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.     

Orcas: living with Mom means a longer life

While humans bemoan the current lack of opportunities for young adults, leading to offspring living with their parents long past when it is thought they should be on their own, apparently that is not the case for orcas.

A recent study by scientists from the UK's University of Exeter showed that females can live as much as 50 years after the birth of their offspring and the reason for this extended period of menopause is that the presence of mothers ensured the survival of young adults to breeding age.

Reported in BBC Nature News, "In killer whale society, the young never leave their mothers, remaining in a single group. 'With this close association, older mothers have the opportunity to increase the transmission of their genes by helping their adult offspring survive and reproduce,' said Dr Croft [who lead the study]. Researchers theorized that living longer in order to protect their sons could represent the wisest investment for orca mothers."

The researchers analyzed over 36 years worth of records regarding various orca families or pods.  They determined that orcas who lost their mothers had a 3 to 14 times greater chance, depending on gender, to not survive beyond a year after the mother's death.  
However, the big question still remains: What is it that the mother orcas are doing that increases the survivability of their offspring?

"We simply don't know just how mothers are increasing the survival of their adult male offspring," said Dr Croft. "Anecdotal observations suggest that mothers may help adult sons with foraging or providing support during aggressive interactions. This is one of the things we hope to work on in the future."

So maybe that's why junior continues to bring his laundry home to Mom and raid the fridge.  Survivability.

Source: BBC Nature News

          

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

Puget Sound Orca Fatality: Canadian naval exercises may be a root cause

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is conducting an investigation into the death of an Orca, aka Killer Whale, that was found bruised and bleeding on a Washington state shoreline in early February. Test are being conducted to determine the exact cause of death but one likely candidate, according to several whale conservation groups, is Canadian naval war games - including the use of underwater sonar - that took place nearby just a few days prior to the orca washing ashore at Puget Sound.

As reported by the QMI Agency for Canada's IFPress.com, Brian Gorman of NOAA said, "We take really seriously any kind of injury, or certainly death, in the population, as there are so few animals. They don't interbreed to any great degree...so if you lose one or two animals, it's a serious threat to the overall health of the population."

The dead orca was a member of a pod of endangered orcas that ply the waters between Washington state and British Columbia. The pod consists of only 90 whales and are protected by the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act - at least when they are in US waters.

According to the Center for Whale Research, the pod was spotted soon after the Canadian naval exercise began in waters much further south than normal for these whales. Something was driving them southward.

"HMCS Ottawa [the frigate involved in the exercise] used its sonar system in critical habitat of the endangered southern resident killer whales," the Center for Whale Research said. "The unprecedented appearance of these whales in these waters...suggests that southern residents were present in the area — and may have been significantly affected by the exercise."

Canada has implemented tighter restrictions regarding proximity of whale watching boats and other vessels, limiting them to a distance of 200 meters from any sighted orcas. However, the new regulations do not apply to Canadian military vessels.

Although US naval activities are often a source of controversy, particularly with regards to powerful underwater sonar, Gorman noted that US navy vessels have an established protocol. "There are, however, arrangements we have with our navy about making sure that when they are conducting activities that could cause a problem with marine mammals that they post a lookout and not conduct these activities when marine mammals are present within a certain distance."

Source: ILPress.com

Orcas vs. Sharks: whales hunt deep sea sharks in New Zealand

Thought I would pass along this interesting blog post from marine biologist Candace Calloway Whiting, writing in the Seattle PI. She did some digging in regards to a recent event documented in New Zealand of pod of orcas corralling what appear to be some juvenile cowsharks (six- or seven-gill) in a sort of hunting/feeding technique.

Orcas have been known to prey upon sharks, but what makes this news item so noteworthy is that these New Zealand orcas were after deep water sharks and that they managed to bring them to the surface, disorienting the sharks which played to the orcas' advantage. It also appears that the orcas were able to capitalize on the fact that these sharks will stick together - brothers and sisters - which is not a common shark behavior.

Pod of Orcas Rounds Up a Group of Sharks - Were These Sharks Related to Each Other?

Update: 12/28/11 - In reply to my request to identify the shark species involved, Seattle Aquarium shark biologist Jeff Christiansen sent the following :

"It is difficult to make a definitive ID from a partial view and with only one photo but I would hazard a guess the shark in the photo is a sevengill shark Notorynchus cepedianus or possibly even Heptranchias perlo. While I can’t rule out a sixgill the spotting pattern visible on the dorsal surface of the shark is characteristic of the sevengill. The photo is not sharp enough to tell if there are six or seven gill slits. Its definitely one of the Cowsharks as the six and sevengill sharks are called and finding them in groups is not unusual for that species… pack hunting and association is documented in sevengills. The Sevengill can tolerate much higher light levels than its deep water cousin the sixgill."

I’ll update again when I hear back from a New Zealand orca researcher who may have more information on the orca pod that appeared to be hunting the sharks.

On Boxing Day (the day after Christmas) in New Zealand a pod of orcas managed to corral at least a half dozen sharks and apparently gave them a good thrashing in the shallows off the beach. Orcas are known to kill and eat sharks in many parts of their range – often eating the nutrient dense livers and discarding the rest – so although witnessing the interaction must have been amazing, the news that the whales went after the sharks was in and of itself not surprising.

But the fact that the orcas managed to get several sharks together in a group for the presumed mayhem is fairly astounding, and I was as curious about the sharks as I was the orcas as I read the article.

Copyright protection prohibits me from being able to use the photo of one of the sharks thought to have been involved in the altercation with the orcas, but it is similar to this one, and is one of the few species that is easily identified with just a head shot. If you look carefully you will see that the shark has six gills [note update above, this may have been a related species of cowshark, not a sixgill] instead of the usual five, and logically is called a six-gill shark (the sixth gill is thought to help extract oxygen from the deep water where the adult sharks are found).

The following video shows both the massive size this species can attain, and the depth to which it can be found. “This six-gill shark (Hexanchus) was filmed during a submersible dive off the northeast coast of Molokai at a depth of 1000m (3280ft). The 2 red laser dots are 6 inches apart, resulting in a length of about 18 ft for the shark.”

But if they were chasing this deep sea species of shark, how did the orcas manage to get several, albeit smaller, of these sharks rounded up in the shallows off the beach?

I found the answer through the Seattle Aquarium’s shark research program, and though I have not gotten a confirmation that this is the shark species involved in the New Zealand fracas, what I learned about six-gill sharks is fascinating and over-turns much of what we believe to be true about sharks in general.

The biologists have discovered that in this local population, sibling six-gill sharks stay together for many years, at least until they become large enough to move out of the protected environment of the Salish Sea.

The mother shark can give birth to over 100 baby sharks (called pups), and each litter of brothers and sisters remains together for years in “loosely associated groups”, possibly finding food together and avoiding predators.

The eyes of six-gill sharks are adapted to low light conditions and they shun the bright light of the surface during daylight hours, so the orcas might have managed to find a group of the sharks in deeper water, driven them to the surface where the sharks would have been blinded and disoriented causing them to swim up onto the beach (the news article reported that observers thought the sharks swam up to get out of the water, certainly possible but not likely.)

Although six-gill sharks are opportunistic feeders often scavenging about anything they can find, humans are not on the menu, and fortunately for them these sharks aren’t usually on our menu either – what a shame it would be to kill off the sharks of the world without ever knowing their secrets.

Brother and sister sharks growing up together, who knew?

For more on orcas and sharks, please see “Orcas and sharks, just who is hunting whom?” Also this report on New Zealand orca expert Ingrid Visser’s discovery of orcas hunting thresher sharks.

Source: SeattlePI.com
Source: Stuff.co.nz

Orcas and Salmon: organizations take aim at U.S. plan that could impact Washington/Oregon whales

Here is information from Howard Garret of the Orca Network regarding action being taken against a proposed conservation plan for salmon in the northwest U.S.'s Columbia Basin (where the Columbia and Snake River end at the Pacific coast of Oregon and Washington). Apparently, the plan contradicts existing science regarding the impact of a decline on salmon on the resident orca population.

"On October 29, salmon advocates asked a federal judge to reject the Obama Administration’s 2010 Plan for Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead. This includes chinook salmon that are essential nutrition for our Southern Resident Killer Whales. Today, three facts are clear. One, our orca are often very hungry. Two, they historically dined regularly on Columbia Basin chinook – especially in the lean months of March and April. Three, by failing endangered salmon, the 2010 Plan will also fail our endangered orcas.

The endangered Southern Resident orca community declined over 20% a decade ago and still teeters on the brink of extinction. Multiple studies tell us why: inadequate runs of Chinook salmon. For thousands of years this unique and cohesive orca clan has survived almost entirely on king salmon, especially those returning to the Columbia basin during winter and spring. In the past few decades those Chinook runs have dwindled to a small percentage of their former numbers. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) notes that 'Perhaps the single greatest change in food availability for resident killer whales since the late1800s has been the decline of salmon in the Columbia River basin' (p. 95).

We expected more from NOAA and the Obama administration when they released their Columbia Basin salmon plan as required by the Endangered Species Act. On inauguration day, we were told that good science would trump biased economics and DC politics, and that the process would be transparent. Instead we got a repeat of the corrupt Bush plan and secrecy rather than honesty, despite fierce criticism of that status quo plan from the American Fisheries Society, a wide range of independent biologists, and NOAA’s own scientists.

Regarding orcas specifically, NOAA also fails to explain the huge discrepancy between their 2010 Columbia Basin salmon plan and their 2009 California salmon plan. The CA plan says hatchery fish are no substitute for wild salmon, that orcas need viable wild salmon runs, and there are far too few today. The Columbia plan inexplicably says that hatchery fish are a reliable replacement for wild salmon, and suggests that there are plenty of salmon for orca survival. Despite repeated requests to NOAA to address and resolve this inconsistency, none has been offered.

There is no doubt in the scientific community about the ecological connection between Columbia/Snake salmon and our much-loved orcas. Canada’s DFO found '…that [orca] survival rates are strongly correlated with the availability of their principal prey species, chinook salmon.' A study concluded that 'Chinook salmon, a relatively rare species, was by far the most frequent prey item.' Winter field studies have also found Southern Resident orcas near the mouth the Columbia River eating salmon headed upriver. UW’s Center for Conservation Biology conducted a multi-year orca study of hormones found in fecal material and concluded that: 'Thus far, the hormone data most strongly supports the reduced prey hypothesis' and that 'For now, it seems clear that mitigation efforts to increase number and quality of available prey to Southern resident killer whales will be an important first step towards assuring SRKW recovery.'

Let’s hope that the judge buries this deceptive plan in early 2011, and brings the federal government and the people of the Northwest together to craft a legal, science-based plan that serves our salmon, our communities, and our orcas.

For more information, please visit: Save Our Wild Salmon and the Orca Network."

Marine Mammals Postscript: act today in advance of Congressional hearing

As a follow up to yesterday's post about captive marine mammals (whales and dolphins), the folks behind the documentary film The Cove have sent out an email apprising people about a Congressional subcommittee hearing regarding marine mammals on display.

At question is the National Marine Fisheries Service's permitting process that requires that education and conservation - not entertainment - be the foundation for issuing permits to hold marine mammals in captivity. Whether this is being adhered to or that it requires some tightening is one of the key issues. As you can expect, there will be significant pressure from organizations like SeaWorld to keep things as status quo.

There is a public comment period that expires Friday, May 7th. If you would like to send a brief and respectful comment, you can email subcommittee clerk Katherine Romans at katherine.romans@mail.house.gov

Here is some suggested copy from David Phillips of the "The Cove" - Save the Dolphins group:

"There is no educational value to the whale and dolphin shows prominent within public display facilities today. The ethics of riding atop these wild animals, feeding and forcing interactions with them, goes against everything we are taught about them – in fact, those types of encounters are illegal in the wild. And yet, public display facilities promote this bad behavior and even encourage it for paying customers.

This is a manipulation of fact for the benefit of financial enterprise.

I strongly urge you to establish strong oversight of the education programs for public display facilities of marine mammals. Under the current law they have become performance spectacles that serve our amusement rather than our education."

Here is the body of the email I sent:

"Dear Ms. Romans:

Please forward or print this email for the appropriate subcommittee members.

Since the very first marine mammals (ie: whales and dolphins) were placed in captivity, scientists have learned more about the intelligence and complex social and physiological behaviors of theses animals – behaviors that are in direct conflict with the conditions that these animals are subjected to today while in captivity. While scientific study and educational outreach to better understand mankind’s impact globally on marine mammal populations is a valid activity, the priority today of marine amusement parks like SeaWorld is entertainment and an economic return on investment. We have evolved beyond the need for animals jumping through flaming hoops or balancing balls on their noses to appreciate their important roles within a marine ecosystem.

While some might advocate the release of all captive marine mammals, I side with those advocates, like Jean-Michel Cousteau, who feel that these animals have, unfortunately, been in captivity long enough (some since birth) that the prospects for successful introduction into the open oceans is doubtful. However, I support a ban on seeing any other marine mammals taken captive in the future accept for quantified and justified scientific research solely and not for public display.

Congress needs to initiate agencies to exercise greater oversight in granting permits for the capture and display of whales and dolphins. Large pelagic animals – animals that roam the open seas – should not be subjected to the confines of tanks and forced to perform tricks for our amusement. We are a better species than that. And these species deserve better treatment than that.

Respectfully,

Richard Theiss
RTSea Productions"

Yes, I know. I run a bit long. So, pick and choose as you like, but send something to Ms. Romans today.

Read USA Today article about upcoming Congressional hearing.

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?

Orcas In Capitivity: a tragedy brings up the need for a new rationale

I would have to have blinders on to not notice the news reporting and online commentary surrounding the tragic death of Dawn Brancheau , the Sea World orca trainer, due to the actions of one of the Florida sea park's resident whales. There are 25 articles alone on UnderwaterTimes.com and the social media sites have been buzzing with opinions, mostly recognizing the double tragedy in both the human loss and the life and future fate of the whale involved.

There will be much to be sorted out: what precisely happened, was there something that triggered the whale's actions, what were the whales recent behavior patterns? And on and on. After all is said and done regarding the details of the incident, the fundamental question of whether such animals should be kept on display, I'm sure, will be debated for months to come.

On the one hand, the marine animal acts are a founding cornerstone of the organization. Regardless of how the Sea World parks have expanded over the decades, the killer whale show is their lasting iconic image - and that represents a considerable financial investment and commitment. I know that can sound a bit crass, but it's a reminder that Sea World will likely defend the practice.

And if we look at it historically, from its earliest beginnings, dolphin and whale shows served a purpose in enlightening the public to the intelligence ("intelligence" in human terms) of these animals at a time when interest in their survival was growing - right at the outset of the anti-whaling movement. Even today, the basic rationale for zoo/aquarium captivity is still offered with a degree of merit, as long as the animals are provided with a relatively comfortable and natural-like environment.

But on the other hand, as it has been pointed out in the news by several experts including members of the Cousteau family, it has only been in captivity that orcas have harmed humans. We are being reminded that these marine mammals normally roam the wide open seas and exhibit highly social behavior patterns within their pods. What happens to their mental health when they are confined in concrete tanks and separated from normal animal interpersonal relationships has been continually debated from day one.

It is tragically ironic that what we may have ultimately learned in initially keeping these large marine mammals in captivity is that it may be best not to do it at all. We have warmed and enlightened people to the beauty of seals, dolphins, and whales with balancing balls and hoops of fire - now, perhaps it is time to better enlighten people as to how these animals live in the wild and what we should do to insure their survival in the surroundings that nature intended.

Orcas of the Puget Sound: article looks at vanishing whale pods

Orcas, or if you prefer, killer whales - are one of the most distinctive cetaceans in the world. Though often associated with cold water regions, these intelligent and highly social predators are actually found in all the oceans. But probably nothing personifies the classic image of the orca as the pods of orcas that frequent the waters in Puget Sound in the northeastern Pacific Ocean - tall dorsal fins cutting through the blue water or whales fully breaching from frigid waters with picturesque forest shoreline backdrops.

But something ominous is taking place in this northern wilderness: the whales are slowly disappearing. There are several theories being studied that could explain the whales decline. But whether it's one cause or a combination, it all springs from one source: mankind.

Outdoor adventure writer Thayer Walker has written a very interesting article for the online Sierra Club Magazine about the decline of these orcas, known by researchers as the "Southern Residents." I had the opportunity to work with Thayer before and he is a gifted writer with a terrific appreciation for our natural resources, from geography to biology.

Thayer writes about the dedicated work of Ken Balcomb, who formed the Center for Whale Research and has been studying the orcas of San Juan Island in the Puget Sound for over 30 years. Balcomb has documented the gradual decline of the number of whales in the area, impacted in the '60s and '70s by the demand for orcas for aquariums and amusement parks. But what appears to be happening now points to possible poisoning from pollution and, perhaps in equal or greater measure, the decline of the whales primary food source - chinook salmon.

Changes in the salmon population, from either overfishing or man-made interference or damage to the salmon's fresh water breeding grounds, have either pushed the orca pods to search for new hunting grounds or, as unfortunately suspected, doomed the whales to starvation. Orcas are known for their highly complex social structures; whales will stay within a pod for life and will stake out territories that are often not easily abandoned.

But also pollution plays a critical role in this threatening scenario. Much like the chemicals that can accumulate in sharks and dolphins, the blubber in orcas can retain a variety of pollutants that would not necessarily harm the whale (unless absorbed in great quantities) as long as the whale remains vibrant and well-fed. However, when food is scarce the orca will begin to burn some of its fat, thereby releasing stored pollutants into its system which weakens the immune system and the overall health of the whale deteriorates.

The demand for fresh-caught salmon combined with development in the area - including dam building, forest-clearing, and urban growth - are all contributing to the decline of one of the oceans' most magnificent hunters, one that has cruised these frigid waters for eons but is now faced with a threat for which its cunning and intelligence provides no defense.

Kudos to Thayer for "Empty Sound", a great story. To read the entire article in the Sierra Magazine, click here.

Orcas: new studies show changes in killer whales

When discussions of Arctic or Antarctic species come up, they often focus on polar bears, penguins, and walruses - all animals worthy of our concern and whose populations are at risk from changes in their environment due to climate change, pollution, or oil drilling development.

Orcas - or, if you like, Killer Whales - are also being impacted by environmental changes, some good and some not so good.

In a report from Canadian scientists, there is evidence that orcas are able to manage changes in their ocean environment by moving more northward, extending their uppermost boundaries in the Arctic Circle. This is made possible by the reduction of sea ice, particularly in the summer months.

Orcas typically cruise the thinner edges of the Arctic ice but avoid the thicker ice where access to the surface for breathing would be more limited. The scientists reviewed data of orca sightings dating back centuries and saw a definite increase since 1900 in the Arctic region, including into the Hudson Bay, that coincides with the recorded reduction of the Arctic sea ice. It remains to be seen whether this will disrupt the marine ecosystem as the orcas possibly begin to prey more and more on northern Arctic species like bowhead whales, belugas, and narwhals.

In another study, orcas were cited as a probable cause for the decline of sea otters, seals, and sea lions along southwest Alaska over a period of several decades. Not to completely blame the orcas, the study points to a cause for this change in the orcas' diet as the result of industrialized whaling. Whaling decimated whale populations and deprived orcas of an important food source. Hence the shift to other marine mammals as prey.

Orcas are extremely social animals, living in family units or pods, that can exist for many years, complete with elaborate and close social hierarchies. External stressors (ie: changes in their environment and/or food source) that produced changes in populations have been cited in a recent report as a possible cause for changes in the social structure of orcas in Canadian/U.S. waters. It opens the door for more study as to the impact of habitat change on the social order and survivability of this highly social marine mammal.

And lastly, according to a scientific report, the population of orcas that inhabit the Antarctic's Ross Sea, has apparently been decreasing both in terms of frequency (when observed) and in numbers and the primary culprit is, once again, commercial overfishing. In this case, the overfishing of the Antarctic Toothfish, a primary food source for this particular orca population. Whether the orcas have declined or are moving on to better hunting grounds has yet to be determined. But it is another example of the struggle between man and nature over available marine resources. And if the ocean's animals keep losing - from the smallest feeder fish to large predators like orcas - then ultimately we lose.