Captive Whale Shows: eco-tourism provides alternatives

Following up on my November 10, 2013 post regarding the fate of orcas kept in captivity in aquatic amusement parks like Sea World, the public pressure seems to be continuing as several major contemporary music acts have cancelled their appearances at Sea World, thereby gutting a major entertainment series Sea World was heavily promoting.

As important as the environmental issue is regarding captive orcas and dolphins, it will be changes in economics that will be the actual thumbscrew to bring about change.  Less paying customers at the gate will most certainly catch the attention of Sea World management.

At present Sea World is waging an aggressive public relations campaign that refutes many of the assertions made in the documentary, Blackfish, which has greatly accelerated the debate.  Sea World claims that many of their other more admirable marine mammal activities are funded by the revenue drawn from the whale and dolphin shows, and that may be correct.  For Sea World to change its course would require a major change in revenue acquisition and distribution.  

At the same time, there are other alternatives to Sea World for the public to see whales.  Whale watching is one such activity and competing tourism operations in the San Diego area are capitalizing on Sea World's woes by promoting their own eco-tourism whale watching operations.

The Marriott International Corporation, with its many hotels in the San Diego area, are promoting their whale watching program.  This is the time of year for observing migrating gray whales as they cruise along the California coast, on their way to Baja, Mexico. 

The following infographic illustrates the gray whale migration and when they pass by the waters off San Diego.  The infographic was "Powered by Marriott."

Seeing whales in the wild in California, whether it be gray whales, blue whales, or even a pod of orcas (which recently cruised the California coast ), this is a much more natural and respectful manner in which to better appreciate these marine mammals for what they truly are - magnificent marvels of the oceans, not trained servants jumping through hoops.                       
Many thanks to the Marriott corporation for the use of the infographic.  If you would like to read more about whale watching and the program that the Marriott has available, click here.                  
Source: Marriott International Corporation

Orcas on Parade: time to close the circus of marine mamals

Throughout 2013, there has been a spike in interest as to whether or not organizations like Sea World should have marine mammals like whales, particularly orcas or "killer whales," dolphins, porpoises, and even seals and sea lions in captivity.  Part of this heightened interest has been due to the release of the documentary "Blackfish" which recently was aired to much fanfare and additional news programming material on CNN.

In the documnetary, the 2010 death of orca trainer Dawn Brancheau by the orca named "Tilikum" at Sea World's amusement park, in Orlando, Florida, was investigated.  The details leading up to that tragic incident and the subsequent aftermath was used to look at the broader history of orcas in captivity and the impact on the animals physical and psychological condition.

In past posts, I have expressed my views regarding maintaining marine mammal like whales and dolphins in captivity for entertainment purposes. (Click here, and here.)  For whatever, broad educational or even research purpose it may have served, dating back as much as fifty years, that rationale has run its course.   

My initial first-hand experience with whales and dolphins was in the early 60's at Southern California's Marineland of the Pacific, watching pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins leaping into the air and jumping through fiery hoops.  It was impressive to see such animals and to wonder if there was something more to these animals' purpose than the simple commodity by which they were being viewed by segments of the commercial fishing industry.  From those early days, the public slowly became aware of the social intricacies of these animals, their advanced forms of communication and echolocation for hunting, and their threatened existence due to aggressive whale hunting.  Attitudes and policies slowly shifted as a steady stream of scientific research and facts changed our perception of these animals, and the fate of several species have benefited significantly for it.

Through this entire process of awareness, one activity remained virtually unchanged in the face of new facts: the use of marine mammals as entertainment. What science didn't know then, we know now.  And we know better. 

While there are many aquatic amusement parks throughout the world, Sea World is by far the largest and most extensive organization.  It is involved in four different areas of research and/or entertainment: traditional aquaria, marine research, marine animal rescue & rehabilitation, and aquatic amusement park.  To give Sea World a measure of credit, it has been responsible for some significant marine research and animal rescue and rehab work.  And it has fulfilled the traditional role of combining education and entertainment through some of its aquarium settings.  However, its role as an aquatic amusement park has become its flagship activity and the most easily marketable one.  Having the public watch whales and dolphins do tricks is what Sea World is known for; it is a major revenue stream for the organization and, ironically, helps support the other activities.

From a purely business perspective, to radically alter the Sea World business model by eliminating its whale, dolphin, and seal programs, would be a very risky step.  Marine mammal shows have been a cash cow for so long, it would be hard to walk away from it.  This is the same dilemma environmentalists face in dealing with the energy companies.  Regardless of the obvious benefits to the environment from a major shift to alternative energy, the extant of change required to the established business model, the disruption of the status quo, is more than the energy companies are prepared to willingly endure.  However, if a change in public perception were to occur and, by extension, a change in attitude regarding marine mammals for entertainment purposes that equates to diminishing ticket sales, then Sea World's decision could possibly be made for them by the demands of the marketplace.

Some defenders of Sea World have compared the whale and dolphin shows to that of zoos and aquariums; that the public learns about orcas through these shows just like someone learns about tigers at a zoo.  I beg to differ.  Zoos and aquariums strive to show animals in as natural of an environment as possible, so that people can develop an appreciation for the animal in a more real world setting, seeing them behave as they would in the wild.  To be sure, zoos and aquariums are not without fault.  We have all seen animals in confinement exhibit unnatural behaviors - from the path habits of pacing big cats in bleak cages to the neurotic ticks and twitches of elephants - and there are the occasional entertainment shows with monkeys or exotic birds.  But zoos and aquariums have evolved to gain a better appreciation of their role and it has been reflected in improved exhibits for the animals' physical and psychological needs and a dedication to informing the public as to the ecological importance of the animals.  One goes to the zoo to see the tiger and marvel at an important jungle predator - not to see it jump through a hoop.

Perhaps, decades ago, going to a whale or dolphin show was the only way a person could learn anything about these animals and come away with some degree of awareness and appreciation.  However, in light of the amount of written material, pictures, and films or videos about whales and dolphins in today's information age, it is impossible to justify keeping pelagic marine mammals in confining concrete enclosures and having them leap in the air on command as the price to be paid for our knowledge and enlightenment.

But what is it about seeing a whale give a trainer a ride on its back that attracts the general public?  Why does seeing a dolphin shake its head back and forth and squeal for a hand-delivered fish fill the seats?  Why are we entertained when a sea lion balances a ball on its nose while clapping its flippers?  Sadly, people will pay money to watch these stupid tricks because, regardless of what is said at the time regarding the animals intelligence, it humors our sense of superiority.  

For some people, it is unsettling deep down to realize there are other creatures on this planet who have unique abilities that equal or even surpass our own.  We must be the dominant species, in their minds, and so they are only prepared to consider an orca as something more than a "dumb fish" if it can demonstrate it by doing something demeaning, something that it would never do on its own in its natural environment.  It does it because we, the vastly superior species, taught it to do so.  With each and every marine mammal show, consciously or unconsciously, our human arrogance is what is being put on display.

And it is that insecure pomposity with our role in the natural order of things that continues to feed Sea World's coffers.  When more people realize that no aquatic amusement park can provide suitable confinement for a marine mammal who - by virtue of its size or its echolocation, radar-like abilities - requires both space and nurturing social interaction, then organizations like Sea World and others around the world will change.  These are businesses that are providing what the public wants to see.  We must see these animals in a new light just as we must see our role and purpose on this planet in a whole new light.

We know better. 

Source: Sea World
Source: Blackfish 
Source: RTSea posts 1, 2 & 3                                        

Orca Goes To Court: Free Morgan campaign to release captive marine mammal

At the recent BLUE Ocean Film Festival, I had the opportunity to learn about Morgan, a female orca that was found alone and in poor health in the waters off the Netherlands.  She was taken by a government-sanctioned rehabilitation agency with the idea that Morgan would be brought back to health and released back to her family pod.  In a very complicated series of events that are now being sorted out in the courts, Morgan was instead turned over to Loro Parque, a Spanish aquatic amusement park in the Canary Islands.

As advocates for Morgan's release, she has many supporters (In the interest of full disclosure, I have previously stated in this blog (here, here, and here) that I am opposed to keeping cetecea like orcas and dolphins in captivity.  I believe the time has to recognize that we have learned enough since the first orca or dolphin was placed in captivity to know that it is not in the best interests of the animals to continue the practice - we now know better).

I had the chance to learn about Morgan's situation firsthand from people like Jean-Michel Cousteau and, in particular, Ingrid Visser, PhD. - a whale researcher who is probably one of Morgan's most committed supporters.  I spoke with Ingrid about Morgan's plight at the BLUE Ocean Film Festival and we agreed to follow up after the festival with an interview.

RTSea: You are deeply involved in the plight of Morgan, a young female orca, currently being held in an amusement park in Spain, but before we look into Morgan's situation, can you tell us a bit about your background?  What initially fueled your interest in studying cetacea (whales and dolphins)?

Ingrid Visser: I’ve been interested in cetaceans for as long as I can remember – I must have been 5 or 6 years old when I first remember knowing that I wanted to work with them.  However, as I kid I was told that the only way I could do that was to work with them at SeaWorld, but even at that age I knew how wrong those types of places were for the animals and I strove to find another way.  I’ve now been working with wild orca for over 20 years.

RTS:  How would you best describe the role of whales and dolphins in the marine ecosystem?  The ramifications from the loss of some marine species has been documented and for other threatened species the adverse impacts have theorized.  What do you see as the impact to the overall marine ecosystem with the possible loss of some cetacea species?  What is the possible cascade effect?

IV: If we use orca (killer whales) as an example of the cascade effect of their removal, the implications are almost so wide-ranging as to defy imagination.  Orca are what we term an ‘apex predator’ (sitting right at the top of the food web) so their removal would have ramifications for their prey but also for the whole food chain.   Orca are also known as a ‘keystone’ species (which is a term that comes from arched doorways made of bricks, where the stone at the top of the arch keeps the whole thing together and if you remove it, the whole arch will collapse).  With this type terminology and it’s definition, I would hope that no further explanation is necessary!

However, orca can also be described by another term, and that is an ‘umbrella species’.  In this definition, the idea is that if you protect them and their habitat, by default that acts as an umbrella, protecting everything that naturally falls under their reach – in this case, pretty much the whole ocean!  Returning young female orca to the wild has been successfully completed (with ‘Springer’  [a rehabilitated orca] now being reunited with her family for over 10 years).  There are details about her and her remarkable parallels to Morgan, on our website.

RTS: Morgan was originally found in the cold waters off the northwest coast of the Netherlands.  She was found emaciated and dehydrated.  What reasons do whale researchers give for her condition at the time of her capture?

IV: We don’t know what happened to Morgan, we don’t know why she was alone or why she was emaciated and dehydrated.  The reasons could range from the logical to the bizarre and just about anything in between.  We don’t like to speculate about this sort of thing, as that can taint how we look at the next steps (rehabilitation and release).  However, as I know that people are often asking this very question, I’d say this – how is that any young animal (or for that matter, human) gets lost and separated from their family?  It could be a simple thing such as the parent (or offspring) getting distracted and wandering off (think of the number of kids who get lost at supermarkets or shopping malls!), or it could be something much more sinister, where the parent was injured in some way (perhaps run over by a boat) and the youngster (Morgan in this case), fled in fright.  Of course, we also can’t rule out that it was something more natural – such as her mother dying of old age.

But, regardless of the original cause of Morgan being alone, she needed help.  This was given, but unfortunately from that point on, she became a valuable commodity in the captivity industry and they don’t want to let her go.  People have called into question why humans had intervened at all and some have said that she should have been left to die.  There are arguments both for and against this method of response (or lack of).  They are a little too intense to go into here, but I would say this; that as a species we have done so much to harm the ocean and it’s creatures, that if we can do something to help right that balance, then I think that we should do that.  As it turns out, Morgan is from the Norwegian population of orca, which was hunted extensively (over 2000 taken).  Studies have shown that the most vulnerable demographic to remove from such a population of orca, is young females.  Conversely, if you want to help such a population recover, logically, returning young females makes the most sense.

RTS: Morgan was brought back to health under a rehabilitation program that would have culminated in her release back to her original family pod.  However, at the 11th hour, a Netherlands court judge ruled that Morgan should be turned over to Loro Parque, a Spanish aquatic theme park in the Canary Islands.  On what grounds did the judge override the opinions of whale rehabilitation experts who were anticipating  that Morgan would be released back into open water?

IV: There were in fact two judges, in two separate hearings (and there will be three judges in the next hearing).  Confused yet?  It is actually a very complicated process and to try and simmer it down to a few key points it should be kept in mind that the Court case is still the same one (there have just been three hearings for the same case).  Also, it should be remembered that the case is against the Netherlands Government for allowing the Dolfinarium Harderwijk, to police their own work.  In other words, they were issued with a ‘rehabilitation and release’ permit, but that permit has a clause that says ‘unless the animals is deemed to not be suitable for release’.  And therein lies the rub.  There is no external vetting process to decide which animals is ready to go back or not.  The Dolfinarium Harderwijk was extremely duplicitous in their methods.

For instance, they told the public (and we have evidence of this) that Morgan was ‘only a toddler, and still dependent on milk’, yet, they never gave her any milk and only ever fed her dead fish.  They also told the public that Morgan was only 2 years old. Yet, when we compared her length to that of 29 other orca (for whom we knew their age at a similar size), we found that she was at least 3 years old, and possibly even up to the age of 5.   This has implications in terms of weaning (most orca are fully weaned by the time they are 3 years old, but some even earlier).  Also, this has implications in terms of her foraging skills and her language skills.  Regardless, the entertainment park lied and also provided this distorted information to their ‘seven experts’, causing them to form opinions based on misleading information.  These ‘Seven Experts’ were four whale biologists, two seabird ecologists and an ex SeaWorld Veterinarian.   When the four whale experts were given the full data set (which included other info), each of them withdrew their support to keep Morgan in captivity and said that she should at the very least be moved to a sea pen and she should be given the chance to go back to her family.

RTS: Was it a question of the judge questioning Morgan's fitness and odds of success or was the judge influenced by the theme park organization, who would obviously benefit financially by acquiring Morgan?

IV: The financial benefits of Morgan, to the captivity industry are difficult define, because the industry keeps their cards very close to their chest when it comes to things like this.  However, we do know that one female orca had been insured for US$10 million.  That implied that Morgan is worth at least that much to them.  But, if we take into account that Morgan is the first orca to come into the captivity industry, from the wild, in 25 years, her dollar value escalates considerably.  Add to that the fact that of the 44 orca in captivity at the time of her capture, all but 2 were related to each other (and of those two, one had given birth to six calves, all of whom had died and the other was a male who they had not managed to collect semen from, so they had been unable to bred him as he was held in a tank, alone, in Argentina).  To make things even more interesting, the public should know that SeaWorld has allowed mothers to breed with sons – indicating that inbreeding is fairly rampant in this industry.  Morgan’s new blood line represents the life-line for this industry, where the average age for a captive orca less than nine years (compared to wild orca, where the average age is more than 40 years and individuals are known to live beyond 80 years).

RTS: Another court hearing is scheduled for November 1st in the Netherlands to review the judge's ruling on Morgan.  What strategy are you and your colleagues taking to argue for Morgan's release, and what do you think the counter-arguments are going to be in favor of maintaining Morgan's captivity?

IV: Morgan’s court case is an on-going case.  The strategy remains the same as the last two hearings, in that we believe that legally the Netherlands Government has violated various laws, treaties and conventions and we call them to task on those aspects.  Additionally, we will be presenting documentation that shows that Morgan is suffering immensely at Loro Parque, where she has been transported.  At that entertainment park, she is made to perform in shows (which is a violation of her EU CITES Transport permit), she is subjected to intense sexual pressure from an adult male (because as explained above, the industry desperately wants to breed from her, but additionally, if she is pregnant it will present a number of problems with regards to releasing her as her calf would be a hybrid and furthermore she would be an unnaturally young mother – orca in the wild don’t normally give birth until they are around 12-14 years of age – and Morgan is roughly half that age.  Loro Parque has bred one of their other female at the tender age of 7, the youngest any orca has been forced to breed).  We will also be presenting evidence that shows that the park do not know how to deal with a wild-born orca and that they are negligent in their care of Morgan.

Loro Parque is now claiming (after Morgan had been given a ‘clean bill of health’) that she is ‘deaf’.  Their claims are based purely on some behavioural responses that she gives (or rather doesn’t give).  They state that she doesn’t respond to their whistles.  I have personally watched her not respond to some of the whistles, but respond to others.  Furthermore, she also chooses which hand-signals to respond to as well.  By their logic this would mean that Morgan was also blind!  Regardless, Loro Parque has had more than 11 months to text Morgan’s hearing, yet they haven’t.  This begs the question, why not?  And my suspicion is that they don’t want to find out that she isn’t deaf.  The seed of doubt is enough to cloud the arguments and that is all they require.

RTS: The Free Morgan Foundation's website (www.freemorgan.org) has amassed a considerable amount of detailed information regarding Morgan's history, the legal positions and motions filed, and even information about Morgan's family pod.  Of course the foundation would welcome any financial support from concerned individuals and organizations, but what else can concerned people do to help?

IV: We have a ‘How to Help’ page, with some suggestions.  We certainly want the world to sit up and notice Morgan.  She isn’t the first orca (or dolphin) to be taken into captivity for ‘rehabilitation and release’ and then ended up in a life of performing circus tricks in a featureless box.  She won’t be the last and sadly, for these animals, the only retirement they get is when they die.  We need the public to realize just how bad the industry is and that they have been misleading the public for years.  The truth has to come out. 

We have ‘pledges’ that people can take (such as to never by a ticket to a park which holds whales or dolphins), we have a petition, which at the time of writing is at around 35,000 signatures, for Morgan’s release (which we will show the Judges and tell them ‘be careful what you do, as the world is watching’).  We have a facebook page (www.facebook.com/freemorgan.org) and we are trying to spread the word through the social media.  We have a twitter account @free_morgan so you can get info about her as we get news.  If any of your readers know of any celebrities who would be willing to stand up and say something for Morgan, on their own twitter account or their own facebook page, they would help spread the world exponentially.

Visit www.freemorgan.org.     

Marine Mammals in Captivity: industry support group uses survey to paint a positive picture

The value of aquariums, zoos and marine parks can be debated on many different levels. It's not a cut and dry issue; good or bad, right or wrong.  Much depends on the particular venue itself.  There can be poorly run facilities that do not provide a safe or healthy environment for the animals  - the news media is always eager to pounce on those places, as well they should. And then there are others that provide as natural of a habitat as possible and stress more of a learning experience for the visitor.  Those are the best of breed.

I have agreed with the position that a properly designed and managed facility can provide the means for the general public to see and appreciate animals that they would normally not ever see in they're day-to-day lives.  And if properly presented and supported by educational information, aquariums and zoos can enlighten the visitors as to the delicate and precarious lives these animals experience in the wild thanks to the often negative impact mankind has had on the environment.

The Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums is an organization representing ocean-themed amusement parks like Sea World, UNEXSO Dolphin Experience, Georgia Aquarium, and others.  It affiliates itself with many of the professional accreditation and regulatory agencies and research organizations like the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums, but the bottom line is it is a professional organization representing a particular segment of the entertainment industry.  It's job is to collectively represent many different marine mammal venues and help put their best foot forward.

The Alliance issued a press release on Monday: "Public Confirms Overwhelming Support for Important Conservation Education Missions of Marine Parks, Aquariums, and Zoos."   It summarized the results of public polls released in 2005 and 2012 which showed great support for these venues as places where people learned to appreciate marine mammals and by extension develop a greater respect for them.

"Ninety-seven percent of people agree that marine life parks, aquariums and zoos are important because they educate children about marine mammals - animals that children might not have the opportunity to see in the wild. In addition, many continue to feel that people are more likely to be concerned about animals if they learn about them at marine life parks, aquariums and zoos. In both 2012 and 2005, 93 percent agreed with this statement."

Initially, this all seems very encouraging both for conservationists and for the parks themselves.  However, a quote by the Alliance's director caught my attention.

"People feel that being able to connect with dolphins, killer whales, beluga whales and other marine mammals in facilities is important for education and conservation," said Marilee Menard, executive director of the Alliance. "This is clear not only from the consistent support over time, as demonstrated by the two polls, but by the 45 million people who visit Alliance-accredited marine life parks, aquariums and zoos every year."

Dolphins, killer whales, and beluga whales.  Does the public fully understand the natural conditions these animals normally thrive in, particularly the dolphins and orcas (I prefer that name over killer whale) as pelagic animals that utilize echolocation and other advanced faculties of aquatic communication?

Full confession: as much as I can see value in aquariums and zoos, I am opposed to the keeping of dolphins and orcas and other whales in captivity.  No facility is capable of providing a large enough habitat where these animals can move freely and utilize the full range of their natural abilities.  For them, captivity is most stifling and there are documented cases of unnatural, dare I say neurotic, behavior in captive whales and dolphins.  I side with the position taken by Jean Michel Cousteau that these animals should not be kept in marine parks and trained to do tricks for the amusement of the crowd.

Unfortunately, these animals, who, ultimately, become simply attractions to sell tickets, are huge money makers for these parks.  So the public relations strategy to protect their cash cows focuses on admitting nothing that could be construed as negative and strengthen their position by showing that the general public is on their side - a survey.

"Additionally, the latest poll found that 89 percent agree that children learn more about marine mammals at an aquarium or zoo than in a school classroom, and 88 percent agree that you can learn about animals at marine parks in a way that can't be replicated by watching film or TV programs. Some 91 percent agree that seeing a marine mammal at these facilities fosters a connection to the animal."

That statement is more a criticism of the educational system and entertainment media than it is an endorsement of marine mammal parks.  As a media consultant, I know full well how surveys can be structured to produce the results you want.  A totally unbiased survey - even when prepared by an "independent" firm, as this one was - is indeed a rarity.  Did any of the questions mention that these marine mammals normally live in open ocean and use echolocation and other vocal sounds, which travel great distances, to communicate and establish close social bonds within groups of animals?  And that in captivity, these abilities are hampered by small enclosures that do not allow for a normal amount of movement or transmission of sounds (a bit like being in an echo chamber).  Would the survey respondents answer favorably if they were aware that those are the conditions in which these animals are confined?

No, let's not lay out the whole story.  Let's just get their reactions to seeing a whale jump through a hoop or balance a ball on its head.  Tell the ticket holders all about how amazing these animals are and convince them that their handlers care for the animals (which I actually truly believe is the case among the handlers and veterinarians involved), but dance around the fact that it is not practical or feasible to provide a natural and healthy environment for these animals.  Ask the right questions and it's easy to get people on your side.  

The Alliance's survey has one singular purpose: distraction.  It whitewashes the issue of how animals like dolphins and orcas exist in the wild by tallying up public support from a public who does not have a full picture or understanding of the situation.  Put up a good front, then let the revenue roll in.

Source: Business Wire

Captive Marine Mammals: old news or still simmering?

Since the tragic death of an orca trainer at Florida's Sea World, there has been an ongoing discussion among many ocean conservationists regarding whether orcas, dolphins, and other marine mammals should remain in captivity.

David Shiffman of the blog, Country Fried Science, weighed in on the subject with an interview with Jean-Michel Cousteau, founder of the Ocean Futures Society. David has received many comments to his post, ranging from the release of all orcas currently in captivity, condemnation of aquatic amusement parks like Sea World, condemnations of all aquariums, to defending such institutions on their educational value.

You can read the posting and decide (or comment) for yourself. I have included my comment to David's posting:

"As a shark advocate/ocean conservationist, filmmaker, and someone who was a dive volunteer at a major aquarium for many years, my position is:
* I agree with Jean-Michel that releasing all currently captive orcas and dolphins would not be feasible or broadly successful.
* I have seen firsthand the educational value of aquariums and zoos, but there is a definite difference between an aquarium and an aquatic amusement park.
* Some species – like whales, dolphins, and other pelagics – are typically not suitable animals for captivity because their open-water lifestyle can not be replicated. (White and whale sharks and tuna are current exceptions but they require enormous enclosures and it’s new – the jury is still out as to their long-term health.)
* Seeing these animals in the wild or with today’s multimedia technology (surround theaters, 3D, etc.) can be suitable alternatives.
* I too was inspired to love the sea as a child watching Bubbles, the pilot whale, do tricks at Marineland. But that’s not the only way to develop an appreciation for marine life and I would like to think that we are, albeit slowly, finding better ways to promote conservation.
* I would hope that the days of “educating” people by seeing dolphins jump through hoops of fire and seals balancing a ball on their nose is coming to a close. But because of the economic incentives at hand, I’m afraid it will be a slow evolution."

There is no easy answer to this issue, with powerful economic forces at work and the potential for some form of enlightenment at hand, but I believe it's time for a change in approach to presenting these open-water animals to the public.

What do you think?