WDC Blog - From the Front Line

One of the most influential anti-captivity books of the last Century, and hailed as ‘a ground-breaking work’ upon its original release in 1990, The Rose-Tinted Menagerie explores the role of animals in entertainment, from the gladiatorial contests of ancient Rome and the travelling shows of the Middle Ages, to the circuses and dolphinaria of the 20th century.

When I began with WDCS some twenty years ago, The Rose-Tinted Menagerie was the best primer I could have read. It established in me the burning desire to see dolphin shows end once and for all. It still shocks me that the disturbing shows that Bill highlighted in the early 1990s still blight us now. Maybe they are not the same shows, but there are still captures from the wild, and places like the Georgia Aquarium try to justifty the suffering they cause in the name of 'education'.

Of all the books that inspired me to want to campaign for whales and dolphins this has to be up there as one of the best.
- Chris Butler-Stroud

This is a timely relauch of The Rose-Tinted Menagerie, and I would urge anyone who has not read it to do so. And if you did read it some twenty years ago, then re-read it. It'll show you we still have a way to go in this fight, but knowing where we have come from is the first step in knowing where the journey still needs to take us and what we need to achieve.

About the author

Prior to its first publication in 1990, author and investigative journalist William M Johnson spent five years researching The Rose-Tinted Menagerie. His research took him to big tops, menageries and dolphin pools throughout the length and breadth of Europe, and to circus shows from as far afield as the Soviet Union and the United States. From his own undercover work and from the testimony of scores of ex-circus and dolphin show staff, by 1990 Johnson had built up a formidable catalogue of evidence that, upon publication, dismayed wildlife experts, shocked the casual reader and provoked political debate: The Rose-Tinted Menagerie. While some establishments have since shut their doors forever — such as the infamous dolphin ‘striptease’ revue at the Moulin Rouge in Paris — these historical snapshots lucidly expose forms of cruelty and exploitation tragically still all too prevalent elsewhere, from the brutal capture of dolphins from the wild, to the sordid traveling dolphin shows currently entertaining locals and tourists in the Far East.

You can get a kindle version or an original print version of the book here at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk

As filmmakers and celebrities prepare to flock to the south of France for this year’s Cannes Film Festival (May 16-27^th), among the films to make their debut at the 65^th annual 12-day event is ‘Rust and Bone.’ The film is an adaptation of ‘Rocket Ride,’ one of the stories found within Craig Davidson’s 2005 short-story anthology, also titled ‘Rust and Bones’. In the story a young man loses his leg to the orca he performs with and tries to rebuild his life through amputee-support groups and other therapy, ‘Rust and Bone’s’ storyline unfortunately is closer to fact than fiction and serves as a reminder of the unfortunate risks inherent to holding these huge, socially complex marine mammals in captivity.

Although WDCS is unable to review the film prior to the festival's opening, the film’s general storyline as reported in the media involves a female orca trainer (Marion Cotillard) who loses her legs in a horrific accident involving the whales. Scenes for the movies were filmed at Marineland Antibes (France), a captive facility currently holding five orcas, including one wild orca captured in 1982 from Iceland. Another Marineland orca, Shouka, remains isolated and alone at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in Vallejo, California.

We expect this film to stir public emotion and generate comparisons and renewed attention to the tragic and violent deaths of Dawn Brancheau and Alexis Martinez that occurred just over two years ago. Both trainers were killed by the orcas they worked with at SeaWorld Florida and Loro Parque on Tenerife in the Canary Islands, respectively, within just a few months of each other. Although I am not certain how the trainer and her relationship with the orcas is depicted within the film, if it is anything like ‘real life’, the job of a trainer will be portrayed as glamorous, dazzling, and exciting, suggesting trainers benefit from a privileged and reciprocal relationship with these huge, attractive and awesome animals. Or, perhaps the silver screen will reflect the truer image of this profession, telling a different story where trainers can be injured or killed, and where ruined lives, both human and orca, are the real drama behind the shows.

Whether it intends to or not, this film serves to further highlight the uncomfortable realities associated with the capture, confinement and exploitation of these magnificent creatures for our entertainment. Because regardless of the nature of the event causing injury and death, whether from orcas attacking their trainers or loss of limb during performances or other accidents, all result from the unnatural confinement of these large, intelligent and powerful animals. This practice is dangerous and deadly to both the orcas and the humans working with them. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has even found this to be true, citing and fining SeaWorld in August 2010 for knowingly and irresponsibly exposing its trainers to known safety hazards (orcas) that could result in injury or death.

As WDCS awaits the judge’s decision in the OSHA vs. SeaWorld hearing that concluded in November 2011 where SeaWorld contested OSHA’s citation, ‘Rust and Bone’ is an unfortunate reminder of the true costs of captivity to both humans and whales.

Irrespective of this film, and considering the sordid realities of captivity and the more recent tragedies that have unfolded, it is difficult to understand how anyone can have a clear conscience about captivity. WDCS opposes the confinement of whales and dolphins in captivity, and is committed to exposing and sharing the truth. If you care about whales and dolphins, question the culture of captivity and take the pledge not to buy a ticket to zoos, aquaria or marine parks that profit from the exploitation of whales and dolphins.

So the Conneyland dolphins died because of an opiate overdose, that some idiot gave them during a rave. 'Zoo dolphins deaths 'Caused by Party Drugs'

We need to ask why the dolphinarium ever allowed the rave to take place so close to the dolphins in the first place?

The dolphin captive display industry tell us that dolphins are held so we can learn more about conservation, but maybe all that we learn is how to squeeze more money out of these amazing creatures.

Whales and dolphins are highly intelligent animals who need to live in complex social groups. In captivity they will usually have been separated from their families, sometimes being captured in cruel hunts. A concrete tank can never replace their ocean home or their families.

We have no right to put these amazing creatures in captivity. Captive whale and dolphin shows are not educational, nor are they ‘conservation’.

As this case proves, the dolphin display industry is about making money out of these creatures – but it’s often the dolphins that pay the ultimate price.

It is no secret that many of us want to be close to whales and dolphins. The honest truth is that most of us want to be close, sometimes at any cost. Until we know the truth, we might even feel entitled to it. We have a natural affinity for these animals that extends back centuries into the cultural heritage of our modern civilizations, and it is undeniable. Past public opinion polls have recognized this desire, including a fairly recent BBC poll identifying the number one activity that people wanted to do before they died: swim with dolphins. Captive facilities have catered to and exploited our love for these animals by packaging an experience that appears to be made from heaven—an opportunity to get up close and personal with these animals in a blatantly unnatural, but seemingly attractive and controlled, setting. As a society, we have been seduced by the lights, the shows, the spectacular tricks, and the glamorous and intimate relationships between whales and humans that are manufactured for our consumption.

Now, the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquaria have released a new Harris Poll that indicates the public endorses captive facilities, and believes them to be more educational than even the classroom. And it also seems to support the BBC poll’s conclusions that swimming with dolphins is high on the public’s list of things to do. However, the poll leaves out a lot of important points, and is merely reflective of a public that only knows one side of the story. The poll asks no questions about seeing marine mammals in the wild, or questions that might suggest there are other ways to learn about and experience marine mammals outside the confines of a facility. Many of the questions are leading or flawed in producing a predetermined positive conclusion that captivity is the best or only way to appreciate marine mammals and learn about them. The poll’s first question leads the responder to necessarily support captivity because it suggests that this might be the only way a child might see them in his or her lifetime (“aquariums are important because children might not get to see them in the wild”). More realistically, if the public can afford travel to SeaWorld or most other aquaria, they have traveled far enough to see these animals in the wild. Many of these facilities are located on or near the coast, oftentimes just yards away from where these animals swim free within their family groups. Furthermore, ‘seeing’ these animals in person is certainly not a prerequisite for loving them or being concerned about their wellbeing and protection.

And missing are the questions regarding the unspoken conflict between what is best for us, and what is best for them. These misleading figures reflect the responses of a propagandized and programmed public, spoon-fed from birth that it is acceptable and ‘normal’ to see these animals confined in a zoo or aquarium. We have been pre-programmed to believe that it is natural to seek entertainment and an escape to a place where these animals are accessible and willing to interact with us, and where we have been told they are happy, content, and even better off than if they were in the wild. We are so accustomed to these messages generated by SeaWorld and other marine parks’ public relations machines that our perceptions and beliefs have been shaped without our active participation. The seduction even greets us at the airport baggage claim of many major tourist destinations through attractive advertisements for captive facilities where you can swim with the dolphins. Through no fault of its own, the public has been denied the truth and has been swayed by the alluring messages of a multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise capitalizing on our love for these animals.

My four plus decades of life have provided me an opportunity to not only walk the varied paths of a dolphin lover and advocate, but to encounter many others along the way that have shared stories about their affinity for these animals, their feelings about captivity, and the rationalized choices that they make for themselves and their families. Growing up, I was lured and drawn in, like many, by the opportunity of SeaWorld, a logical destination for many families in the United States. It was here that I met my first dolphins ‘in the flesh’ at the petting pool at SeaWorld California when I was just eight years old. I left there wanting to be a trainer, believing this would be the best way to get close to these animals. But the catch is that I loved these animals before I ever set foot in SeaWorld. Through a lifetime of encountering these animals in the wild, education and an inborn passion to seek out what is best for these animals, I quickly abandoned my support of what I now see as selfish and indulgent entertainment. Now, I work to shut down those very same pools where I first encountered dolphins in person. Is this a natural progression for most people who encounter whales and dolphins in captivity? If people are given the truth about captivity, will they make the right choice--a choice in the best interest of dolphins?

Although I have come to know the backstory of captivity over time and work to expose and share it, the truth is that I was always conflicted. Long before I witnessed the drive hunts in Taiji, exposed the conditions at the dolphin petting pools, or reeled with the news of Alexis Martinez and Dawn Brancheau’s deaths, I knew there was something not quite right about SeaWorld and the stories they, and other captive facilities, told. With new truths about captivity surfacing daily, I am not the only one that feels this way. Truths of sordid dealings, brutal captures, and the incredibly deprived lives of the perpetually medicated and stressed animals are starting to sink in. However, it is the demand of the ticket counter that has facilities laboring to stock their pools and continue the revolving door of death.

After trainers Dawn Brancheau and Alexis Martinez's deaths, and a quick succession of orca deaths in several SeaWorld facilities, a congressional hearing investigated the educational value of captivity. At that hearing, then-representative Carol Shea-Porter indicated she needed help and more information to make sense of her personal conflict between what captive facilities claim to offer, and her sense of discomfort in seeing whales and dolphins in captivity. Former SeaWorld trainers have also stepped forward with their clarion call to expose the truths behind captivity and reveal their change of heart. And I think that if you search the hearts of most people, you will find a conflict between a self-interested desire to be close to these animals and the discomfort in witnessing these magnificent creatures torn from the wild ocean for our entertainment.

A few facilities are already turning away from traditional whale and dolphins shows, and questioning the sourcing of these animals from the wild. We applaud their movement in a positive direction, and encourage them to continue to phase out their collection of captive whales and dolphins.

It is time to get honest about captivity, and what motivates us. I believe those who attend these marine parks, spending almost any amount of money to flock to SeaWorld on family vacations, do so because they love these animals and because they do not know any other story. In other words, the public goes to marine parks because they love these animals; they do not love these animals because of marine parks. They go because they believe in what they have been told. The public does not know the story behind the individual lives in those barren and shallow aquamarine pools, and more importantly, many may not want to. But once you do know the story, it is hard to turn back, and to see these shows for other than what they really are. You don’t have to dig very deep, I promise. As modern day circuses have fallen out of favor, so too shall marine parks that rely upon the confinement of whales and dolphins for their profits.  But there is another story, and there will be many more that will continue to reveal the real truth and face of captivity—a truth that will help to reconcile that personal discomfort and conflict that so many have shared with me when they speak of captivity.

It comes down to one simple choice to set you, and eventually the dolphins, free:  Don't buy a ticket.  We go to these parks like SeaWorld because we love the animals, but it is the very same reason why we shouldn't.  It is time that we embrace the truth, and the conflict, and question our culture of captivity.  And with time, I believe those public opinion polls will reflect a different set of beliefs--one that finds the imprisonment of beings so very much like our own an abhorrent and archaic trend of the past.

It really is a very simple step to resolve the conflict between our self-interested love for dolphins, and the love and appreciation that is in their best interest.  It truly isn't counterculture or heretical to question SeaWorld, or the 'state of the art' Georgia Aquarium, or any of the other captive facilities that thrive on tourist dollars, however sacrilegious it might seem for those of us that have grown up with it.

 

In the post festive haze, as we wade through the sea of discarded Christmas presents, it is hard not to recognise that one of the things that sets us humans apart from many other species (but perhaps not quite all species), is our relationship with ‘stuff’. We make it, we buy it, we collect it, we recycle or bin it and then the whole process starts all over again. But this is no surprise, our amazing ability to manipulate ‘stuff’, our ancestry as hunter-gathers and our ability to collect and store the objects vital to our existence has enabled our success, bald apes that we are.

This relationship with the material things around us is one element of our existence which differentiates us from whales and dolphins. Our ability to build cities, write and store religious texts, historical chronicles and technical documents, have local and national government and a global economy and through such commerce fund national education and healthcare, all of this and more make us uniquely special as a species. There can be no doubt that we have extraordinarily complex social systems that differ culturally between geographic regions.

As a result it is perhaps understandable that we have a natural tendency to consider ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution and we tend to measure the ‘success’ of any other species against ourselves. But, this may be one of our grandest follies. Success is a relative concept, if biomass were the indicator then many other species, much less complex beings than ourselves, would be resounding winners in the ‘success’ competition.

But back to the issue of complex species and their relationship with ‘stuff’. Who at times does not envy the liberated existence of a whale, swimming wild, feeding, socialising and going about their daily business without the encumbrance of any ‘stuff’. Perhaps admiration for ‘living free’ (not just wild, but also ‘free’) is one of the appealing factors that send us in our droves to go whale or dolphin watching.

Orcas, for example, are top marine predators, a fact which places them, by our own reckoning, at the apex of evolutionary success. However, their ability to go about their lives so successfully without the need for clothing to keep them warm, cooking utensils, food storage facilities or the possession of trinkets to keep them entertained, surely warrants at least some humble respect from we the collectors.

Over the millions of years of our planet’s history, the single biggest driving force for life on Earth has been evolutionary success. The simple point is that when observing the world through the snap shot of geological time which is the existence of Homo sapiens we must be careful not to use ourselves as the benchmark of success and refinement. There is a bigger picture. Whilst we often feel like it - and perhaps we are even wired this way - it is just possible that our species is not the centre of the universe.

There are ever unfolding revelations about whales and dolphins: their intelligence, their complex brain structure, the possession of spindle cell neurons by some species, their multifaceted relationships with each other and even the revelations that behaviour can vary – like our own - between different cultures. We also now know that bottlenose dolphins can demonstrate a sense of self, by recognising themselves in a mirror. The more we learn, the more questions we have. One particularly intriguing notion is the idea that some whale and dolphin species have such close social bonds - biologically important for ensuring feeding and even survival - that rather than just a sense of ‘I’ they may have a more profound sense of ‘us’, almost a collective consciousness driving certain behaviours.

To ask the question ‘Are they smarter than us?’ is to miss the point. Orca’s and many other cetacean species are certainly ‘smart’ by any definition, they are successful, but they are also very different to us.

Many now recognise that these impressive, cognitive beings are a ‘who’ not a ‘what’. They are not the property of any state, corporation or individual and that the time of keeping these sentient, sapient ocean giants in small tanks for our entertainment is over.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is bringing a controversial court case against SeaWorld in the USA which will challenge the captivity of five orcas, on the grounds that it is an infringement of the 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.

The analogy with human slavery is a strong one. There can be little doubt that the orcas in captivity are held involuntarily for our entertainment. These orca’s are not offered a choice about whether they want to live in captivity. But there has also been some sensitivity in the US in comparing the plight of the orcas with that of African American slaves. Perhaps this demonstrates rather well that the initial social and legal hurdle that must first be overcome is that the status of orcas and other cetaceans as non-human persons in their own right must first be recognised. There is a mental journey required to recognise the rights of others, firstly in recognising their status as non-human ‘persons’ we recognise their basic right to life and from there work to recognise the right to various other freedoms and norms. At the time when the 13^th amendment was raised in the US, some challenged the notion that African Americans were equal to whites, indeed some argued that African Americans were not even of the same species. Fortunately, those days of ignorance have largely passed and serve to reminds us what a long way we have come as a species in developing respect and understanding for each other, but, of course, we still have a long way to go.

Nevertheless, the strategy of highlighting the captive orcas’ plight as slavery and against the US Constitution is controversial, even among those who advocate for whale and dolphin rights. Steven Wise, a Law Professor and head of the Non-Human Rights Project (NhRP) is concerned that a judge will simply rule that orcas are not slaves under the Constitution (because they are not recognised as ‘persons’), which will then set a difficult precedent. Wise and colleagues believe that first they need to establish the legal non-human personhood status of cetaceans. This certainly seems a more logical strategy.

Rather extraordinarily, the NhRP has been invited to participate in the orca case on the basis of an ‘amicus curiae’ or ‘Friend of the Court’. This in itself is an interesting development. The NhRP has not sought to appear as an amicus to either PETA or SeaWorld, but instead to work to assist the court in understanding some of the legal and philosophical issues raised within the context of this case and to further the interests of the orcas.

“Our purpose is to ensure that the orcas’ best interests are being properly represented, that their legal status is advanced, and that an unfavourable ruling inflicts the least possible harm on the development of an animal rights jurisprudence” said Wise.

The fact that this expert advice has been sought independently by the court reveals that the issue of animal rights, and in particular the interests of these orcas, is being taken very seriously by a US court. There doesn’t appear to be a similar move to have a ‘Friend of the court’ provide a view on cetacean husbandry or the economics of keeping orcas in captivity from the industry perspective. This is an – albeit tacit – recognition that the interests of the orcas in this case may be more important than the interests of the industry itself. Perhaps some progress.

Wise states: “SeaWorld opposes our request to appear as an amicus because it is confident the Court will rule the orcas are not slaves under the Thirteenth Amendment. PETA apparently opposes our request because it wants the case to ‘go down in history as the first time that a U.S. court considers constitutional rights for animals.’ Winning is beside the point. But losing this case will neither help these orcas nor further any long-term strategy for creating a viable animal rights jurisprudence”.

WDCS is committed to the campaign for the recognition of cetacean rights. The Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans agreed in Helsinki provides a series of profound propositions to challenge the way that we currently perceive and treat whales and dolphins. The road to recognising their rights in national and international legislation will not be easy.

At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting, scheduled for next month in Vancouver, WDCS CEO Chris Butler-Stroud will be presenting at a symposium titled ‘Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: ethical and policy implications of intelligence’.

Many still consider the idea of recognising the rights of other highly cognitive mammals as an extremist view point, some even view it as a threat. Certainly it is challenging to the current status quo. The fact that we can now credibly use the emerging scientific understanding of both cetacean intelligence and the social complexity of whales’ and dolphins’ lives to argue for the recognition of cetacean rights in a highly esteemed forum such as the AAAS demonstrates that the scientific community is now taking the proposition of cetacean rights seriously as a topic for debate. Rationalising how cetacean rights, once recognised, will manifest through legal and political structures will be one of the greatest challenges as we work towards fully realising all the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans and this will be the topic of Chris Butler-Stroud’s presentation.

We have the support of philosopher’s such as Thomas I White, we have the support from leading scientist such as Lori Marino and Hal Whitehead and the commitment of lawyers such as Steven Wise who are working to provide the mechanism by which the rights of non-human persons can be first recognised and then protected. A US court has tacitly recognised that cetacean ‘interests’ are a valid part of the debate and through the AAAS the scientific community acknowledges that we must examine the ethical implications of the emerging science on cetacean intelligence. Is it now only a matter time? The question for the orca’s who remain in captivity is just how long this journey will take us.

Find out more about the issues surrounding whales and dolphin rights on our website. Also, have a look at our new book - "Whales and Dolphins: cognition, culture, conservation and human perceptions" which brings together a wide range of experts to look again at our current knowledge of these amazing creatures. Available from the WDCS Shop.

There is heavy rain overnight and a few delegates malingering late in the streets may even have been washed away.

However, come the morning the Meeting of the Whole is quorate again and in session in one place and the Future discussions are going on somewhere else.

There is a faint whiff of panic now prevailing and particularly around the marine issue as the relevant working group is struggling in the margins to find suitable compromises and the clock is now ticking loudly. All resolutions should have been passed by their working groups by tomorrow lunchtime.

Meanwhile a large pile of books published by the Norwegian Marine Institute detailing their policy for marine mammals have appeared outside the main hall. These were last seen at the IWC Scientific Committee meeting where all the scientists were awarded a copy. These are placed on the same table as many other non documents (documents that are not officially submitted to the meeting).

The Whole is soon again dealing with the sly ways of birds {Editor- I have already warned you about this!}. And the WDCS delegation is now hidden behind a significant pile of Erich Hoyt’s excellent new (but very heavy) MPA book. They occasionally emerge from behind this bastion to offer copies to unsuspecting delegates as they try to pass by.

Sly-ways are followed by a review of work on terrestrial animals. Issues covered there extend to Concerted Actions for the Sahelo-Sahara antelope, gorillas and elephants.

Bats also now fly in and a new African bat agreement may be in the offing.

Turtles follow and there is a presentation from the World Conservation Monitoring Unit about progress and how to strengthen measures for them.

The US (not a CMS party) now speaks up to offer joint opportunities to work on sea turtle conservation. Others speak likewise.

The distinguished councillor for Turtles, Professor Col (or Colin) Limpus, now thanks WCMC for their report and he notes that there are many successes in countries that also need to be complemented.

Enter the giant manta ray.

This species is seeking to be moved onto both Appendix I and II of CMS. Ecuador presents the proposal and notes that the species is of importance for tourism and tends to congregate in protected areas (well done Manta, one step ahead of some of the other fish species!). The EU supports the proposal. Norway says that they too support the proposal and note that IUCN has moved the species higher on its protected list. The species has a low reproductive rate and hence is very vulnerable. However, there is at least one similar species: the reef manta with which it can be confused. Has the proponent considered this matter? You have to be almost an expert to separate them he adds.

Shark Advocates International are now waving their flag at the back of the room.

Ecuador replies that researchers are looking at the classification issue. Initially in their national park they though they had the alfredi species but in fact the only species is the giant one and there is no confusion. The alfredi does not extend into Ecuadorian waters; hence they amended the proposal and only the giant ray is covered.

The Chair asks Norway if this takes care of your concerns. This is OK for Ecuador says Norway but this is a global listing. Let us take note of this and take it to the next CoP.

Ecuador says yes we would probably support a future listing for the alfredi ray. The Chairman now identifies the Shark Advocates still waving towards the back of the hall. She says the following:

‘On behalf of Shark Advocates International, Humane Society International, and the Norwegian Shark Alliance, we appreciate this opportunity to express our strong support for Ecuador’s proposal to include in the CMS Appendices the giant manta ray: the largest living ray, and an exceptionally vulnerable, highly migratory, and increasingly Threatened marine species.

The giant manta ray has exceptionally limited reproductive capacity, even when compared to other rays and sharks. [Females are thought to mature at 8-10 years of age, produce just one pup after a year-long gestation period, rest for a year or two between pregnancies, and live at least 30 years.]

[The giant manta ray has been classified by IUCN as Vulnerable and therefore Threatened.] The sparsely distributed and highly fragmented regional subpopulations of giant manta often consist of just a couple hundred individuals, which regularly migrate across national boundaries and have been tracked venturing onto the high seas.

The giant mantas’ large size and tendency to move slowly in predictable aggregations make them easy targets to fishing, the greatest threat to their survival. In recent years, increased East Asian demand for manta ray gill rakers for use in Chinese medicine has been driving dramatic increases in directed, likely unsustainable manta fisheries. Some local populations have already been depleted.

At the same time, manta ray eco-tourism is increasingly generating significant economic benefits for local communities across the globe, particularly in Mozambique, Maldives, and Hawaii. A new estimate puts the value of manta-based tourism at $100 million/year globally.

Existing national protections by Range States are insufficient to effectively conserve this migratory species. Inclusion in the CMS Appendices can serve to dramatically improve awareness of the threats faced by manta rays and as a major step toward the effective conservation of these exceptionally vulnerable and valuable animals.

Based on these factors, our organizations respectfully urge adoption of Ecuador’s proposal as well as complementary conservation and research initiatives for the giant manta ray.

Australia next takes the floor – in fact for the first time – and thanks Norway for their hospitality. They are a range state for the species and they support the listing proposal.

The USA speaks up and supports too. Chile also supports.

The Chairman asks if we have exhausted our interventions, but Mozambique waves to say that they also have it in their waters and they too are supportive. Uruguay is also supportive.

We pause for a tea break but first the bycatch councillor Barry Baker, today resplendent in a vast red body-warmer, tells the marine working group to migrate to Hodden (a room in a distant part of the sprawling Scandic hotel complex). Marine-orientated delegates scramble, pausing only to grab a handful of fruit or a cake and their yellow hats, ponchos and umbrellas, which they will need as the heavens are again opened.

The Noise, Bycatch and Cetacean Work Programme resolutions are looked at. The last in particular seems to be floundering a little.

Delegates whiz around over lunch in the rain; much coordination goes on and many umbrellas turn inside out. Several more delegates are washed away by the rain. Teams of young Norwegian volunteers in their CMS T-shirts and shorts are despatched to retrieve them from the town's drains.

After lunch and a dowsing we resume in plenary. The various working groups report on their progress. The credentials committee reads out the names of all the countries with credentials in order. There are many and they include Luxembourg.

The Committee of the Whole resumes. Chairs exchange batons.

We move to resolution 10.16 on Priorities for CMS Agreements. This has a long list of species actions at the end divided up under the headers: Fish, Birds, Marine Reptiles, Terrestrial Mammals and Marine Mammals. The text that precedes this says ‘Endorses the following actions’.

Norway says put all this species stuff in an annex. No says the EU resolutely.

A compromise might be to soften the language that introduces this section so that it becomes advice and not instruction. We shall see.

We come to the issue of whether a work plan in the Indian Ocean should be applied to coastal cetaceans or only small cetaceans. The EU prefers ‘smalls’ only. Others prefer ‘coastal’ and Heidi of the Secretariat now explains that coastal was recommended by the Scientific Council. The EU will coordinate further on this.

The Resolution on Synergies and Partnerships now takes to the stage. (Each resolution has an associated member of staff who moves to the stage and follows changes in real time in a version projected onto the stage. So Melanie Virtue - who was dealing with the 'Priorities' resolution now hands over to one of the Lauras.)

A question now arises from the floor about whether comments sent earlier have been recorded.

The resolution about synergies seems a little sticky – as is the floor around the coffee area where many delegates (notably NGOs) are now updating their calorific supply.

By the time we roll back into the room (having discussed exercise but not having done any for several days apart from chewing) a resolution concerning the relationship with the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) is up for discussion. Melanie is back on stage again to capture amendments.

Note that the process here is that the Committee of the Whole – which is currently meeting – approves changes and then the revised resolutions are brought back to the plenary and finally approved. So in effect we are now meeting in one huge working group.

The resolution which covers the Strategic Plan is now in play (this is another of Melanie’s - a busy day for her: still it could have been worse, she could have been dealing with the marine resolutions). There are many changes here.

The electrocution of birds is now discussed, and this is clearly a bad thing. Those in most danger are the “poor-flyers”, although we’re reassured that this means they’re not as manoeuvrable as other birds and not simply bad at flying. There is also concern about wind turbines which can also knock them from the skies. Poor birds.

Now we are sorry that the coverage is again patchy here but we are now deeply engaged in the Marine Working Group again and the cetacean work plan has become ensnared in some very difficult problems and that ticking clock is very loud now. A very small working group is deployed to work on this matter. Other delegates depart to yet another reception, this time in the Bergen aquarium, and a few others wander off into town and despite their yellow hats are washed down the street by an especially violent cloud burst. Hopefully the Nordic youth will again be able to rescue them.

The long-awaited hearing between the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) and SeaWorld started this week near Orlando, Florida. At the heart of the hearing are an administrative law judge’s attempts to evaluate whether the August 2010 citation issued by OSHA against SeaWorld is justified, and whether recommendations prescribed by OSHA to remedy the cited hazards are feasible. And we cannot forget that at the heart of this week’s review are the deaths of two beloved trainers, and the countless injuries of others. As I attend the hearing this week, it has become painfully obvious that SeaWorld is very confident: it is confident in its processes and protocols, and it is confident in its collective ability to control the behavior and responses of not only its trainers, but its orcas.

It is not merely arrogance that leads SeaWorld to claim a fool-proof system with a 98% success ratio between correct (desirable) and incorrect (undesirable) orca-trainer interactions while at the same time leaving its trainers to rely upon their personal judgments and abilities to remain calm in aversive or challenging situations with orcas. It is actually cavalier folly to rely upon a system that is based solely on the knowledge and judgment of individual human trainers. SeaWorld’s ‘system’ is based in the practice of operant conditioning (an animal training protocol based on positive reward and relationship building) and is comprised of ‘standard operating procedures’, ‘training the trainers’ and mentorship through on- the- job experience.

What is actually on trial is SeaWorld’s ability to convince the judge that in spite of ever-present human error, the unexpected behavior of a killer whale or even a perfect track record of performance between trainer and orca, the lethal or near-lethal events over the past twenty years are preventable and avoidable. That a captive orca can kill even the most experienced trainer grown in the SeaWorld system is explained away not as a failure of the SeaWorld ‘system’ and its safety measures,but as an incident borne of specific contexts and circumstances, a complex mix of trainer response and orca compliance, and one that requires each trainer to be fully aware of his or her surroundings at all times, accountable for every nuance of behavior of his or her whale in the vicinity. When the system works, SeaWorld claims that orcas are predictable. When the system fails, as it has done many times, SeaWorld claims trainer error, and moves forward with a blind eye toward the root cause of these calamities: the stress of confinement for the orcas in its possession.

SeaWorld may acknowledge the ultimate vulnerability of trainers, but cannot seem to find a way to acknowledge that its entire program is based upon a very flagrant denial of the risk involved in interacting with a wild and ‘caged’ animal. Orcas will never be domesticated, and to pretend that they are as predictable as your family pet dog verges on delusional.

In their testimony, SeaWorld representatives claim to have witnessed and identified every possible behavior a killer whale could express in captivity. There is little they haven’t seen. They work closely with these animals, they take into account their personalities and behavioral histories, and they know how to preempt an undesirable response from ‘their’ orcas. And yet, despite this professed familiarity with killer whales in general, and their individual orcas more specifically, they act surprised when an orca doesn’t respond like a predictable automaton, even as they have spoken out of the other side of their mouth that each interaction is variable and does not necessarily lead to an expected behavior or response. They claim that every killer whale has the potential to behave like any other, yet act surprised when an orca pulls a trainer into the water by her arm (a behavior that has been shown by another orca at another location). This also means they do not label a whale as aggressive, even with a history of deaths left in his wake. They label his behavior as aggressive, and continue to believe in a program reliant upon human judgment and interpretation, hoping and predicting that an aggressive tendency can be corrected or eliminated by the SeaWorld system.

Perhaps surprisingly, SeaWorld gives their orcas the benefit of the doubt. SeaWorld testimony suggests that captive orcas may respond aggressively in a certain stage of their life (like many of us do), they may outgrow certain behaviors (like many of us do), or they may learn from past ‘mistakes’ (also like many of us do). We are left to believe that the only weak link in the system is the trainers, and their ability (or inability) to predict the unpredictable. SeaWorld suggests that they ‘know’ whether an orca is enjoying an interaction, and are able to interpret every behavior to guide a favorable outcome. But a whale has to eat to survive, and the fact that he is performing a behavior for a reward or reinforcement of fish, ice cubes or gelatin is no guarantee that the whale is ‘enjoying’ the interaction, or that he will not someday, or in some instance, reject the relationship. And sometimes the rejection of that relationship ends in death.

Judge Welsch made a point at the very beginning of the hearing to clarify that its purpose was not to explore the issue of whether killer whales should be in captivity, or even whether SeaWorld is responsible for the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau, but to examine the citations issued in August by OSHA. But I would like to suggest that the hearing is all about captivity, and whether or not whales should be there.

From my perspective, it IS all about captivity that Mrs. Brancheau is no longer with us and died a horrible and tragic death at the mercy of a 12,000 pound orca named Tilikum. It IS all about captivity that orcas have displayed serious acts of aggression and aberrant behavior towards their human caretakers on over 100 occasions, but yet such aggressive acts towards humans have not been documented in the wild. And it IS all about captivity that orcas are the subject of the hearing that began on Monday where OSHA is facing off with SeaWorld to defend the citation it issued just over a year ago and reprimanding the theme-park giant with ‘willful’ negligence in failing to protect animal trainers from hazards associated with working with Tilikum and the other orcas at SeaWorld. The two are intimately connected: holding orcas in captivity and the inevitability of trainer harm. To pretend that the welfare of these animals is not important is to ignore the root of the problem.

SeaWorld has historically held a special place in our society. It has been blindly accepted and promoted as a cultural icon of entertainment and a popular family vacation destination. This seemingly blind acceptance of captivity by society is supported by annual attendance figures in the tens of millions. Is there any place more idyllic than a marine amusement park, where visitors can get up close and personal with ‘Flipper’ the bottlenose dolphin or ‘Shamu’ the killer whale? Orcas are among the most popular of species in the dolphin family. They share the captivity stage with belugas and bottlenose, but are distinguished by their stark black and white form and immense size. It’s good family fun, at least on the surface, especially if you buy into the feel-good advertisements that adorn our magazines, billboards and television sets. SeaWorld is represented as being just about as American as you can get, joining the ranks of baseball and apple pie, and perhaps even a bit more magical.

But all of that changed over a year and a half ago when Alexis Martinez and then Dawn Brancheau were killed within a few months of each other, both by orcas owned by SeaWorld. Captivity is not an end product, it is a process. It begins with the inhumane and traumatic capture from the wild or transport from another facility and ends with a life sentence of medication, cramped spaces and forced associations. Once in captivity,
if it is not septicemia or pneumonia that takes the life of a stressed and medicated orca, it will perhaps be the ingestion of foreign objects, routine medical care, or a variety of hazards associated with confinement. Regardless of how ‘state of the art’ a facility is, and considering the decades of breeding technology and methodology employed by captive facilities, there will always be the need for fresh DNA to maintain a healthy gene pool. It is a fact that US facilities are contemplating future captures of belugas in Alaska to freshen their gene pools, and orcas are on the menu for captures elsewhere in the world to replenish dying breeding lines. This means captivity is not just a welfare issue, but a conservation issue. And it is not only about the individual animal taken into captivity, but the families that are left behind in the wild.

Media attention to controversial captures, unnecessary deaths, inhumane transportation and injuries incurred in whale and dolphin interaction programs has had an impact on the public’s perception of marine theme parks. Opinion polls conducted over the past decade reveal that most people now think that captivity of marine mammals is justified only when there are measurable scientific or educational benefits.

I argue that the exposure to whales in captivity does exactly the opposite of what SeaWorld and other marine parks claim—instead of sensitizing visitors to marine mammals and their habitat, it desensitizes us to the cruelty inherent in removing these animals from their natural habitats and holding them captive for our entertainment and self-fulfillment. Education is one of the most important ways we can instill the foundations for humane and ethical existence alongside the animals that share our planet. It should not be taken lightly. I am certain the trainers and staff of these parks love the animals in their care, but is possession in the best interest of the animals—and in the case of captive orcas, in the best interest of their trainers?

Corky (SeaWorld) and Lolita (Miami Seaquarium) have been confined for over 40 years since they were taken from their families in the Pacific Northwest. I am certain that they still remember, and still long for their family members and the expanse of ocean that nurtures their intended role in the ecosystem. Is not freedom, especially after the significant cost of a life in servitude to our entertainment, the best educational message we can send for all living creatures and future generations?

I hope for the day when the public will perceive the captive experience for what it really is. The repetition of a whale or dolphin jumping through a hoop, begging for dead fish pool-side, or swimming in endless circles is nothing short of an experience in despair and deprivation, despite the sugar-coating that is part of the captive experience. Plush toys, thrill rides and marketing can do little to erase the realities behind captivity.

Times are changing, and so are public attitudes. It is time that OSHA and the public demand a “product recall” on captive orcas. And it is time for SeaWorld to stop gambling the lives of its trainers and orcas while pretending it is an acceptable cost of doing business. No safety measures can ever fully mitigate the consequences and depravity of captivity.

Continue reading "Pulling back the curtain: why it took unthinkable tragedy to question our culture of captivity"

It has been nearly a year and a half since SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was tragically killed by a 12,000 pound orca named Tilikum. Preceding Ms. Brancheau in death was Alexis Martinez, who was killed at Loro Parque in the Canary Islands in December 2009 in a similar and unfortunate accident by Keto, a 6,000 pound orca on loan to the park since 2006 by SeaWorld.  What has transpired since has been a mixture of increased public scrutiny aimed at the keeping of orcas in captivity and a flurry of defensive responses from the marine park giant SeaWorld.  Ranging from a congressional oversight hearing questioning the educational value of public display (captive) facilities and their programs, to a series of orca deaths at SeaWorld parks in the US, to exploration of safety measures by SeaWorld seeking to ultimately reinstate in-water work with its trainers and orcas, this past year has exposed some of the shocking realities facing both orcas and trainers alike.

Thanks to the courage of former SeaWorld trainers, the public has been provided detailed information regarding the chronic stress that these orcas endure, exacerbated by and inextricably linked to the poor dental condition and chronic infections that occur in captivity and require constant regiments of antibiotics, and perhaps also contribute to their aggressive tendencies and shortened lives in captivity.  News also came to light about the cause of death of an orca (Kanduke) that occurred over twenty years ago in 1990 at SeaWorld Orlando due to an encephalitis virus transmitted through a mosquito bite, further illustrating the risks to orcas in captivity. 

WDCS was not surprised by SeaWorld’s immediate challenge to OSHA’s citation and fine issued in August 2010 which stated that SeaWorld acted knowingly and irresponsibly in exposing its trainers to known safety  hazards (orcas) that could result in death.   SeaWorld will appear before an administrative law judge this September to contest OSHA’s findings and to defend its position, outlining recent mitigation measures meant to create a safer environment for its trainers.  The hearing before the independent US Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission was postponed from last April, and is slated to occur September 19^th.  It is uncertain whether the hearing will be open to the public. 

Among the measures that SeaWorld has offered as abatement include the installation of railings at the orca performance stadium;   a ‘net box’ that is intended to allow trainers to more quickly deploy safety nets in case of an emergency with an orca; and spare air devices that would allow life-sustaining oxygen to be incorporated into trainer wetsuits.  Other measures that are being considered are a pool floor that can be lifted to quickly dry dock an orca, and underwater remotely controlled submersibles or robots that can be used to distract the animals. WDCS maintains that there is no way to reduce or remove the risks to trainers inherent to interacting with orcas in captivity, particularly physical injury from an aggressive orca. 

SeaWorld has tried to address the elements it has control over (the pool and surrounding environment), but has done little to address the orcas or their circumstances in captivity. WDCS has documented over 40 separate incidents involving orcas and their trainers, ranging from the 1970s to present day. Other sources have cited higher figures, documenting the injuries and accidents between orcas and trainers that were never reported or revealed to the public through media accounts. SeaWorld boldly announced the reopening of  the ‘Dine with Shamu’ show at SeaWorld San Antonio on February 26^th,  2011, just a year after the accident that took Ms. Brancheau’s life in the same attraction in Orlando, and returned Tilikum to performances in April.    Also in April, SeaWorld showcased its new One Ocean show as a replacement to its Believe show at its Orlando location, and to accommodate a new format where trainers do not directly interact with the orcas in the water during performances. However, SeaWorld has stated that it intends to have its trainers enter the water  again as soon as it has exhausted every safety measure.

 

Furthermore, and perhaps in an attempt to convince the public that it is making significant contributions to  conservation, SeaWorld is diversifying , including the recent announcement that it will open a dolphin rehabilitation ‘hospital’ at its Orlando location.  While we would like to believe in the good intentions of SeaWorld, the real proof of their commitment to conservation and the welfare of the stranded animals it brings into this facility will be the release of these animals back to the wild, rather than their retention in marine parks across the US. 

But SeaWorld’s troubles are far from over. SeaWorld is also involved in a court case with Marineland, Canada and has been thrust into the spotlight again with more orca troubles. Despite SeaWorld's claims of having their orcas' best interests' in mind, an argument that is being used to justify its request to cancel its breeding loan with Marineland and return an orca named Ikaika (Ike) back to one of its US facilities, Ike is only one example of an orca born at a SeaWorld facility and moved to another. Ike was taken from his mother Katina and father Tilikum in November 2006 at the age of 4, disrupting their family unit, and shipped off to Marineland from SeaWorld Orlando to breed with the now 36-year old Kiska. A recent article  focusing on the troubles at Loro Parque, where Alexis Martinez was killed by an orca on loan from SeaWorld, details the lethal potential of orcas being trained for our entertainment, and the inadequacies of the facilities holding them.  

Through the affidavits associated with the Marineland case, WDCS has learned that SeaWorld has inadvertently validated the very arguments that WDCS and others have presented against keeping these large predators in confinement:  citing aggression, poor dental health, stress and other factors as the basis for their concerns over the welfare of Ike at Marineland, SeaWorld is demanding that Ike come home. 

The struggle for control over Ike clarifies for us that orcas are the property of no one. They are part of the public trust, and any public display facility is accountable to us--all of us--in its treatment, transfer and ultimate wellbeing of these animals, whether they were originally taken from the wild, or whether they were born in captivity. Furthermore, human lives are also being weighed against the costs and benefits of maintaining these valuable, yet dangerous, orcas in captivity

Further illustrating our assumptions regarding SeaWorld’s attempts to acquire and control valuable orca assets, and in blatant conflict with growing public opinion in opposition to holding orcas in captivity, SeaWorld has announced its intent to acquire Morgan, a juvenile orca rescued from the Wadden Sea in the Netherlands and transfer her to Loro Parque.  WDCS, along with a coalition of partners, submitted a plan for the rehabilitation and retirement of Morgan, as an alternative to keeping her in captivity.  With the troubled past and current orca issues at Loro Parque, including aggression and questionable care, and the likelihood that Morgan will eventually end up as a performing orca at SeaWorld in the US, WDCS opposes this transfer.

This past year and a half has brought us a personal glimpse of the truth, tragedy and risk associated with the confinement of orcas in captivity.  It has also revealed the quality of life and welfare concerns that orcas in these theme parks must endure for our entertainment.  And the stories are not over. As more and more details surface from the orca trainer and research communities, through lawsuits and media inquiries, and even from SeaWorld itself, WDCS is certain that the mounting pressure against holding orcas in captivity will serve to provide the public with an aversion to these shows and outdated practices, and serve as a tipping point in the right direction.  WDCS continues to call for an end to the confinement of whales and dolphins in captivity.

 

 

 

2011: if you ask a politician, a government within a Member State of the European Union, today how many dolphins are displayed within the Member States of the European Union, about the reproduction rate of the breeding programmes etc. No one would be able to give you a precise answer, as there is no such register available that lists such data and provide transparent access to such information. Please keep in mind we talk about large mammals. Forget even trying to think of asking about the percentage of abortions, still births, miscarriages, what kind of medical treatment dolphins get etc.. Just forget it. No one knows, just the institutions displaying these large mammals themselves.

In 2006 and 2007 several dolphin calves and an adult female died at the dolphinarium in the Nuremberg Zoo, Germany. WDCS took action and asked the representatives of the Nuremberg Zoo as well as the City of Nuremberg (who have responsiblity for the Zoo) to have access to all data relating to the display of dolphins for an independent review. The request and access was denied. In 2008 WDCS took legal action, as denying access to such information violates the law that grants access to Environmental Information. Since then we have been in court fighting for the public's right to know what is happening with dolphins and whales held in captivity. We won, the city of Nuremberg appealed, we won again. Meaning: in May 2011, the Bavarian Appeal Court confirmed that WDCS has the right to access all information relevant to the display of dolphins. The first verdict of its kind. The first time, a public institution has to open their books. You might think, this should be standard practise. You might think, why did the Zoo fight so hard to prevent the law being applied?

Yes, this is an amazing result, but I want to offer you another thought.

The City of Nuremberg has provided the guarantee for the investment of more than 20 Million EUR to expand the dolphinarium at the Nuremberg Zoo. No instruction to undertake an independent evaluation of the breeding programme had taken place before the politicians came to their decision (acting on tax payers money).

When you consider that the total budget for research, field work and conservation projects by the Convention on Migratory Species, the Agreement for the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the North and Baltic Sea (ASCOBANS) and the Agreement for the Conservation of Whales and Dolphins in the Mediterranean and Black Sea is less than 500.000 € a year …

then you might agree with two things:

1. the verdict is a Milestone for transparency that was bitterly needed

2. If you are a tax payer - there is a huge scandal up in the air and you may be asking further questions of our elected officials.

Its rare that I would publicly identify WDCS colleagues for individual actions but it would be remiss of me not to mention the outstanding work of the German WDCS team for their incredible work in taking on Nuremberg Zoo for the public's right to access information about the dolphins it keeps. Yesterday the Munch Appeals Court ruled in WDCS's favour by granting the public access to all information relating to the display and husbandry of captive dolphins at the Zoo.

You might think on first inspection that this ruling is a small matter, but its a first and will have a dramatic effect on conservation and welfare campaigns for whales and dolphins. It means that the days when cetaceans were just to be thought of as the property of a zoo or aquarium are long gone, and that such institutions have a duty of care to the public to open its doors and files to independent scientific evaluations of its data relating to dolphins in
captivity. We can now ask such questions as 'what is the keeping of dolphins in captivity doing for animals in the wild?' and, 'how successful is their captive breeding programme?'. 

A bright light has been shone into the darkness of this commercial industry which has more to do with the circus than conservation.

So to Dr. Karsten Brensing, Niki Entrup and the whole German team, - chapeau! Your actions have brought the end of dolphinaria in Europe a lot closer.