#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.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Let's talk about zoo animal welfare for a second...

(And I want to preface this by saying I have a 4 year Bachelor degree in Animal Science (focusing in welfare and behaviour with a major in Canine and Equine Science) before I got sidetracked into zoo animals and did 3 internships working with wild canids, ungulates and marine mammals - this involved both hands on behaviour modification/desenitisation as well as hands off behavioural observation and welfare study. I worked for 2 years as a marine mammal specialist and worked specifically in facilities to improve husbandry, behavioural training and welfare practises.

I also worked in a facility in the Asia Pacific, working to improve welfare standards for bottlenose dolphins and continued to work with cetacean welfare researchers after this. I also did a course in zoo management, husbandry and welfare and this involved working in an accredited zoo facility learning things like exhibit design, behaviour management and husbandry with multiple species.)

So a few points to say about zoo animal welfare when discussing zoo standards and practises:

The average person does not have the expertise to do behaviour observation and welfare evaluation in zoo animals - that's why when the general public visits a zoo and says "the animal looks sad" it's worth being skeptical of that claim. But it doesn't mean a gut feeling about a zoo's quality can be completely invalid. Just that it might be worth researching further or seeking more information.

However, with experience, it is possible to analyse behaviour in the context of welfare. And context to that behaviour is always important (for example, Moo Deng showing stress related behaviour towards the specific context of being touched or followed around by her keeper - very much an indication of poor handling practises)

Poor animal husbandry and welfare is not limited to specific countries or regions, however it can be more normalised and accepted under the influnce of cultures and laws. Or even just the culture of the zoo itself such as the "this is the way we've always done it" places.

Being an accredited zoo is a start to good welfare, but it doesn't make any sort of welfare concern obsolete. And accreditation is supposed to ensure that welfare concerns are addressed but because they are mostly run as a volunteer based organisation, they often don't have resources to check into every concern (unless it's a government funded organisation)

A zoo contributing to conservation research is great, but not if it is at the expense of the animals' welfare - welfare should always be prioritised, with research and conservation efforts to follow.

Welfare is a state that is in flux. So a negative welfare state can move into positive welfare state under different influences.

There are multiple factors that influence zoo animal welfare: enclosure/habitat, expression of natural behaviour, guest interaction, diet, enrichment, water quality, hygeine ect. It'll rarely just be one factor, though it does depend how salient that factor is.

Just because a keeper or management of a zoo have been there for a long time, doesn't mean they can't be criticised - it is possible to be still using outdated practises and believing in methodologies and management practises that need updating - that's the whole point of continued education

Having limited resources can often impact welfare. Giving a facility the resources they need to improve is a good start to improving welfare.

Even if an animal is being handled in an inappropriate way for a short time, that doesn't mean that can't have long term implications for welfare eg. if every time your dog jumped on you when you got home and you smacked him in the face once before going on with your day, that doesn't mean that your dog won't learn negative associations with your arrival just because it was one time.

Best practise husbandry of zoo animals involves:

Use of positive reinforcement based voluntary husbandry and health care

All interaction based on choice and voluntary interaction that is reinforced with primary reinforcement such as food

Mostly hands off approaches for the species that require them (ungulates, large primates, large carnivores)

Relatively stable social groups with aggression only in specific situations/contexts that are normal for the species

Back areas for animals to rest outside of public view

Species appropriate habitats to meet species specific behaviour requirements

Five freedoms of welfare being met but goes above and beyond the bare minimum

Poor zoo animal husbandry involves animals:

Being forced into anything such as presentations, education programs, medical procedures/gating

Any use of physical punishment such as chasing, slapping, pushing or poking - negative reinforcement such as bull hooks are also fairly outdated in handling species like elephants

Being excessively handled, chased and touched/restrained for no reason (eg. for social media videos)

Showing signs of avoidance and aggression constantly towards their keepers

Have constant conflict happening in their social groups

Are living in enclosures that are not suitable for their specific specific needs - size is only one factor in this. Substrate, habitat design, water quality ect. are also things to consider.

Are too close to the public/at risk from the public

Have no areas to retreat from the public/rest away from potential stressors

Have no enrichment program/no daily enrichment

Those are all flags that there could be some poor welfare happening and that a zoo is not prioritising welfare

Okay there's the ramble of the day done. Feel free to ask questions for further clarification if needed.

[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.

[whaleexpertsanonymous]

OP hopping in! The Cetacean Welfare Study is a great starting point. It was published in 2021 and is a massive collaboration amongst 43 institutions looking into factors that affect the wellbeing of whales and dolphins in human care.

More Reddit screenshot fun!

[Mod commentary: It’s true… I support SeaWorld and other zoos because Steve Irwin told me to join his cult… crikey!]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Oooooh here we go. We have the cetacean “experts” joining in to justify the bad handling of Moo Deng and discrediting me/shooting the messenger because I support responsible cetacean management. Because everyone just made up their mind that you can’t give dolphins the habitat they need because “it’s not the ocean.”

But it’s apparently totally okay to give other species substandard habitats. I guess Moo Deng doesn’t really NEED to live in a jungle. Concrete is fine for her :)

Now we do know that dolphins can thrive in human care and “suffering all the time” isn’t actually the case (at least, not from this generalisation basis there can absolutely be poor welfare in bad facilities) and basically any time anyone mentions the word SeaWorld everyone loses the ability to critically think.

You know what we never do with cetaceans? Grab at and harass their babies for clout. The only time we ever interact with the calf in those early days is to check their health parameters. And it is always with active participation and consent.

It’s important that we make sure the calf is doing well, especially in those critical early days where the calf is so vulnerable. So, with positive reinforcement, we teach the mother to bring over her calf voluntarily and do a very gentle restraint to collect samples.

This is the only time we’re touching the calf. And not every facility does this either, some will stay completely hands off besides feeding the mother.

But this is how you do safe, respectful and stress free animal husbandry, actually using desensitisation and conditioning positive emotional responses to being handled:

When watching this video, keep in mind that restraining a dolphin physically with only a few people is almost impossible. This dolphin is staying with her carers because she trusts them and she has a relationship with them.

I know this dolphin and the people in this video. It’s an incredible thing to see cooperative care like this in action.

Commentary and tags like the one above goes to show how the “trust the keeper” argument is only for selective species that are being used for clout.

But trust the people who work with dolphins or orcas? Trust the people that work in dolphin welfare and who actively work to measure and improve it? No, because everyone and their dog are apparently cetacean welfare experts because they regurgitate Blackfish or the talking points of a handful of lobbyists parading as scientists.

And they’ll even use violent wording and thinly veiled death threats against keepers, justifying it with this idea that they want to “liberate” animals that they don’t have any idea about caring for.

Anyway here’s a bunch of research on dolphin welfare that supports positive welfare states in human care :)

• There are no scientific studies suggesting that dolphins in marine mammal facilities are more prone to disease than dolphins in the wild. In fact, peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that the immune systems of wild dolphins are much more challenged than the immune systems of dolphins in human care (refs 1-2)

• Similarly, there are no scientific studies suggesting that dolphins in marine mammal facilities are any more stressed than dolphins in the wild. On the contrary, studies have shown that cortisol levels (i.e., the “stress hormone”) of dolphins in marine mammal facilities are either very similar to, or lower than, cortisol levels of wild dolphins, depending on the technique used to obtain the samples (See review in ref 3).

• Bottlenose dolphins in U.S facilities are living as long or longer than their wild counterparts (ref 4)

• Average life expectancy from 2001-2015 was 41.6 years in SeaWorld orcas, showing significant improvements in veterinary care and welfare (ref 5)

• Aggression and agonistic behaviour made up 1-2% of observed behaviours in orcas at Loro Parque, debunking claims of hyper aggression and chronic stress from supposed poor social structures. (ref 6)

(1) Ruiz, C. L., Nollens, H. H., Venn-Watson, S., Green, L. G., Wells, R. S., Walsh, M. T., ... & Jacobson, E. R. (2009). Baseline circulating immunoglobulin G levels in managed collection and free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Developmental & Comparative Immunology, 33(4), 449-455.

(2) Fair, P. A., Schaefer, A. M., Houser, D. S., Bossart, G. D., Romano, T. A., Champagne, C. D., ... & Reif, J. S. (2017). The environment as a driver of immune and endocrine responses in dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0176202.

(3) Proie, S. (2013). A systematic review of cortisol levels in wild and captive Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), killer whale, (Orcinus orca), and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). MA Thesis, Evergreen State College.

(4) Jaakkola, K., & Willis, K. (2019). How long do dolphins live? Survival rates and life expectancies for bottlenose dolphins in zoological facilities vs. wild populations. Marine Mammal Science.

(5) Robeck, T. R., Willis, K., Scarpuzzi, M. R., & O’Brien, J. K. (2015). Comparisons of Life-History Parameters between Free-Ranging and Captive Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Populations for Application Toward Species Management. Journal of Mammalogy, 96(5), 1055–1070. http://doi.org/ 10.1093/jmammal/gyv113

(6) Sánchez-Hernández, P., Krasheninnikova, A., Almunia, J., & Molina-Borja, M. (2019). Social interaction analysis in captive orcas ( Orcinus orca ) . Zoo Biology, (April), 1–11. http://doi.org/ 10.1002/zoo.21502

Positive behavioural states are demonstrated in cetaceans in human care: Peer-reviewed scientific studies show that:

• Dolphins show anticipatory behaviors before sessions of interacting with their trainers (with no food involvement). This shows they view the interactions themselves as positive. (ref 1)

• An increase in dolphin behavioral diversity and play behavior following interactive programs suggest that such programs are in fact enriching for the dolphins and add to their psychological well-being (refs 2-3).

• Dolphins observed swimming in sync with each other at zoological facilities displayed optimistic judgements in optimistic bias tests, indicating positive welfare. (ref 4)

• When given the choice, dolphins in one study showed a preference for being in a smaller pool, despite having access to larger pools, indicating that size of pool may not be influencing dolphin movement preferences. (ref 5)

(1) Clegg, I. L., Rödel, H. G., Boivin, X., & Delfour, F. (2018). Looking forward to interacting with their caretakers: dolphins’ anticipatory behaviour indicates motivation to participate in specific events. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 202, 85-93.

(2) Miller, L. J., Mellen, J., Greer, T., & Kuczaj, S. A. (2011). The effects of education programmes on Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Animal Welfare, 20, 159-172.

(3) Trone, M., Kuczaj, S., & Solangi, M. (2005). Does participation in Dolphin–Human Interaction Programs affect bottlenose dolphin behaviour? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 93, 363-374.

(4) Clegg, I. L., Rödel, H. G., & Delfour, F. (2017). Bottlenose dolphins engaging in more social affiliative behaviour judge ambiguous cues more optimistically. Behavioural brain research, 322, 115-122.

(5) Melissa R. Shyan , David Merritt, N. M., & Kohlmeier, K. B. & J. T. (2010). Effects of Pool Size on Free- Choice Selections by Atlantic Bottlenosed Dolphins at One Zoo Facility. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5(3), 203–213. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0503

Note how this is a body of evidence from multiple sources that are being developed and complied over time. That is what science is all about.

Anyone who tells you that the science is finalised on something eg. Lori Marino and Naomi Rose insisting that the science is settled on cetacean welfare being inherently bad in human care - be very very skeptical of them. They are trying to sell you ideology over science (and they’d love for you to donate your money to their sanctuary that hasn’t passed any approval to build for 5 years)

The science is rarely “settled” on anything.

As for SeaWorld themselves, they have not published enough welfare data for us to discuss. But their animals do show signs of positive welfare states including active participation in health care and training, engagement with enrichment, ability to learn and adapt (stressed animals can’t learn complex behaviours and won’t participate in sessions), stable social structures with occasional conflict ect.

[nasa]

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.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

This global multi institutional study of cetacean welfare would beg to differ... More data needed on orcas, but bottlenose dolphins in particular are doing very well in accredited facilities. Even better than healthy wild populations according to this recent study:

Meanwhile, oppositions of cetaceans in managed care put out papers with no substantial welfare data to support themselves. Their papers are widely condemned by the cetacean research community and was used as a case study of poor science undermining productive discourse.

You can listen to experts of cetacean welfare in human care and in the wild discuss the current research here

Are there other animals that cannot ethically be contained indefinitely, but are?

most cetaceans, especially orcas

[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.

[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))

[csnews]

Unlikely partnership in Sri Lanka works to preserve whale habitat

Maria Cheng - March 5, 2019

Business interests and conservationists are often at odds. But in a busy shipping line near Sri Lanka that is also a feeding ground for blue whales executives are willing to move their traffic to lower ship strikes at their own expense.

When the feeding grounds of blue whales overlap with busy shipping lanes, business interests often supersede those of the endangered marine mammals.

But in Sri Lanka, an unusual alliance has been forged: conservationists and shipping companies have aligned in a bid to move the heavily-trafficked lane about 17 miles away to help avoid collisions between whales and freighters. The only holdout is Sri Lanka, which has so far declined to sign off on the proposal, jeopardizing the future there of the biggest animal ever known to have lived on the planet, scientists say.

The hundreds of blue whales in Sri Lankan waters – marine biologists estimate there are 600 to 1,500 – feed on tiny shrimp in the shipping lane, and are also believed to mate and give birth nearby. Shipping executives say they would gladly relocate the traffic corridor, recognizing their ships would be safer in waters not already clogged with fishing vessels, whale-watching boats, and the whales themselves, which can grow to more than 100 feet, more than twice the length of a Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaur.

Bryan Wood-Thomas, vice president of the World Shipping Council, said the group wrote to the Sri Lankan prime minister in 2017, affirming that all major international shipping organizations believed Sri Lanka should work with the United Nations to move its traffic lane.

"This is one of the few cases in the world where we can physically separate ships from where the whales are," Mr. Wood-Thomas said. "Yes, it adds a little distance, fuel, and money to shipping costs, but the extra cost is really minor."

He said it was no small feat to get the majority of the world's shipping companies to agree to move the shipping lane in Sri Lanka.

"There are other places in the world where doing this would incur significant fuel costs or add a lot of time to the journey that businesses will not be happy to absorb," he said.

For a shipping lane to be moved, the country whose waters are most affected must submit a formal proposal to the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency that regulates shipping. Despite numerous meetings between scientists, the shipping industry and UN officials during the past six years, Sri Lankan officials have demurred from supporting the shipping lane shift.

Rear Adm. Rohana Perera of Sri Lanka's Marine Environment Protection Authority said the government is concerned about the economic impact of the proposed shipping lane move on its ports, fearing passing ships might not be as inclined to stop in Sri Lanka. He said a decision would "hopefully" be made in March.

The recent political turmoil in Sri Lanka has also complicated matters; a new government was only formed in late December after the president sacked the prime minister, prompting a constitutional crisis. Mr. Perera acknowledged Sri Lanka had other priorities at the moment, but said they also recognized the importance of protecting blue whales.

"Conservation problems are usually so complex, but this one is very clear-cut," said Asha de Vos, executive director of Oceanswell, a Sri Lankan marine nonprofit. "This is a situation where Sri Lanka could really shine by taking the initiative."

In many parts of the world, there is no easy solution to the convergence of ships and cetaceans.

For example, scientists have long been worried about the sperm whales that live in the Straits of Gibraltar, but have few solutions.

"It's an incredibly busy area for shipping, but unfortunately, there's not much scope for moving the shipping lane because the straits are so narrow," said Russell Leaper, the scientific lead for blue whales at the International Fund for Animal Welfare, a conservation group.

Once hunted to the brink of extinction, the blue whale population has slowly begun to rebound since being granted protection from commercial whaling in 1946. Due to their size, the whales' only known predators are orcas and humans. Conservationists estimate there are between 5,000 and 15,000 blue whales globally and although their numbers are believed to be increasing, they are still classified as "endangered."

Scientists warn that blue whales in Sri Lanka are particularly vulnerable because they are the only population that doesn't migrate, making them especially susceptible to local threats such as ship strikes, Mr. Leaper said.

"It's a very unusual population because they're very isolated and they are in Sri Lanka all year around," he said. "Removing that one threat of ship strikes would make a very large contribution to saving them."

Although statistics on how many whales are killed by ships are patchy, some studies estimate dozens of blue whales are fatally struck by ships in Sri Lankan waters every year. Scientists say they believe that for every blue whale identified in a ship accident, up to 50 others go undetected, largely because once whales are struck and killed, they sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Michael Fishbach, executive director of the Great Whale Conservancy, said that protecting blue whales is crucial not just for the species, but for the planet. He explained that whales help stimulate the production of plankton, which in turn produces more oxygen to offset the impact of climate change.

"For the health of the oceans, we really need more whales," Mr. Fishbach said.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

It's fascinating to me how many people are anti ARA but are still sold on their bullshit about cetaceans in human care.

The problem is that the cetacean ARAs are clever enough to figure out how to exploit the system and get really bad science published in journals that are okay with getting hype articles - for example the Jett et. al orca teeth paper was authored by activists and it was picked up by several outlets. It didn't have any actual veterinary examination of the animals' teeth but made unfounded claims that orcas were in constant pain from worn down teeth.

Another example with the Marino et. al 2019 paper that claimed orcas were suffering from chronic stress in captivity. They got that paper published through the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour who didn't have a single person on the review board that had any background in marine mammals. But they approved the paper because they agreed with it's premise.

Problem is that the paper was bad science at best and flat out scientific malpractice at worse - huge claims were made with zero citations or miscited sources. For example they used research of soldiers with PTSD to compare to orcas in human care. I don't think I need to explain how absurd that is but if you seriously think that those two are remotely comparable you need to do some more research and understand that human brains and orca brains are separated by thousands of years of evolution.

Meanwhile actual research? Like the recent 23 papers from a 4 year study with extensive data taken from 43 accredited facilities around the world? The one that reported that enrichment was more important to welfare than environment? The media barely covered it. The paper that reported bottlenose dolphins in US facilities are living as long or longer than their wild counterparts - barely a peep from the media. Because good news doesn't get clickbait the way "Orcas have PTSD from captivity" gets.

They're trying really hard to convince the public that the conversation is over and that there's no more research to be done. They are lying to you because they know if it was truly based on scientific fact they do not have the data to back themselves up. Because they haven't done a single welfare examination of these animals. We have.

Just because the loudest voices are getting more coverage doesn't make them right.

Seaworld is a good example of people certainly not being immune to propaganda. If you believe PETA, the dodo, and other ARA articles and campaigns more than what AZA facilities have to say on the matter, there is a good chance you may not be on the right side of history so to speak. The people who think all male calves are shot at birth/tossed out to die and that sheep are skinned alive for their wool MIGHT just not know what they’re talking about when it comes to marine life either.

[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.