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. 

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.

Blackfish and the Black Arts of Propaganda

"...Blackfish” represents the worst of documentary filmmaking: poorly researched, presenting emotional conviction as truth and assembled for maximum impact over maximum illumination..." 

10 Worst Films of 2013. Jake Cole. Film.com

It is hard to be objective about such a partisan movie with it melodrama and noise.  Presenting skewed information without historical context involving former employers of Sea World with an axe to grind and the collusion of anti-captive bloggers such as David Kirby, writer of the infamous 'Death At Sea World'.

It is no surprise that both Dawn Brancheau's family (a trainer killed in a tragic accident at Sea World in February 2010) and the marine parks wanted nothing to do with either Kirby's above cited book or the 'Blackfish' film. They knew this was a ruse by members and supporters of the animal-rights industry (such as PeTA) to attack them and realised that both fairness and objectivity would play no part.

Most of the information presented in the film has been in the public domain for many years and the various incidence and 'facts' have been the substance of spin and propaganda from the animal-rights movement.  Having seen the film, I could write reams on what was wrong with it but I think a good starting point is the below linked pdf document that dissects the film minute by minute and points out (with references) the errors and misreporting in the film:

BLACKFISH ANALYSIS: Misleading and/or Inaccurate Content

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the film is its covert 'mission creep' which moves its subject material from the care of killer whales in captivity to the keeping of all cetaceans in general such as bottle nose dolphins; a species that have successfully thrived in captivity for decades. 

Moreover, the film has been gleefully grabbed by animal-rights supporters to widen their agenda against the keeping of animals such as elephants and other species and generalising this to attacking all zoos and aquaria be they good or bad. 

As regards the zoo world, I find it ironic that I wrote an article on this matter in 1994, which was published in the Association of British Wild Animal Keepers journal Ratel.  At the time, many zoo people scoffed at the premise I was trying to alert them to. Sadly, today it is becoming true. 

However, the film seems now to become as much a curse as a blessing for the animal-rights groups and factions with many and various people coming forward - including a number of trainers who appeared in the film - to state their disquiet at the films message and how their comments had been twisted.  That fact that the film's director Gabriela Cowperthwaite, allegedly advised one disgruntled former trainer to: "wait until after the awards season" to make any public statement speaks volumes for the true intent of the film maker.

Further Reading:

Why “Blackfish” is Propaganda, not a Documentary

Blackfish: Not So Scientific American

Blackfish: Documentary or Propaganda?

The Truth about the Blackfish “Documentary” by Ken Maya

 More Blackfish Backlash – Tilikum’s Trainer Dives In

 Blackfish Exposed by Former SeaWorld Trainer

Do Politicians Really Consider Mockumentaries Like BlackfishTo Be Scientifically Sound?