As I wrote earlier, the Ontario government recently announced a ban on the acquisition, possession, and breeding of captive orca whales, and said it would come up with “standards” for other species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises)—which, in Ontario, at present, means belugas (also known as “white whales”) and bottlenose dolphins. This is a huge disappointment for those of us who really care about these animals, and who don’t earn a living from keeping any of them captive. Our only concern is their welfare.[teaserbreak]
Those “standards” were due to be announced last week, but are currently expected to be presented early next week. Meanwhile, marine biologist David Rosen has been hired by the aquarium industry to do a study to develop criteria to determine the “well-being” of cetaceans and how captivity affects them. However, he was quoted last Monday as saying, “The first thing we need to do is come up with some scientific agreement among everyone that has a professional interest in it of how do we evaluate the well-being of a cetacean or a group of cetaceans that are being held in captivity?” By “professional interest,” I have to wonder if he means only the interest of those whose income depends on holding them captive.
Rosen already issued a report effectively saying that Ontario’s standards of care (or, to be more accurate, lack of standards) were insufficient. No fooling. And, yet, the only clue we have as to what Ontario might consider to be sufficient is based on old United Kingdom standards that, put simply, consider something like a pool that is about twice the length of the animal to be “sufficient.”
Rosen really, if unintentionally, underscores my humanitarian concerns when he says, “I’m not getting into the debate of the ethics of it.”
But, “ethics” is exactly the issue. I understand that the practice of imprisoning these far-ranging animals is inherently unethical, and that is precisely why it should not be done. He says, “We have a responsibility to make sure that the animals that are in our care are kept in the best care (sic) we can. Right now, we can’t even agree upon how to evaluate their well-being.”
The first dolphins I ever saw were leaping out of the water in front of a yacht I was riding through equatorial waters for several miles. They dive deep and range widely. Science requires benchmarks against which to measure change, and I think it is safe to assume that the “benchmark” for dolphins is the conditions of their natural existence—which is exactly what aquariums take them away from.
Looking at bottlenose dolphins with small ranges, one study in the Azores showed ranges around 185 km2, or more than 70 square miles, of surface area. If we consider the average depth of the sea, it results in thousands of times more space than aquariums provide. Another study, from the Mediterranean, showed home ranges spanning from more than 300 to more than 800 km2, or from about 116 to more than 320 square miles.
This does not take into account migratory movements. Belugas can travel from 1,500 to 4,000 km in just one season, or from about 938 to more than 2,400 miles. They can have separate summer and winter home ranges that span from 50,000 to 120,000 km2, or about 19,300 to more than 46,300 square miles. Would it be too much to ask for—oh, say—one tenth the minimum volume of water one of these animals naturally inhabits? One fiftieth? One one-hundredth? That would be only about 500 km2, if we take the more modest range, or a little more than 190 square miles.
Would you be happy with 90% less room? Oh, and virtually no furniture or much else? Because, within these confines, there is none of the vast array of other species, undersea geological features, or large numbers of others of their kind with whom to interact (although they may get a rubber ball to play with).
Although, outside of Ontario, the Vancouver Aquarium weighed in, saying, “We applaud Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums for taking the progressive step in reviewing science-based evidence on the care and welfare of cetaceans in human care,” according to Dr. John Nightingale, president and CEO. “We know accredited aquariums and public stakeholders are interested in the clear science—not just the opinions we hear today—and an independent study of the safety, standards, and care of whales and dolphins will establish a model of best practices grounded in scientific data.”
So, is he saying that the research on wild cetaceans is not “clear science,” and that these animals really only swim a body length or two their whole lives? He lives on the coast and has seen wild cetaceans. Did he not observe how far they swim, how deep they dive, how many coexist, or how richly diverse their lives are in the wild?
Meanwhile, from Ontario’s only aquarium with cetaceans (the now notorious Niagara Falls Marineland), the rhetoric is even more absurd. In a July 6 media release, it also welcomes Rosen’s planned endeavor, saying, “The study seeks to provide definitive guidance to all marine mammal institutions and government on the issue of pool sizes for marine mammals, building on Dr. Rosen’s initial report, which was received and accepted by the government of Ontario earlier this year.”
It goes on to say, “This study is also critical, as in connection with Ontario’s policy review in respect of this issue, a small number of radical extremists have demanded that Ontario adopt unscientific, extreme, and unrealistic pool size standards modelled on UK Standards implemented in 1986 for dolphins and killer whales.”
Wow. If you care about more than just how to keep cetaceans in captivity alive, but also how to assure that they live naturally—as they have evolved since at least the Middle Eocene, some 52 million years ago—you are “extreme” and “radical?” And, if millions of people, including cetacean biologists and former workers within the aquarium industry, complain about cetaceans being imprisoned, you are still part of “a small number?” Well, times are changing, and people are caring, and our numbers are far from small.
But, wait; there’s more. It continues: “As set out below, the sole purpose of the extremists’ demands is to force the closure of all marine mammal facilities in Canada through a distorted and harmful application of grossly outdated UK Standards to other species (such as beluga whales and walruses) through an unscientific application of standards that were themselves implemented without scientific basis, and which were never intended to apply to other species.”
In other words, they can’t even accept the standards we all think, at this time, the government is planning to apply (which, remember, essentially say that each animal requires about twice its body length of space)! Even that, I guess, is considered too much.
Of course, they have no scientific basis. It is also a moral issue—not just a scientific one. Knowing how much room these animals naturally inhabit derives from science, not the question of whether it is morally acceptable to incarcerate them.
It continues, “Adoption of unscientific and unrealistic standards proposed by extremists will throw thousands of people out of work, severely damage tourism in the Niagara Region, and fail to help the animals under care that are thriving at Marineland.”
Have they not noticed that, just a short distance away, there is another attraction for tourists? It’s called Niagara Falls: one of the original seven natural wonders of the world. And, the town itself is full of “attractions.” At least a wax museum does not imprison animals.
The term “science” and its derivatives are used by the aquarium apologists to mean only those studying how to keep imprisoned cetaceans alive, not if that should be done. There is a plethora of scientists who argue that it is not possible for aquariums to humanely house cetaceans, as well as an overwhelming body of evidence to that effect—all summarily ignored.
Even so, as I discussed in my first blog about Ontario’s plans for captive marine mammals, because any regulation is better than no regulation—the current situation—many of us, whose interest is the welfare of the animals (however “radical” that may be), are accepting the process. We are only asking that regulations serve the function for which they are intended.
So, how about it? A volume of water with a surface area only one one-hundredth of what the animals experience in the wild, and with a depth of only 10 meters (less than 33 feet)—remembering that belugas, for example, dive as deeply as 800 meters, or more than 2,600 feet?
And, if such severe restrictions on the freedom of cetaceans are not “reasonable,” can we not conclude that keeping them under even greater restriction is, ethically and morally, unreasonable?
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Barry