoric including issues such as wild capture, animals' wild ranging behaviour and survivorship.

"...WDC claims that five SeaWorld orcas were taken from the wild and that “most of the orcas held by SeaWorld die in their teens.” It also says that an orca at SeaWorld would have to circle its tank 1,400 times to match the distance it would naturally travel in the wild each day..." The Daily Telegraph. 1 March 2014

Indeed, five of SeaWorld orcas were taken from the wild, which is indeed the case, but WDC is a bit more selective with other facts.  The last wild-caught killer whale at SeaWorld was caught over 30 years ago in Iceland in 1983 for a Canadian aquarium Sealand of the Pacific which when it closed in 1991 transferred its animals to SeaWorld.  It should also be noted that 21 of SeaWorld's 26 killer whales were born in captivity; these figures exclude the 4 animals born at SeaWorld that are now displayed at Loro Park in Spain.
 
WDC comments regarding how far wild killer whales would travel in the natural environment are both naive and simplistic as in the case of many wild animals (such as elephants) they move large distances due to pressures such as acquiring adequate food resources.

As to survivorship, the average age of killer whales at SeaWorld is approximately 16 years but this is statistically biased towards young animals due to a captive breeding programme which did not successfully start until 1985.  SeaWorld considers its animals survivorship is equivalent to that of the wild.

More details of SeaWorld's killer whales HERE.

Moreover, as the WDC has brought up the issue of all whales and dolphins in captive care it should be noted that published survivorship research on the bottlenose dolphin (the most commonly cetacean kept in zoos) shows its survivorship exceeds its wild counterparts. 

More details HERE. 

Perhaps one of the biggest puzzles regarding the WDC is why a 'conservation charity' is spending well-meaning public donations on dubious concerns regarding animals living in zoos and aquariums to the point of paying for an anti-captive campaigns officer?  When the fact is that the real conservation issues for whales and dolphins are not in well run zoological collections but in the wild.  Moreover, parks like SeaWorld spend considerably more time and money on the welfare and research of marine mammals than groups like WDC.  

A rather unfortunate and ironic meme that was posted badged with the WDC logo when 'Blackfish' was rightly not nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary.

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

Zoological Collections and Animal-Rights. They do not make good bedfellows.

"Perhaps those planning this demonstration are unaware they are targeting the same company that orchestrated the return to the wild of former Brighton Aquarium dolphins Missie and Silver.." Sea Life Centre Spokesperson

Some zoological collections and their staff think there is nothing wrong with supporting or forming alliances with the animal-right movement.  To this end, I commented about this some weeks ago with reference to the sheer gullibility of some zoo and aquarium keepers in voicing their support for the film 'Blackfish'.  

To this end, a case that comes to mind (of the folly of thinking you can curry favour with the animal-rights movement) is that of the Brighton Sea Life Centre.


In early 2006, Merlin Entertainment's Sea Life Centres wanted to build an otter and seal exhibit outside Brighton Aquarium; the company had acquired the site for its transformation into a Sea Life Centre in 1991.  

When they took over the aquarium, they also acquired two long-term captive bottlenose dolphins housed in the aquarium.  Sea Life's management decided rather than relocate these animals to another zoological collection they would collude with various animal-rights groups and give the animals over to the ill-fated 'Into the Blue' dolphin release project.

Rather naively, Sea Life thought it was likely that when they submitted their plans for the proposed development of a seal and otter exhibits they would get little or no opposition from animal-rights groups particularly those they had assisted some years earlier.  

However, despite the councils initially passing these plans this was where the real problems began.  Under the headline 'Waves of outrage at seal pool bid' a campaign was born by various animal-rights groups, factions and individuals to block the development of the seal and otter exhibits.

Local politicians soon became involved with the Green Party national spokeswoman on animal-rights and a member of Brighton Animal Aid Sue Baumgardt stating: 

"The Sea Life Centre is not an animal welfare organisation, it's not a charity: it's a money-making venture."

The Green party would later cite its involvement in the Sea Life protests as one of its achievements in its 2007 Manifesto claiming it as a successful campaign "against a cruel and unnatural seal and otter enclosure at the Sea Life Centre". 

One activist noted that:

"We fought against the dolphinarium at the Sea Life Centre about 15 years ago and were successful.  We hope to achieve the same this time."

Therefore, with numerous and mostly negative articles appearing in the local newspapers, Sea Life decided it might gain public support by citing its involvement in the 'Into The Blue' project stating:

"Perhaps those planning this demonstration are unaware they are targeting the same company that orchestrated the return to the wild of former Brighton Aquarium dolphins Missie and Silver.."

Unfortunately, these remarks drew stinging comments in a letter from Virginia McKenna of the Born Free Foundation and a founder of the 'Into the Blue' project. 

At the suggestion that the Sea Life Centre had been involved in the 'Into The Blue' project she stated:

"This is simply not the case... The only participation from Sea Life Centres (Holdings) Ltd, as it was then, was to agree to transfer ownership and welfare of the dolphins to Into the Blue and permit their removal by the project team from Brighton Dolphinarium."

In addition, in a further letter to the Brighton Argos she also observed:

"I was surprised to hear plans by the Brighton Sea Life Centre to exhibit otters and seals have been approved by Brighton and Hove City Council's planning applications sub-committee.  How can anyone believe it acceptable to hold wild animals in artificial conditions so much smaller than their natural habitats?  Three minutes of potential curiosity for a young child set against a lifetime of captive boredom and distress for a wild animal is not an acceptable trade-off.  My thanks goes to those councillors who, although bizarrely instructed by the chairman not to consider the animal welfare implications of the proposal, felt they could not morally support the Sea Life plans."

Ultimately, after some months of wrangling with the press and various groups, Sea Life announced that the seal and otter exhibit plans had been suspended indefinitely.  Of course, they publically claimed the campaign had no part in them shelving the seal and otter project but judging from a review of the news reports of the time this is hard to credit and Sea Life's comments could be viewed as a face-saving exercise. 
 
More recently the Sea Life Centres continue to be subject of unwanted interest by members of the animal-rights movement with the planned development of a new aquarium in Manchester.  In 2012, the Captive Animals Protection Society (CAPS) - a vegan animal-rights charity which is against animals in circuses, zoos and the pet trade - began a campaign to stop the construction of a new Sea Life Centre in the Trafford Centre, Manchester. 

Once again, Sea Life made the mistake of trying to engage in constructive dialogue with CAPS but the net result was the predictable condemnation of their company values by this animal-rights group.  Fortunately, for Sea Life, they were not subjected to the same heated campaign as they experienced at Brighton.  Therefore, the Manchester Sea Life Centre opened in 2013.

Nonetheless, Sea Life seemed not to have learned from their experience and still has a working relationship with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation (formerly The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society).  An organisation who among its campaigns are against dolphins and whales (cetaceans) maintained in captive care; a position that Sea Life and its holding company supports and who have even claimed in past advertising that dolphin keeping in the UK had been banned; which it has not. 

Although Sea Life's aversion to keeping dolphins does not stop them desiring to display them.  In an article in The Sunday Times (30 December 2012) the aquarium chain stated as to having designs on acquiring dolphins for display but only in the context of having 'rescued' them from other facilities and placed in a sanctuary run by them; a position that smacks of opportunism and sheer hypocrisy.


Related Contemporary News Story

Brighton and Hove councillors want to say over Brighton Sealife Centre licence


Brighton Sea Life Centre Seal and Otter Exhibit News Coverage
Retrieved 6 December 2013. Unfortunately, these links have now become void.

JANUARY 

Wave of outrage at seal pool bid 

13 January 2006 

An aquariums plans for penguin and seal pools has prompted angry protests from animal lovers. 

Protest against seal pool plans
17 January 2006

Animal lovers are holding a protest against a proposal to open penguin and seal pools at the entrance to an aquarium. 

Campaigners give enclosure seal of disapproval
23 January 2006

Animal rights activists and Green Party members staged a protest against a proposed seal enclosure. 

Protest at retrograde sea life pool
27 January 2006

Animal rights activists are planning a second protest against proposed seal and penguin pools. 

Letter: City centre is no place for penguins
27 January 2006

Green Party national spokeswoman on animal rights Sue Baumgardt is right when she says the Sea Life Centres plans to build two pools at the entrance to its aquarium to enclose two seals or penguins is purely a money-making endeavour (The Argus, January 23). 

MARCH

Opponents of seal pens stage final protest
Wednesday 8 March 2006

Protesters are to make a final attempt to block an aqua zoo from building pools for seals and penguins. 

Seal pool plans delayed
Thursday 16 March 2006

Animal rights campaigners yesterday won a partial victory after plans for seal and penguin pools were put on hold. 

APRIL

Protesters vow to fight penguin pool
18 April 2006

Campaigners have vowed to continue their fight to stop an aquarium exhibiting live seals, penguins and otters. 

Dirty tricks claim in seal row
29 April 2006 

 A battle over a zoos plans to exhibit two seals has been soured by allegations of dirty tricks. 

MAY

Letter: Let seals and otters live free
3 May 2006

I am astounded Brighton Sealife Centre is considering plans to house seals and otters in its marine zoo. 

Fear for animal safety in new Sea Life plans
11 May 2006

Animal rights protesters have stepped up their campaign against an aquariums plans to create two seal and otter pools.

Outrage as Sea Life plan goes through
18 May 2006

Tanks for seals and otters, condemned by animal rights activists, will be built at an aquarium.

Letter: Wild animals should not be penned up
22 May 2006

I was surprised to hear plans by the Brighton Sea Life Centre to exhibit otters and seals have been approved by Brighton and Hove City Councils planning applications sub-committee.

Letter: Brighton Animal Charter is ignored
24 May 2006

How sad it was to witness the planning committee passing the application to house seals and otters in the aquarium at Brighton's Sea Life Centre.

Letter: Cruel exposure
25 May 2006

I protested at Hove Town Hall against the proposal for planning permission by the Sea Life Centre for two tanks, covered by a thin fabric roof, to house seals and otters.

Letter: They're not safe in the wild
26 May 2006

I beg to disagree with Virginia McKenna (Letters, May 22). Seals and otters housed at Brighton Sea Life Centre will be fed and well cared for, have expert veterinary treatment and there will be plenty of room for them to move around.

Why only seals?
30 May 2006

I have followed with interest the protests about the proposed seal enclosure at Brighton Sea Life centre.

Protect habitat
30 May 2006

Unfortunately for the seals and otters, places such as Brighton's Sea Life Centre are the only places left for them to go. Their natural habitat is being destroyed at such an alarming rate they have to go into small confined living areas such as these Sea Life Centres.

JUNE

Better outside
5 June 2006

Like so many others, Ron Wood considers it would be much safer for seals and otters to be inside the Brighton Sea Life Centre than outside in today's environment (Letters, May 26).

JULY

Aquariums seal pool plans scrapped
25 July 2006

An aquarium has scrapped its plans to exhibit seals, penguins and sea otters.