#cetacean welfare study

[orcinus-veterinarius]

The Brookfield Zoo is such a shining light in the zoo community. Not only do they spearhead a first-of-its-kind study (encompassing 43 zoos, aquariums, and marine parks) investigating what factors actually impact cetacean welfare, they invest $10 million into updating their habitat based on the findings of their study. Their seven dolphins, ranging from 18 to 50 years in age, recently returned home to Brookfield after over a year away while their habitat was renovated. These renovations include:

🌊 "New additions to the dolphins' habitat, including rockwork structures, sand pits for enrichment, built-in bubbler systems, and more!"

🔬 "Upgrades for scientific research, including underwater microphones and overhead camera to study the dolphins"

💡 "Building upgrades, including a new roof, skylights, energy efficient lighting, a new heating and cooling system, and improved accessibility"

🌴 "And a fresh look in the stadium designed to depict the natural environment of Sarasota Bay, Florida."

You can read more about the upgrades here. In a time when so many facilities are throwing in the towel and getting rid of their animals, it's so refreshing to see a place dedicated to optimizing their dolphins' welfare and continuing vital research efforts.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

Have you seen the new renovations that just got completed at the Brookfield zoo for their bottlenose dolphins? I just went back for the first time since the dolphins moved to Missouri temporarily a week or two ago and it looks great! The new rock work adds a a ton of new interesting environment for the animals and they seem to be settling in well. They had a little video playing about the cetacean welfare study they spearheaded too and the habitat usage monitoring tech they were using. It looks great and the animals seem really happy!

I have not seen them, and when I tell you it took great restraint... I was like a six hour drive away in Omaha in June and I could have made it a day trip instead of heading north. I had a couch to crash on and everything. But no, I made the "adulting" decision to go home and go back to doing capitalism. The dolphin habitat will be there for longer than I can go without income, etc. Still, sigh. I've heard it's pretty awesome.

Was the welfare study the one with the backpacks? I really, really love how much of dolphin science involves sticking things on them with suction cups and just asking them politely to please tolerate it rather than yeeting and/or destroying them.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

I really don't have any time or respect for people who call themselves marine mammal scientists while acting as lobbyists and continuously misleading the general public about marine mammal welfare.

Animal welfare is a relatively new scientific field - especially in cetaceans. It's really only in the last few decades that we've been actively studying and determining welfare parameters in dolphins and whales.

That said, we have scientists like Dr. Isabella Clegg, Dr. Jason Bruck, Dr. Heather Hill, Dr. Kelly Jaakkola, Dr. Kathleen Dudzinski, Dr. Fabienne Delfour and many other incredible scientists, research fellows and facilities contributing amazing welfare data.

Not to mention the fantastic global Cetacean Welfare Study

We're learning how to study welfare, what good welfare and bad welfare looks like, what affects welfare the most, monitoring welfare acoustically, comparing parameters to wild animals, what is actually the best habitat for these animals and so much more.

Yet you have people like Dr. Naomi Rose, Dr. Lori Marino and Dr. Ingrid Visser who claim that "the science is settled" on cetacean welfare. That we don't need to do anymore research, show's over, nothing to see here. Tank bad, sanctuary good, don't look at over there at the actual research, trust us - we're the scientists.

That's why I get so frustrated when I see people uncritically use these scientist's sources. Or any sort of anti cap media who take their word as gospel, regurgitate Blackfish talking points and deliberately mislead with emotive, anthropomorphic language.

I can't understand why, when presented with the notion that these animals may not be suffering, that the response is anger.

Why? When I realised that the orcas at SeaWorld were living a much better life than what was portrayed in Blackfish I felt relief! I was happy to see the high energy enrichment and training session videos.

I was happy when I travelled all the way to Orlando from Australia and spent hours and hours at SeaWorld at the underwater viewing area. I asked questions and I watched the orcas rest, play and engage in sessions. I was excited about the idea of being apart of this world and getting to work with animals using positive reinforcement and prioritising welfare.

Little did I know that only in a few years I'd be networking with those amazing welfare scientists and working with dolphins! I don't expect others to have the same journey I did, but I hope some of what I post can make a difference in changing how people perceive cetacean welfare.

There's a lot more we need to learn and study but a lot of the current data is pointing to positive/neutral welfare states in cetaceans in human care. I hope more will be published on orcas - a lot of the data is in bottlenose dolphins (which is probably why lobbyists aren't targeting them in legislation as much anymore).

Cetacean welfare is in no way a settled science, so be very wary of sources that claim it is or make uncritical claims about "captivity".

[leoparduscolocola]

the thinly veiled contempt a lot of pro-cetacean captivity people have for scientists is honestly disturbing. i've seen pro-caps on social media lurking on anti-cap researchers' personal pages, screenshotting everything they say about any zoo or aquarium, and mocking them. like, if you have criticism of a particular researcher, you are more than welcome to submit a response/editorial to a scientific journal they've published in with your own qualifications and cited sources instead of accusing some of the most groundbreaking cetacean researchers of our time of being foolish conspirators when they dare to criticize your precious pay-$200-to-kiss-a-dolphin industry that is literally built on the corpses of dead cetaceans. seeing pro-caps that i thought were reasonable and that i used to respect reblogging and agreeing with posts like that has greatly lowered my opinion of pro-caps in general. you have no right to complain about how animal rights activists portray dolphin trainers/pro-caps as cruel, ignorant people when you dedicate your free time to sarcastically mocking your opponents on the internet. if you want to be respected, you have to start by respecting your opponents first. every time a new paper that happens to be by the most well-known anti-cap researchers or that suggests that there may be some major welfare problems in the captive cetacean industry is released, pro-caps immediately start lambasting it and trying to slander the authors and their credibility. of course, all research should be subject to scrutiny, but your layman's criticisms of a peer-reviewed paper produced by people with PhDs aren't enough to prove a paper false. they always just respond with the same unproven "gotcha" statements like "don't you know animals are perfectly happy to stay in the same place forever if they have food?" or "well dolphins in the wild suffer sometimes so captivity saves them from that". it reminds me a bit of how anti-vaxxers will laud the few researchers and doctors who agree with them while spewing hatred about the overwhelming majority who don't; if you only trust science when it supports your confirmation bias, you don't actually trust science. like, i am anti-cap for cetaceans, but i accept and acknowledge the fact that there are scientists, veterinarians, and research papers that support the pro-captivity position. i don’t believe that a paper or study reaching the opposite conclusion from my beliefs makes it “bad science”, but pro-caps love throwing that phrase around as if it means anything. there is no grand conspiracy by “radical activists” to intentionally deceive the public about cetacean captivity and ultimately pave the way for a phase-out of all animal captivity. pro-caps and industry representatives act as if being anti-cap automatically makes a researcher so biased that all of their papers should be ignored, while not hesitating to embrace papers produced with input from and heavily promoted by the captivity industry, such as "the cetacean welfare study" (hint: if a study is ever being marketed as "the" definitive study, it's wise to look at it with some scrutiny). pro-caps have completely ignored criticism of this study (see pages 27-28 (33-34 of the PDF) of this). "oh but all of these anti-cap researchers have an Agenda!™️" newsflash: all science has an agenda. the point of science isn't to learn things just for the sake of learning them; it's to uncover knowledge that will help us understand what we need to do to improve our world. when a nutrition scientist recommends that people stop eating red meat for the sake of their health, does that make them an Activist™️ with an Agenda™️, out to get the innocent beef industry? making recommendations based on the established science is part of what researchers do, so when a researcher recommends that cetacean captivity be phased out based on the established science of wild cetacean biology and captive cetacean welfare, that's not "pushing an agenda"; it's part of the scientific process.

at the end of the day, the simple, undeniable fact of the matter is that there's a wide dearth of research on cetacean (ESPECIALLY orca) welfare, so operating from the "it's humane until proven otherwise" standpoint that pro-caps do puts these animals' welfare at risk majorly. this dearth of research is the multimillion-dollar captivity industry's failure. considering that the success of their industry depends on the public perceiving them as humane, it's not surprising that they won't make their animals available for research that could yield negative results. and that's not even getting into how everyone i've seen promoting the "dumb dolphin" theory, whether that's just subtly dismissing the fact that cetaceans have culture to straight up declaring that dolphins are cognitively equivalent to domestic dogs, has been pro-captivity, often rabidly so...

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

J.J. was a success story due SeaWorld but what about Gigi? That one just seems cruel and unnecessary to me. Though it sounds like it was largely pushed by the Navy.

Gigi II was cared for at seaworld, but her capture and use in research was done by another agency unrelated to seaworld. She was possessed with the proper legal precedents and permits necessary and released unharmed into a pod of gray whales.

If you’re referring to the original Gigi, she died of an infection of some variety, the exact details are not known as it was during the 60s and a lot of practical histopathy for a whale was not readily available. Because the nature of the infection is unknown it would be hard to conclude the loss was related to anything done by seaworld specifically.

Even if it were, the 60s were not a time where animal welfare was well studied. The best facilities in the world have some 60 year old skeletons in their closet from that era of ignorance and indifference. I would not personally hold any organization accountable for actions done at that time. I don’t really see anything over 10-15 years old to be a valid criticism of the organization unless practices have not changed and a pattern is established, like had they consistently lost >20% of their cetaceans to the same infection, I would chalk that up to poor sanitation and neglected cleaning. That was not the case so it is very possible the animal simply had a congenital issue prior to arrival, which was not uncommon for wild-trapped specimens. Seaworld today and seaworld half a century ago are very different parks, one of the most obvious being that they do not capture specimens from the wild to add to their collections in the modern day, and rejected the practice much earlier than some due to their work in marine biology.

[fumblebeefae]

You are a bee scientist, not a cetacean scientist. Why do you think you're an authority to speak on cetacean welfare using cherry-picked papers? At least acknowledge the Clegg papers looking at objective welfare measures. And the recent papers by Jaakolaa et al (2019) that found bottlenose dolphins in captivity to be living as long or longer than their wild counterparts. Or the two rebuttal papers to Lori Marino's paper that compared captive killer whales to soldiers with PTSD

The irony of you talking about “cherry-picking” and then naming papers you specifically cherry-picked. I’m also going to go out on a limb here and say you’re not a scientist in any sense, considering it seems you didn’t read any of them?

I might be just a lowly bee scientist but the good thing about science is that they teach you how to read read scientific research pretty well. So you can learn most things from doing a bit of reading.

Dr. Clegg’s research on dolphin research specifically mentions how welfare needs to be improved in captive settings and she actively was assisting with moving dolphins into sea pens rather than tanks. Her research calls specifically for a better method in which to assess welfare for dolphins, as research is lacking in that area. You seem to either have not read her actual research or don’t understand it. Here’s a bit of her paper:  Applying welfare science to bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Animal Welfare 2017, 26: 165-176. doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.2.165

“This review compiles what we believe to be literature on wild and captive bottlenose dolphins most relevant to welfare, suggesting some farm and zoo animal approaches which could be adapted to cetaceans, with final recommendations on initial studies and how the dolphin welfare discipline might evolve. A strong focus is maintained on those areas of cetology that merit further investigation to answer questions on bottlenose dolphins’ quality of life.”

Dr Jakkolaa’s paper: How long do dolphins live? Survival rates and life expectancies for bottlenose dolphins in zoological facilities vs . wild populations. Marine Mammal Science. 2019, 35 (4): 1418-1437. doi:10.1111/mms.12601, she states multiple times that there is not much accurate data for wild population life expectancy 

“To date, only one study has applied DeMaster and Drevenak's ASR calculations to wild dolphins.”  

“we compared age‐at‐death of modern‐day dolphins in zoological facilities with age‐at‐death from the two published studies that have analyzed this information for wild dolphin populations.”

“Unfortunately, no study has yet applied the Kaplan‐Meier analysis to evaluate survival in any wild dolphin population.”

“Ideally, a comprehensive comparison of survival rates and life expectancies between populations would include more than the three wild studies examined here”

She also further mentions how what research there was on wild population’s did have limitations: 

“It is important to note that one of the two wild populations compared here has previously been characterized as immune compromised with a number of pervasive health challenges.... as a result, this group likely has a lower survival rate than many other wild populations.” 

“...although several years after these data the Deepwater Horizon oil spill undoubtedly impacted the survival of wild dolphins in that area”

“Any comparisons of survival statistics between wild populations and those in zoological care will always be fraught with logistical hurdles. Dolphins in zoological facilities are observed consistently for their entire lives....the same cannot be said of wild populations”

An animal living to its life expectancy also does not automatically = good welfare. if you read Dr. Clegg’s papers on how to review welfare you’d know this. I suggest actually really reading and understand the papers you cite. Otherwise don’t cite them. 

[saddlepatchkid]

I just don’t trust scientists/zookeepers/etc who seem to have a personal stake in the captivity debate and rabidly defend cetacean captivity (especially on Twitter)...

Like I’m sorry but an animal isn’t thriving if its lifespan is barely better than a starving population, if it is on constant antibiotics just to survive (and several animals have developed antibiotic resistant infections and died), is in a barren tank 24/7, has teeth fucked to hell that are essentially open wounds, dorsal fin collapse (not bad health wise, but clearly their bodies aren’t meant for such shallow habitats), stereotyped behaviours (including so much inactivity due to logging they are at risk from fucking mosquito borne disease and sunburns), fucked social dynamics, etc.

“I’m an animal behaviourist studying cetacean welfare in captivity and I’m pro cap :)”

Well congrats you fucking suck at your job

[derangedhyena-delphinidae]

Hey! I think this is a prime opportunity to grab some knowledge off you as someone who wants to learn more about the anti-captivity argument and why killer whales are unsuitable for captivity. Everything you know would be ideal with studies and links and stuff (you’re super smart. I can only hope to know as much as you one day). I understand that’s kind of impossible though!

Sure thing. Must preface with - I’m not really that smart, nor do I specifically have defined expertise at this or anything, I just really like to read. I also enjoy learning from the experts, which I’ve taken to doing around here via attending/filming many of the available talks. So that’s what I’d recommend to anyone, really. Firstoff as a resource, I would like to offer my Youtube channel, which features a variety of speakers covering many topics. Only a few are captivity-issue centric; available are not just videos I’ve recorded, but a handful of other videos I’ve found informative in playlists. Of those I’d recommend these two:

https://youtu.be/L00CfGpVnUAhttps://youtu.be/OmMv9t_hW8k

Here are a few links/documents/books I’d recommend as overviews as well.

https://awionline.org/content/confinement-marine-life AWI has an entire section of its website that explores various facets of these issues.

https://www.scribd.com/document/265647897/Killer-Whales-Theme-Parks-Controversy-An-Exploration-of-the-Evidence This is a chapter in the book Animals in Tourism: Understanding Diverse Relationships

https://www.scribd.com/document/312800031/Orca-White-Paper This is a paper authored by Dr. Rose while she was working at HSUS. She no longer works there, she works at AWI.

https://www.scribd.com/document/118447693/Captive-Orcas-Dying-to-Entertain-You-by-Vanessa-Williams An older WDC document, but still a decent (when not outdated) overview.

I know some folks may contend that this material majority-features a handful of folks (like Dr. Rose), but it is what it is - because there’s only a handful of folks writing about these things in general (positive or negative). References are available and presented in their documentation: I will always encourage people to look, really look, into those as well, so it becomes very clear that information is simply being gathered and presented as a unit. Not misrepresented in some fashion just because xyz person pulled it together.The other big “sections” of this for me personally are neurobiology, ethics, and ‘the industry’/Seaworld.The neurobiology section of this is a bit more vast than I’m prepared to cover in one sitting, but the tl;dr is delphinid brains exhibit incredible complexity and have a number of unique properties that very likely indicate a lot of intelligence/perceptual/emotional abilities. Here is a 2009 overview by Dr. Marino. There is substantial disagreement about the function/structure of delphinid brains (particularly lodged by one scientist’s “dumb dolphin” theory), as detailed here. A transcript making this somewhat easier to approach can be found here. The information is all worth considering. I personally find myself deferring to my own reading into affective neuroscience/related research (wiki link, overview), as well as general observations/research on cetacean behavior - which prompts me to find Dr. Marino’s assertions more compelling. I’ve noticed that captivity proponents tend to stick to the ‘dumb dolphin’ bit and ignore the other side of the discussion.Ethics! This is discussed in bits in most of the above, but there’s certainly an ethical side to all this that often goes ignored. I’m personally not in the boat that it’s unethical/wrong/improper to keep any/all animals captive. Just the ones that show evidence of having their lives highly negatively impacted as a result. There’s a world of difference between a cetacean and a fish. This isn’t saying fish aren’t smart - most animals have to be pretty smart in their own way or they wouldn’t have done well as a species! But I do doubt fish have the complex cognition necessary to understand confinement as a negative, and be insulted (physically) by it. (Unless the conditions are completely inadequate (temperate, size, surroundings, companions) and the fish can’t express its usual behavior, in which case it still likely can’t understand ‘confinement’ but it does understand it can’t function or behave normally and may be distressed as a result.)

Large predatory animals in particular tend to exhibit higher intelligence (more problem-solving typically needed to hunt) and have larger ranges - removing their ability to hunt, traverse area and meaningfully engage their environment as the species evolved to can cause problems (eg the incessant pacing seen in captive big cats, bears, etc.)  They’re also more or less stuck in captivity once there - captive-raised predators do poorly in the wild. This significantly undermines the claim that captive animals of that stripe have a lot of conservation value. Directly? They really don’t.

(Captive-raised cetaceans haven’t really ever been considered for wild release/conservation initiatives of that type, so the direct conservation value argument, while still made, has no basis. The link above discusses needed improvements and design for terrestrial predator programs. I’m all for it if they can figure it out, but as noted in the link, animals constantly subjected to people obviously won’t fare well when released - any eligible animal would need to be raised in relative human-seclusion in something more closely resembling its natural habitat. The same argument could easily be made for anything like this re: cetaceans - with the additional difficulty level that much of their learning seems to be culturally transmitted and rely on social structure heavily. How do you teach what you don’t know, in a framework you don’t have?)

One of the biggest problems this is the overall lack of research done on captive cetacean issues. Much critical material is forced to fill in blanks and operate from a basis of comparison, ex-trainer materials, and observation/documentation. Because direct information is largely unavailable, thanks to things like what’s noted here. And only very recently have cetacean-holding facilities even begun research on the topic of welfare in earnest, which is confusing and a little disturbing considering how long the practice has been going on and how vehemently it’s claimed that all is well and that captives contribute to research.Which, for research in general, they do. I have no doubts that they do. The concerns come in regarding how useful that research is for much besides perpetuating captives’ situations (breeding/husbandry materials) and very basic physiological stuff. There has been a lot learned about cetacean physiology in captivity, certainly. And I’m sure there’s more to be learned. But when one starts to bring in the ethics side of things, and what is being gained vs. what is being impacted (and for what - animals at a dedicated research facility and animals being used every day to mindlessly entertain audiences are different discussions, especially with all collateral considerations)...

A NOAA scientist called captive orca “sacrificial animals”. Even broader acknowledgment to the public by these facilities, that there are downsides, would be a great start, so people could be making better-informed decisions about whether or not they wanted to participate. Disguising the problems, dismissing criticisms and forcing a pleasant facade when big issues exist (and have, for a long time) does not point to wholesome ethics.Which leads me to Seaworld/industry representation. Why haven’t they done much/any research on the problems their animals have faced for years? Why are they constantly working to misinform the public and near-comically villainizing even reasonable criticisms? I can go into this further, separately, if desired, but there’s just a distressing amount of material supporting how “fake” and disingenuous they are. If they had these animals’ best interests in mind, instead of their company’s, this kind of behavior… really shouldn’t exist? Problems like this exist to a lesser degree in other facilities, depending on the facility. Unless it’s MSQ, which has problems connecting with reality at all.I do apologise if this doesn’t seem like “a lot”; reading, observing, talking to folks, listening to folks over several years (6+ now?) isn’t simple to condense. It is easier to address individual points/questions obviously, but I get that it’s useful to have an overview. Hopefully this is of use to that end.

[nasa]

undefined

The age-old mystery of why otherwise healthy dolphins, whales and porpoises get stranded along coasts worldwide deepens: After a collaboration between our scientists and marine biologists, new research suggests space weather is not the primary cause of animal beachings — but the research continues. The collaboration is now seeking others to join their search for the factors that send ocean mammals off course, in the hopes of perhaps one day predicting strandings before they happen.

Scientists have long sought the answer to why such animals get beached, and one recent collaboration hoped to find a clear-cut solution: Scientists from a cross-section of fields pooled massive data sets to see if disturbances to the magnetic field around Earth could be what confuses these sea creatures, known as cetaceans. Cetaceans are thought to use Earth's magnetic field to navigate. Since intense solar storms can disturb the magnetic field, the scientists wanted to determine whether they could, by extension, actually interfere with animals' internal compasses and lead them astray.

During this first attempt, the scientists – from our Goddard Space Flight Center; the International Fund for Animal Welfare, or IFAW; and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM – were not able to hammer down a causal connection. Now, the team is opening their study up much wider: They're asking other scientists to participate in their work and contribute data to the search for the complex set of causes for such strandings.

Read the story: https://www.nasa.gov/beachings

Watch this video on our YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/1cAiLKP2F-U

Make sure to follow us on Tumblr for your regular dose of space: http://nasa.tumblr.com.

[tepiddreamer]

When you stop caring about the very thing that lines your pocket, you have lost the game. When you believe it is cheaper to buy a new one instead of cherishing the original you have lost your humanity.

Everybody is commenting on this one but too bad I get to bitch too. Aquariums and Dolphinariums suck sometimes. Just because it has a pretty exterior and flashing lights with a sick music beat doesn’t mean its a great facility. In some instances, dimming the lights and dark tanks help hide the issues. Just because you have sharks or whales or whale sharks, doesn’t mean you are the pinnacle of aquarium management.

No facility is perfect. I don’t care how much you throw information or pictures or personal experience there is a issue. Somewhere. Usually where the public can’t see. Leaking tanks, poor filtration, questionable training techniques, sick or incompatible animals, aggression or sexual behavior, over crowded or lone animals. They all have issues. Some facilities improve or others sink into the abyss. It can usually be blamed on the higher ups, I truly believe that most trainers do love and care for their animals, but due to lack of power and managerial abuse the trainers turn on their own beliefs, and suffer along with the animals. “I have always loved animals and wanted to work with them, but after I started my dream job I was disillusioned and became bitter. I couldn’t do it anymore.”- former senior aquatics manager told me this once after a system failure

China and Russia have some of the least effective animal conservation and protection laws, and as such their animals are traded and shuffled and abused to a higher extent than any other country. It is tradition in some areas that animals are lower than humans and do not receive the same status as their owners. They are eaten for food or raised inhumanely for pelts. Its all about money. Over the last few years a rising concern from the west has exposed some of the practices, such as the dog meat festivals, and attitudes are starting to change. But its still exists, you can’t change a culture overnight.

But aquariums and dolphinariums don’t receive the same kind of attitude. “Its just a fish” or “it doesn’t live in my home so why should I care.” And as the video does discuss, wild animals are big business. And its far cheaper to buy new ones than to invest in proper husbandry. It isn’t unheard of for employees who work at aquariums or seal trainers to just be ordinary people, who have no formal education in husbandry or animal sciences. Training cetaceans usually requires more education or on hands training. Here the employees use the simple forms of training and food deprivation to train the animals. There is no positive/neutral training, it is all negative. Several times in the video you can see trainers slapping or kicking an animal (one trainer kicks a belugas mouth shut). Sick animals are not given the chance to recoup, and to get food must preform. They act out and are punished. This is not appropriate. Ever. For any animal.

It is fairly common for aquariums to have divers in tanks to scrub surfaces down, fish and sharks are not as investigative and don’t usually have the ability to pull regulators or pull on fins (usually, it does happen, why a spare tank should always be on the belt). Some larger facilities will place dolphins or other animals in a separate pool while scuba work is done (i.e. Seaworld must remove killer whales from the pools when any scuba work is being done. It has been documented many times the the animals will mouth or grab at the scuba workers, and while this may be simple play, it is a hazard to the human). If a facility cannot remove the animals from the pool a safety trainer or additional scuba worker should be in the pool during work. The animal investigates thing with its mouth, its play or stimulus. It doesn’t mean to harm anyone, but when you are frustrated or bored anything can will do.

Peeling paint and cracking concrete should not be happening in a facility that is only 5-7 years old. This means that incorrect materials, materials were poured/set to quickly (concrete), or wrong mix of paint was used. This is a serious hazard to the animal and will cause death. Some of those tanks are hit or miss too, they are either too small or too crowded, bland and blank or some have some rocks on the bottom for enrichment. Overall, just poor enclosures. Not having a separating pool or medical pool shows that little planning went into the pre-build planning. No effort to correct these issues also shows little care for the health and welfare for the animals.

Finding dead animals in a deep freezer (and are those boxes of fish???) is a serious issue. These animals are not intended for necropsy or scientific study, they are simply waiting for the right time to be dumped in the trash when someone isn’t watching. Animals that are fighting or unable to work together, should be separated. These fights can break out at anytime, even during shows, but shame on the trainers for doing nothing to correct the situation. No attempt is even made.

It is well known that there is a whole market for capturing or moving these animals illegally. Basically was admitted that officials are easily bought off and that the system is corrupted. I have money, I get what I want, it makes me money, who cares if it dies. The ‘death rooms’ are another factor, why not just euthanize the animals instead of just letting them languish in the back. No care for the animals. Getting some serious Marineland vibes here.

I am surprised to see Dr Rose comment that Western facilities are better than what she has been shown in China, but it is true. Again, no facility is without guilt, but the facilities here in the US are under constant scrutiny from accreditation groups and the general public. A photo shared on Instagram of a marine animal can go viral in hours and everyone will be up in arms about it. Not so in China. So until attitudes, and laws change nothing will change with the growing aquarium business.

[orcinus-veterinarius]

is there anything we can do to stop the SWIMS act from going through if it gets seriously considered? It’s so ridiculous to me that people who get all their info spoon fed from blackfish and ric o’Barry can introduce these bills that could seriously affect conservation work and blatantly ignore all of the other (much more pressing!!!!) issues

If you’re a United States citizen, write your state representative and senators. Urge them to dismiss the bill or vote against it should it come to that. Explain the importance of zoos and aquariums to conservation and public education (be sure to mention your state’s AZA facilities as examples, even if they don’t house cetaceans. They’re all partners). Tell them exactly what you told me… how it’s wrong and unfair that documentaries have swayed the public’s opinion against the vital work these organizations do. Point them toward the Chicago Zoological Society’s Cetacean Welfare Study and the AZA accreditation guidelines for evidence of the superior care these animals receive.

And finally, ask them to focus on the real issues and protect our wild whales from the actual threats against them.

If the bill becomes a true issue, I will be drafting a letter to my state congressmen and will post the template here as a model! The SWIMS Act has the backing of a lot of very powerful ARA organizations (including PETA and HSUS) with very well-equipped lobbyists, so it’s important that congresspeople hear from the other side as well.

[dailydolphinsuitjotaro]

Some aquariums don't treat dolphins very well whyareyousupportingthem.

“I think it’s unfair to stop supporting ALL aquariums, and zoological parks as a whole just because many seem to be profit-based organisations. But…”

((I’m assuming this is about my first post where I joked that Jotaro was forced into wearing a dolphin suit for free admission forever to his local aquarium but anyway please read the rest of the jumbled mess of a mildly ic opinionated essay under the cut. お願いします!))

“But first, let’s talk about dolphins since you brought them up. The Chinese White Dolphin is a favourite of my blog’s moderator. There’s approximately a 2.5% annual decline in their populations within crucial habitats in the Pearl River estuary. Even under the most ideal conditions, other experts can only agree that the species would be able to survive for another 40 generations. However, it is far far less than ideal. Besides organochlorines, heavy metals and other pollutants in their oceans, coastal development destroying habitats, vessel collision due to increasing marine traffic, underwater noise pollution, and overfishing are other factors rendering propagation in the wild … difficult, to say the least.

This is not a new situation. The Baiji dolphins which inhabited the Yangtze River had suffered similar circumstances and were considered to be functionally extinct in late 2006. It is also considered to be arguably the first dolphin species in history to be driven to extinction.

But back to your question, I am most definitely against any aquariums and zoos that use the animals in their care solely for entertainment and profit, especially if said animals involve species that have high cognitive potential with relationships and social identity being intertwined in how they survive normally in the wild. I also believe that despite the rapid degradation of habitats, I think captivity breeding isn’t the best method for conservation—especially for large marine mammals such as dolphins—as it has its own host of barriers, such as ensuring the starting population is genetically viable, keeping them alive in the long-term, and acquiring sufficient accommodation to house them in the first place. Reintroducing captive borns into the wild is also a difficult task due to likely lacking immunity to wildlife diseases and needing to be reintegrated into wild populations’ social structures. In fact, the few efforts for captive breeding of a similar breed of Pink Dolphins haven’t proved very successful in Singapore’s Sentosa. Capturing a viable starting population is also dangerous as catching methods can gravely injure them.

The most ideal situation for conservation of dolphins and cetaceans would be to first conserve their crucial habitats. So no, I don’t wholeheartedly support dolphinariums or marine mammal parks that insist on sketchy breeding programmes often accompanied by daily 20-minute dolphin performances.

Nevertheless, it is not an ideal world. Unless governments are willing to expand protected zones for these creatures and compromise for sustainable development, more and more may believe captive breeding should unfortunately be considered their last hope.

For example, if I had to grossly simplify the debate on whether the Chinese White Dolphin should be bred in captivity or not then whichever side you support would ultimately be whether one valued the species’ survivability in captivity in terms of their recorded average life spans and infant mortality rates compared to those in the wild over their quality of life, that is, enjoying freedom and a “good life” in animal welfare terms. 

I dearly hope that captive breeding will never be considered a necessity for the propagation of these magnificent creatures, but if there comes a time when we do find the Chinese White Dolphin to be functionally extinct in the wild, I will do whatever I can to try to keep the species alive if there are still any in captivity, and hopefully one day reintroduce them back into Hong Kong waters once sufficient protected zones are established.

Regardless, I can’t deny that captive breeding has or is forecasted to have a great positive impact for other species, marine or terrestrial. For example, captive breeding programmes for salmonids have succeeded in maintaining neutral genetic diversity for several generations (albeit with trends in reduced fitness in offspring), which may be sufficient for whatever dangers in their natural habitats to be removed. Conservation efforts in European and American zoos for the breeding of King Penguins have also proved successful, which is quite a breakthrough as climate change in the Southern Ocean is likely to cause drastic wild population declines in the future. And, while not a marine animal, the Arabian Oryx conservation effort is another significant example.

Still, my overall conclusions for captive breeding in aquariums and zoos is to think of them not as the final solution but a possible plan B until the factors contributing to their initial decline can be addressed. (Though there is the issue with ‘rehab’ animals deemed unreleasable by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums but that’s something to discuss for another time).

Anyhow, aquariums also benefit marine conservation beyond breeding programmes such as research into diseases along with the development of vaccinations, rehabilitation (as the second anon mentioned) and overall responsible promotion and education of marine conservation. Also, it’s unrealistic for facilities to “empty their tanks” and dump their captive born into the wild without meticulous plans for safe and proper transition. Good grief, let’s not forget a similar incident in America where tens of thousands of minks were …forcibly released from a farm only for most of them to likely die of starvation and negatively affect the surrounding ecosystem.

Many marine biologists can say their interest was born from visiting aquariums when they were young. Moreover, there are studies that looked into the positive educational impact of zoos and aquariums in the most recent volume of the Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, which you may read. Their ability to expose youth to the wonders of marine life is important, though I’d prefer if they weren’t so plentiful and more were NGO non-profit based.

If it helps, I generally judge an aquarium by at least the following criteria:

Prioritize and support human entertainment with dolphin, whale, seal, penguin, etc. shows (especially if they have little emphasis on education)?

Entirely profit-based with very little budget allocation to conservation or research efforts?

Support untrained customers touching and petting captive animals?

No ties to legitimate academic institutions and research projects?

Saying yes to any of the above means it’s likely not that great of an institution, which is, unfortunately, probably most of them. It’s likely your local aquariums do break one of these criteria, but campaigning to shut them down entirely doesn’t have to be the only option, perhaps they can change with enough pressure–unless they are absolutely unforgivable that is.

What I’m saying is that every conservation facility, zoos or aquariums, are unique in their level of ethics and should be considered individually. Responsible zoos and aquariums that prioritise facilitation and promotion of conservation of animals are very much needed in the current era. Elizabeth Kolbert, author of ‘The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History’, had suggested we are amidst a sixth mass extinction event and that 20-50% of all flora and fauna on earth will be lost by the end of the 21st century . Unfortunately, this one being different than the others with human activity playing a significant part. While it would be ideal if animals could thrive on their own in the wild or protected areas, that is ultimately not so …easy for most endangered and threatened species, to say the least.

Apologies if this comes across as very vague as this is mostly my own ramblings from the top of my head. Relevant links below if you’re interested:

Study on captive breeding of Salmonids

Study on captive breeding of King Penguins 

Study on the effect of the zoo setting on the behavioural diversity of captive Gentoo Penguins and the implications for their educational potential

Study on impact of in-school zoo education programmes

HK Dolphinwatch

I recommend JZAR if you’re interested in zoo biology and related fields. I believe all their articles are open access so do check them out.”

((DISCLAIMER: I’m NOT an expert nor do i have formal education in marine science. I’ve been interested in it since I had the pleasure to see a Chinese White Dolphin during a local dolphin watch tour by the HK Dolphinwatch when I was a wee child a decade ago. There were over 180 dolphins recorded in 2003 but the numbers have since declined to 87 in 2010 and 47 in the last year. Ocean Park, which is basically the only large marine mammal park–and conservation facility on the side–in Hong Kong, has shown interest in breeding them in captivity but ofc there’s a lot of criticism to that, most of which I agree with but god the whole situation is really distressing and idk what we can do because the government sure isn’t gonna do anything like expanding protected zones or enforcing regulation on marine traffic through those zones. In fact, the new zhuhai bridge and other runways they’re using our tax money for is most certainly making the whole situation worse lol god just kill me take me instead of the dolphins i’ve had enough of this world))

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

hello! I just wanted to know your thoughts on orcas living in accredited facilities. are they thriving, or are they too smart to be 'locked up' as ARAs say? I've been debating myself on this for a while, and I wanted to ask someone ^^^

Are captive killer whales doomed and depressed? Was it right to end the breeding program?

Hi there! Thank you for being curious and asking these questions!

I can tell you that current welfare data of killer whales in accredited facilities does suggest positive welfare eg. demonstrating optimistic welfare states and demonstrating healthy social and reconciliation behaviours in Loro Parque orcas. (source) (source)

Unfortunately we just don't have a whole lot of welfare data for killer whales the same way we do for bottlenose dolphins. But that's sort of a generalised answer.

I want to address your questions specifically though.

Are orcas "too smart" for being in human care?

I'd say that the intelligence or the supposed hyper intelligence of cetaceans has been overblown and has been the source of contention since John Lilley came on the scene in the 60's making wild claims about hyper intelligent dolphins that speak their own language that still persist to this day (never mind the guy killed dolphins in his experimental brain scans and gave them LSD... the 60's were wild).

The people claiming orcas are too intelligent are people like Dr. Lori Marino - a neuroscientist who makes unsubstantiated claims about cetacean intelligence and draws conclusions about intelligence and cognition from brain scans. Can brain structure give you some data to make educated guesses on intelligence? Sure. But you can't then draw conclusions about welfare about animals you've never examined or done a welfare assessment of.

None of the people making these claims have done objective welfare assessments with access to health and veterinary records.

Lori, as well as other lobbyists like Naomi Rose and Ingrid Visser, have been called out by the scientific community more than once on publishing papers that make unsubstantiated claims about welfare.

My colleagues published this paper refuted their claims that orcas were being "damaged" by captivity (using human comparisons of prisoner of war camps despite human and killer whale brains being separated by millions of years of evolution) . But the media had already picked up the catchy, shocking paper that got published by a journal with no cetacean experience ( the Journal of Veterinary Behavior who also refused to retract the paper despite letters from cetacean welfare scientists)

There is unfortunately a huge problem of lobbyists who are lobbying governments to change laws on cetacean welfare who are using science to skew data for their personal beliefs. And they are absolutely shameless and will block any other scientists that try to refute them.

If anything, intelligence creates adaptability. There's a reason we have bottlenose dolphins in human care around the world but not harbor porpoises. Bottlenose dolphins are socially intelligent and more easily adapt to new environments and bond with human care takers. Orcas are similar, though environmental change has been reported to upset them a lot more. They are very socially intelligent, which makes them very interested in learning and being curious and bonding with human caretakers.

If captive orcas were truly so utterly broken the way they're depicted by media and these "studies" they would not be able to learn new behaviours, they would not eat and play and socialise and they would not engage with the trainers and guests.

See a whole playlist of SeaWorld orcas in their free time - it really helps you look beyond those 10 second "sad SeaWorld orca" videos (it's usually just Keet resting because that's what he prefers to do in his spare time)

Are orcas in accredited facilities "depressed" or suffering in any way?

Now when it comes down to actual welfare of orcas in accredited facilities - based on anecdotal and scientific evidence, statements from trainers I've talked to who work with the animals every day (no they're not getting paid any more than minimum wage and speak freely), what I've witnessed through many hours of observation ect.

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that these orcas are not abused, depressed, doomed or going insane. They have a robust enrichment program, get the best vet care in the world (I'm sure @orcinus-veterinarius can attest to that), are engaged and motivated to learn regardless of satiety (though they'll have their off days of course) and they have good stable social structures that rarely see any hyper aggression (but aggression is normal in social groups too).

Could it be better?

Absolutely. If it were up to me, they would have the Blue World project done and built, bigger habitats, more novel enrichment ideas to encourage hunting behaviour that's not just Big Ball TM (they love it and it's easy but we can do better), more autonomy of habitat eg. being able to turn on water jets when they want to.

And waterwork would still be a thing trainers can do - not for shows but for the unmatched relationship building and desensitisation that it gave these animals. It actually made them safer to be in the water with (look at Kamagowa Sea World orca waterwork and how blaise they are with their whales - those whales will allow any sort of nonsense and someone falling in their pool wouldn't worry me at all)

What about the breeding ban:

I understand why they stopped breeding to appease the public but unfortunately it has introduced other welfare problems. Female orcas cannot be on Regumate - birth control - for longer than a year or it'll destroy her body very quickly. So separation of females and males occurs. And that can be really stressful - especially for matriarchs like Katina who had to be separated from Makaio.

Breeding bans are not done with the welfare in mind. They're done as a sanctimonious "save the babies" effort to "protect" them from no actual documented suffering. While denying animals the natural and very instinctive behaviours of reproduction.

It's amazing how much a calf can enrich a pod. Everyone pitches in to babysit and watch out for them, to teach them how to play and how to learn. It's really sad that the orcas of SeaWorld have been denied that now and it'll be very sad to see them die off one by one until there's only one very lonely whale left.

Anyway I hope that answers some questions. Happy to answer any more you might have.

[endcetaceanexploitation]

I️ just want to know....why the f is Seaworld still allowed to own orcas and show them? Makes me sick to my stomach to see everything those poor whales go through.

I know, its horrific what the animals go through. Unfortunately its morally acceptable to most of society to use animals for human benefit, even highly intelligent ones like Orca. As long as there is no deliberate cruelty occurring then there is no problem in the eyes of the law - an animals quality of life or rights to a certain type of life are not considered important. 

Animal welfare laws are in reality pretty basic and as long as the whales aren’t being physically abused by trainers or being starved or left in putrid water then the government won’t intervene. Even if the animals are pretty much constantly ill or injuring themselves or one another, as long as they get veterinary treatment then its considered acceptable. If animals die prematurely , fight with each other (even if such fighting wouldn’t occur as often in the wild) or injure themselves through stereotypical behaviour its just something that “happens” and “bad things happen in the wild too” and isn’t considered a problem.

Behavioural issues aren’t covered by legislation such as whales logging, bottom sitting, tank chewing, hell there isn’t even a requirement for orca to be held with conspecifics even though its known how crucial social structure is for wild orca. The legislation is woefully inadequate and the animals suffer for it.

The problem is that Seaworld is top in the world for orca care (inadequate as it is) so they set the standards, in essence they regulate themselves as they are considered the industry experts by AZA and by the courts. SeaWorld has historically had a lot of influence, really it wasn’t until Dawn Brancheau died that this status quo was questioned. Things are finally starting to change  - the breeding ban in California and the proposed ban in Florida are evidence of this.

Another factor that has slowed progress is that changes to regulation require evidence - evidence that welfare is significantly compromised by limited tank space, disruption of social structure, or lack of stimulation as shown by reducing stress (by measuring cortisol levels for example) or incidence of disease. Access to the whales by outsiders for such studies is not possible - Seaworld only approves research that wont damage their image - and the facilities themselves haven’t done such basic research to avoid awkward results.To change laws requires hard evidence specific to orca or other cetaceans, which the industry won’t provide and is exceptionally hard to gather in wild whales and is very difficult to compare to captive animals due to their vastly different circumstances. No evidence - no law.

And then there is the problem of setting legal precedence for other species if rules and regulations were made more stringent for orca. For example a few days ago the courts rejected an appeal to force the Miami Seaquarium to release Lolita, their Orca, stating that her disgustingly small tank size, lack of orca companion and harassment by the dolphins in her tank equated to causing her significant harm under the endangered species act. 

The courts rejected the decision because :

“  accepting critics’ “expansive” conception of illegal harm and harassment could upset the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulatory scheme to help ensure the humane treatment of captive animals used for exhibitions and research.“

Essentially even though Lolita probably does suffer in her conditions the courts won’t act because its inconvenient in other cases. They don’t like upsetting the apple cart as it could lead to a host of other legal cases (I mean who *needs* justice and high welfare standards anyway *sarcasm intensifies*).

Additionally the US government doesn’t want to take responsibility for very large and expensive animals. This is why there are now breeding bans coming into force, it eventually phases out captivity (therefore in acknowledgement that orca captivity is wrong) but means SeaWorld maintains responsibility for the animals. 

So basically the US government doesn’t really give a damn about wild animals, from allowing roadside zoo’s or allowing people to keep tigers or chimpanzee’s as pets all the way to allowing SeaWorld to use animals intrinsically unsuited for captivity to entertain hoards of tourists to generate profit. 

[cetacean-content]

Research on captive/wild cetaceans

Captive

Bottlenose dolphins: Behavior and salivary cortisol of captive dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) kept in open and closed facilities https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vWrLoalmd3SEdJQlN4dkRmc1k/edit

Few studies have been carried out on the welfare of captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Of these, most include information on animals kept in closed facilities or pools. The aim of this study was to assess the welfare of captive bottlenose dolphins in open and closed facilities by measuring states of individual behavior and salivary cortisol concentrations. A total of 23 bottlenose dolphins were studied in 4 different dolphinaria. Dolphinaria A and B have closed facilities, whereas dolphinaria C and D have open facilities. A total of 152 hours of behavioral observations were analyzed using a combination of behavior and scan sampling to obtain information on individual time budgets. Salivary cortisol concentrations were measured using radioimmunoassay in 96 and 180 saliva samples of dolphins kept in closed and open facilities, respectively. In general, the results found that dolphins kept in open facilities spent less time floating (P < 0.05) and swim- ming in circular patterns than linear ones (P < 0.05) compared with dolphins in closed facilities. Dolphins kept in open facilities also had lower salivary cortisol concentrations than dolphins kept in closed facilities (P < 0.05). For this reason, we suggest that further research should include other welfare indicators such as reproductive function and health measurements to know more about the relationships between the design of pools and dolphin welfare.

SURVIVAL OF FIVE SPECIES OF CAPTIVE MARINE MAMMALS http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1995.tb00519.x/full

Survival in captivity was calculated for 1,707 bottlenose dolphins (BD), 72 killer whales (KW), 73 white whales (WW), 3,090 California sea lions (CSL), and 47 Steller sea lions (SSL) based on data in the Marine Mammal Inventory Report (MMIR) of the NMFS. Mean annual survival rates (ASRs) between 1988 and 1992 were 0.951, 0.937, and 0.954 for BD, KW, and WW, respectively, and 0.952 and 0.969 for CSL and SSL, respectively. These estimates represent significant increases in survival for both BD and CSL over the last 5 yr. Using all of the MMIR data (1940–1992), the ASR of BD calves (< 1 yr of age) was significantly less than the ASR of non-calves (0.666 vs.948, 0.001). Similarly, the ASR of CSL pups (< 1 yr of age) was significantly less than survival of non-pups (0.858 vs.962, 0.001). Survival of captive-born CSL was significantly higher than those born in the wild (0.962 vs.945, 0.003), but the difference was not significantly different for BD (0.948 vs.944, 0.60). For non-calf BD and KW, captive animals survived at a slightly lower rate (BD 0.944 vs.961, = 0.07; KW 0.938 vs.976, 0,001) than animals in the wild (BD: Wells and Scott 1990, KW: Olesiuk 1990). Survival of captive non-pup SSL was slightly higher (0.968 vs.930) than animals in the wild (York 1994, life-table analyses). Survival rates were significantly different among institutions for BD calves and non-calves, CSL pups and non-pups, and SSL non-pups.

SURVIVORSHIP PATTERNS IN THREE SPECIES OF CAPTIVE CETACEANS http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1988.tb00539.x/abstract

Survival rates for three species of captive cetaceans are reported, based on records of dates of capture, birth, and death of individual animals. The annual survival rate was 0.93 for bottlenose dolphins and killer whales and 0.94 for white whales. Confidence limits of these estimates are discussed. Differences in survival rates between institutions were significant for bottlenose dolphins only. Calf survival for bottlenose dolphins was lower than non-calf survival. Survivorship of male killer whales was significantly less than survivorship of female killer whales; sex-specific survival rates were similar for the other two species. Estimates of average or maximum longevity alone were not useful in comparing rates of survival. Because survival in the first year of captivity may be lower than subsequent years, estimates of the expected lifespan, based on data from the first few years of captivity, may be biased.

Applying welfare science to bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316855744_Applying_welfare_science_to_bottlenose_dolphins_Tursiops_truncatus

Animal welfare science is a burgeoning field, but research on cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) is lacking. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are the most well-known and studied cetaceans, particularly in captivity, and thus are used in this review as a model for other cetacean species. Despite the public interest and need for such research, studies specifically investigating dolphin welfare are lacking. This review uses the three broad categories of behaviour, health, and cognition, to discuss how dolphin welfare has been assessed thus far, and could be assessed in future. We present welfare indicators validated in other species that could be applied to dolphins, including innovative measures, such as cognitive appraisal of emotions. We provide a summary of practical recommendations for validating the indicators of bottlenose dolphin welfare. This paper aims to stimulate further research into dolphin welfare which could improve the lives of the animals themselves and ultimately support regulatory decisions. We recommend uniting expertise in cetology and welfare science in order to develop a holistic approach to dolphin welfare assessment.

[sweatybrandon]

Aw thanks! Joanna was amazing, you could tell she’s just as engaged as Mr Attenborough! The Sally Lightfoot crabs and puffins were awesome! But those Orcas, o m ggg 😍😍😍 I never shut up about it either ha! What are your thoughts on aquariums? Our city one does an awful lot of research and tag-and-release rescue, but still, sharks and dugongs in tanks..? I’m not sure how I feel about it these days? But it does get people/kids interested in caring for the ocean though..! Xxxx

Puffins are the cutest little shits and I am sad that I don’t think I’ll get chance to see any this year unless I can get my friend to go to one of the islands with me before I go home for summer! But orcas are the most awesome things ever. Absolute bastards (obviously, they’re dolphins 😂) but that’s what makes them so fascinating! 

As for aquariums that is an interesting topic and I don’t feel guilty about being on tumblr to answer this as this is genuinely a question that could come up in my exam tomorrow!:

 Firstly, I am completely anti-captivity when it comes to cetaceans. We cannot make environments for them in captivity where they can exhibit their natural behaviors and a tank is just completely unsuitable for any cetacean for many reasons, and so any aquarium that associates itself with cetacean captivity is a big no-no for me (I am not talking about rescue centers that rehabilitate and release back to the wild here). 

For other animals, I think it depends on a species by species basis and on a facility by facility basis. For example, we have ‘Sea Life’ in the UK, and they will rescue and rehabilitate seals and most are released, however, some are not suitable for release for many factors and so are kept in captivity. Generally, the facilities I’ve seen these kept in I feel are suitable, although I have seen some which I did think were a bit small. I can’t really offer an opinion on dugongs as I don’t know enough about them, my studies are very UK centric so they’re not really coming up 😂, but my gut says that could be an iffy one, but again I don’t enough about them and how they get on in captivity to offer an informed opinion. Again, sharks I feel is a species by species basis as some sharks do absolutely fine in captivity whereas others really don’t. It really comes down to size at the end of the day, the smaller ones tend to be fine. Also, sharks are one of the species that can most benefit from ex-situ conservation efforts with around 40% of sharks and rays being vulnerable/endangered.

But at the end of the day aquariums do focus more on the charismatic animals, which often are not actually endangered and so you can’t really say that aquarium itself is a conservation effort, but it is very difficult to do ex-situ conservation for marine species for varying reasons. But for species we have managed to keep captive to a high level of animal welfare, it brings in money for conservation efforts for a lot of less charismatic fauna and as you said, promotes awareness of marine issues. And honestly, that last one is a massive deal. One of the big issues in marine conservation is the lack of awareness of issues, and thus, lack of funding. The scientific community has been talking about the issue of plastics for decades now and it is only recently where people are starting to care and now suddenly there is a lot of funding into plastic research. 

So to cut a long story short, I don’t think it is a black and white issue and there are many variables to be considered with each species and with each facility. Personally, I would, and encourage others, to avoid any facility which uses captive cetaceans or is affiliated with them. And for other facilities just do your research into the species kept there, the levels of animal welfare and the actual conservation work they do. Any good facility should be overall for the purpose of conservation if not it’s just for human entertainment and that does not sit well with me. Overall, the focus should be more on in-situ conservation, but funds are needed for that and often they come from aquariums.

Overall every captive facility should be able to meet the 5 freedoms:

Freedom from hunger and thirst

Freedom from discomfort

Freedom from pain, injury and disease

Freedom to express normal behaviour

Freedom from fear and distress

And if any of these can’t be met (number 4 has never been met with cetacean captivity!!) then the animal should not be kept.