#cetacean captivity

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

If you're considering snorkelling with orcas in Norway, please read this article first

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25148486251319672?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3FV1YUYIkKXjFvRKQntdfnWgL8iOCZEMCNZ-CvWmp8BlvIh1a_cg4aYMU_aem_Psu0vb3dqr2ML5c0OzUAPw

"The opportunity to snorkel with orcas (killer whales) near the Norwegian Arctic town of Skjervøy is unparalleled globally, due to the absence of regulations prohibiting the activity, requiring licenses, or limiting the number of boats. Since 2017, the annual arrival of orcas and other large whale species in winter has been attracting increasing numbers of tourists, leading to crowding and sometimes risky situations at sea that are described as a ‘wild west’. Based on ethnographic fieldwork in Skjervøy across two winter seasons, the article first describes how whale watching emerged in this low-regulation context, and the consequences of the growing popularity of snorkelling activities. Second, it examines tourists’ self-reported responses to their snorkelling experiences, revealing that many people see encounters with wild orcas as a form of redemption or apology for the ways that humans have mistreated the species, particularly in captivity. The embodied experience of immersion in orcas’ Arctic habitat begins a process of recontextualisation, whereby a species understood to have suffered at human hands is imagined anew according to principles of freedom and autonomy. For other tourists, their awe at the opportunity to observe orcas up close is complicated by feelings of unease about their role in a sometimes-chaotic activity that can disturb the whales, shaped by the experience of sharing the sea space with numerous other tourists and boats. In the final section, the article suggests that these ‘ambivalent encounters’ undermine their hopes for a benign form of human-whale encounter, as the crowding creates an image of humans ‘chasing’ the whales."

What fascinates me about this article is the response of the participants in this unethical interaction with wild killer whales feel they have to "make amends" for orca captivity.

It's extremely egotistical to think that 1) you had any individual impact on the captivity industry 2) you could have changed the trajectory of an extremely lucrative capitalist venture and 3) that wild killer whales care about their counterparts in human care.

This very much reinforces my ongoing theory about how much the anti cap movement is centred around guilt and shame. As if "standing against" multi million dollar corportations actually do anything to improve welfare. And as if it's somehow a win to go and harass wild killer whales instead.

The idea that the wild killer whales "choose" to be there totally ignores that they actually have no choice when prey is centred around specific areas. They have to feed and they're already competing with fisheries for this food! Now let's dump a bunch of squirming, kicking and squealing humans on top of them so they can have an ~experience~.

Anyway this article is a fascinating example of how Blackfish and the anti cap movement have used guilt and shame to make people believe that wild cetacean interactions are always ethical and does not harm, when some of them objectively do.

[namu-the-orca]

Hello! I hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you had any knowledge of a dolphin named Han Solo? Han was a bottlenose dolphin who lived at the Roatan Institute for Marine Sciences. He was actually originally a wild dolphin who one day joined the pod living there. His story sounds fascinating, but there is very little information about him online. Would you happen to know more on the subject? Thank you.

Hi! That's a really cool question, and it makes me happy that you know of Han Solo too! Unfortunately RIMS is a bit vague in their communication around their dolphins, so there is indeed little information to be found about him online. I did not even know he passed (or when).

The only thing I know about Han Solo was what George Kieffer told me when I was in Curacao. George was one of the founding fathers of the RIMS, setting the catch quotas for the dolphins there and capturing some of the first animals.

He told me that Han Solo was a solitary male. Either out of loneliness or curiosity (or both) he showed great interest in the RIMS' trained dolphins whenever they would join divers outside the pens. Han Solo would hang around and observe. With time he'd come closer, and follow the trained dolphins further and further back towards the RIMS. Until one day he just swam inside with them and never left again.

Unfortunately that is all George told me. Not sure if it is more than you knew, but his story sure is an interesting one! Wish I could have learnt more about him.

[fisheatingorca]

Headlines when an orca in captivity dies from an infection: Died sad and alone because of the stresses of captivity!

When Keiko dies from an infection after not joining a pod and seeking human interaction: Hooray! He died free!

Is it about good welfare, or having animals die in a more preferable and "natural" setting, even if its no longer natural to them?

[a-minke-whales-tale]

A bittersweet but happy comic of Sonar ( @swims-n-spins ) and myself. It is a life I hope to have someday, finally be returned to the water, to have our bodies back and swim forever together until eventually memory of the time we were made human, and having to live among them serving them is just a faded memory - maybe it is a fact we can remember, but any details we can no longer. With my memory it might happen relatively shortly after returning to the water, a few months to a couple years.

Someday, I will be back in the water, and hopefully there forever, though I would be so happy even if it was only a couple years I could have. I hope when the time comes for me to return to the water, my friend Sonar will join me there, and swim together forever.

I have been struggling to draw lately. The comic is simple but it was nice to put something down finally. Still it is meaningful and an idea I have had in my head for a while.

[orcinus-veterinarius]

When horses end up with severe leg/hip injuries, they are almost always put to sleep. The odds of recovering full mobility from such injuries are slim and the odds of reinjury are high, so even if the horse is perfectly healthy in all other aspects, it is generally recognized to be more humane to put them down than to keep them alive just to live the rest of their lives limping around a small paddock or stall. A life for a horse in which s/he cannot gallop, leap, explore and play is no life at all. Why not apply the same logic to cetaceans? A life for a cetacean in which they can’t dive hundreds of meters, make meaningful autonomous choices (“should I play with the rubber ball or the puzzle feeder today?” is not a meaningful choice; research has shown that autonomy is crucial for animal welfare), echolocate and experience the rich biodiversity of the ocean is no life. I really don’t understand why it’s so horrible to think it more humane to euthanize a confused and sick orca calf if there is no chance of rehab and release than to take her/him permanently into captivity. It’s not disparaging or hateful to cetacean trainers to say so—I know they care about animals—it’s simply a logical ethical stance. Instead of searching in vain for orca conservation organizations that aren’t “radically anti-captivity”, maybe pro-caps should look inwards and ask themselves why all the major orca organizations (Center for Whale Research, Orca Behavior Institute, OrcaLab, Wild Orca, Orca Conservancy, Far East Russia Orca Project, etc.) as well as some cetacean organizations (ex. Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Cetacean Society International) oppose captivity. Is it because all of these esteemed groups, which if you look them up are all staffed by credentialed scientists, have been duped by the “animal rights agenda”, or could it be because maybe, just maybe, they know what they’re talking about? If captive orcas are so different from wild ones that wild orca biologists have no credibility to speak about their welfare, then that’s a clear indictment of captivity already.

Hi. I'm sorry for not answering right away, I was still at my externship when I got your ask, and I wanted to be able to sit down and give you a proper answer. So unfortunately, I don't think what I say will satisfy you. I don't expect to change your mind, nor is that my goal here. I only want to explain why I believe the way I do, so that you or others reading this can at least understand that it's not a position I take lightly, nor do I think it's infallible.

(Long post below the cut):

To start off, as an (almost) veterinarian, there are absolutely plenty of circumstances where I find euthanasia to be the correct decision. Euthanasia is our final gift to our patients, a swift and painless death in the face of prolonged suffering or poor quality of life. A large dog with debilitating osteoarthritis. A cat with terminal lymphoma. A down cow. A raptor with an amputated leg. Or like you mentioned, a horse with a fractured hip. These animals would live in a constant state of pain that they don't understand, and death can rightly be considered a kindness to them.

But an otherwise healthy orca calf? I would consider that a false equivalence. I agree that life in the wild should be prioritized whenever possible, and that captive orcas lead very different lives than their wild counterparts. But if that orca cannot return to the wild (orphaned and unable to be reunited with its pod, habituated to humans, non-painful disability such as deafness), and there is a facility willing to take it on, I do not think euthanasia is an appropriate option. In human care, that calf can still swim, breach, and dive, even if not to the same depths as the ocean (it's also worth noting that these are all costly behavior energetically and are not performed for no reason). It can still socialize and form family bonds with an adopted pod of whales. It can still (theoretically) mate and rear calves. It can still engage its big brain in problem-solving through training and enrichment in the place of hunting. And as a bonus, it will never go hungry and has access to veterinary care if ill or injured.

This is not a wild life. This is not the same life they would've, or should've known. A pool, no matter how well-appointed, is not the ocean, and we should not claim they're comparable. But I don't think it's a fate worse than death. I truly don't. But if it is... if freedom really is worth more than life, then all captive whales need to be euthanized. Even in a sea pen setting, they will not be free. They will not choose their food, their companions, their enrichment, their comings and goings. Those choices will still be made on their behalf by caregivers, and they will still have pretty much the same levels of autonomy as in their tank habitat. They will still be captive. (While some people do advocate for this, I don't think it's a popular outlook. Even SOS Dolfijn, a historically anti-cap organization, recently announced plans to build an aqauarium as a permanent home for non-releasable cetaceans rather than continuing to euthanize them).

Speaking of autonomy, yes, it is very important. But I truly don't think the orcas are distressed by the lack of meaning in choosing between enrichment devices. I think that's why we disagree on this topic... we have different worldviews. We both see orcas as beautiful, intelligent creatures, but I do not see them as people. They are animals, and for all their complexity, I interpret their behavior the same way I do any other species... they are motivated by food, reproduction, and (since they're highly social) companionship. Because of that, I still think we can give them a good life in human care, which is why it frustrates me to see the zoo community throw up their hands and give up rather than trying to improve our current less-than-ideal setups (*shakes my fist at the Blue World project*).

Now, I don't think it's wrong to be emotional about animals. I most definitely am! And it's very clear to me you love orcas and care about their wellbeing deeply. I admire that about you, and I appreciate your passion.

On to the next point... in the cetacean world, I've found that there is an unfortunate divide between researchers and caregivers who work with cetaceans in human care and those who study them exclusively in the wild. And that schism far predates the Blackfish era. Most of those organizations you listed are indeed legitimate, and I fully support their vital work and encourage others to do the same. A few of them, though, share things like this:

I think you can understand why this hurts me. And it's a lie. I've now interned at three aquariums (two of them AZA-accredited) that house various species of cetacean, and it's impossible for me to reconcile what I know and have seen to be true and what Whale and Dolphin Conservation wants the public to believe: that these unbelievably loved, vivacious animals are drugged and tortured by their greedy captors. It's not true, and I do not appreciate WDC for spreading this creepy artwork around. Nor do I think that fighting captivity is a beneficial allocation of resources when there is an overwhelming number of genuine threats to the survival of wild cetaceans.

Anyway, back to the scientists. Personally, I don't consider researchers who work exclusively with wild orcas to be either superior or inferior to those who work with captive whales. And sometimes I wonder how much of their position is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if someone opposes captivity on moral grounds, they won't work with captive whales, so they'll never get to know what their lives and care are like beyond maybe a single tour of the park or memories of how things were done in the 1960s (like Dr. Spong, who worked with some of the very first captive orcas at the Vancouver Aquarium).

I also don't think it diminishes the expertise of wildlife biologists to say that they are not experts on husbandry, training, or medical care... those are very different fields, and ideally, they should all inform each other. And of course, there are folks who work with both wild and captive whales. One of the reasons I linked SR3 in my previous post is they have staff with backgrounds in both managed care and research of free-ranging populations (I actually have no idea what the organization's official stance on captivity is, it's not something they address).

Maybe I'm wrong. I try my best to keep an open mind, but I know I'm also swayed by my own preconceptions and experiences. When I started this blog in December 2020, I was a first year vet student with minimal actual experience outside of domestic animals and some herps, and had only recently adopted the pro-captivity outlook. Now, I'm much more deeply involved in the zoo and aquarium world. These are people I know and respect, people who have written me letters of recommendation and comment on my Facebook posts, people I've had dinner with and showed up with after hours to care for a sick animal. And I recognize that biases me. The zoo world is often resistant to change, especially folks who have been in the industry for many years. And that doesn't do anyone, especially the animals, any good. I don't want to get stuck in an echo chamber, so I make it a point to read anti-captivity literature, even when it upsets me. If there is anything I can do to improve their lives, I want to learn about it, regardless of the source.

I try to adapt to new information. For example, in the past few months alone, I've become a lot more favorable toward the idea of sea pen habitats. My concerns about "sanctuaries" are more logisitical* and philosophical** rather than the idea that artifical habitats are inherently superior to pen habitats (they're not), especially when plenty of traditional facilites already make great use of ocean pens or enclosed lagoons. There are pros and cons to both, and a lot of it depends on the needs of the individual animals.

*funding; maintenance; lack of land-based backup pools and fully-equipped medical facilities; introducing immunologically naive animals to pollutants and infectious agents; disruptions to native wildlife; staffing activists and wildlife biologists rather than those with relevant husbandry experience

**villainizing aquariums; promoting the project as a "release to freedom" to the public when it's really another form of captivity; claiming the animals' lives will be "natural" when they will still require training, artificial enrichment, contraceptives, and social management if done correctly; downplaying or completely denying the very real risks of such a transition and insisting the animals will automatically be better off when Little White and Little Grey have proved that's not the case

If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading. I wish all the best for you, and I mean that genuinely ❤️ even if we disagree, I hope you can appreciate our shared love for these animals and a desire for their wellbeing. Best of luck in all your endeavors!

[notherefortheanonhate]

I, an uneducated idiot, am going to give my opinion in cetacean captivity, specifically regarding orcas. Specifically specifically regarding SeaWorld.

It's bad that it happened. It's bad that it ever happened in the first place, and when I get to hell I am going to hunt Ted Griffiths for sport for getting the whole thing off the ground.

(more under the cut because this is getting long)

I don't like the commercialisation of SeaWorld. Surely they can study the orcas without making them do tricks for large audiences.

"But Lauren, they stopped doing that!"

Yes, because the public outcry made them stop. They are a for profit company. They did not stop any of this on their own. They did not stop capturing orcas because they felt bad or realized it was wrong. They did not stop breeding orcas because they felt bad or realized it was wrong. I am not anti-zoo, or anti-conservstion. I am strongly anti-capitalist though, and I think SeaWorld as an amusement park needs a whole lot of side eye.

"So Lauren, you think the orcas should go back in the ocean, right?"

Honestly, I don't know. I am just an uneducated idiot, and I wouldn't presume to tell people what to do about it when they might know more than me. Also, historically, I'm going to be honest that it doesn't work well. We did Keiko dirty.

In a perfect world, I would call for wildlife rehabilitation facilities; huge, enormous ones, where all the whales that are family (really, truly family, so mothers would be reunited with their children first and foremost and then we go from there) in captivity could be reunited in sea pools, near enough where wild orcas (of their specific grouping/language) can call to them and they can call back while humans teach them the skills they need to survive in the wild, then release them. This scenario also relies on thriving fish/mammal stocks, which uh. Hmm. An issue for another time, but like I said, this is my idea for a Perfect World. In a perfect world, the other pods would snap up their old and new members easily. We know from Keiko that it is not entirely likely to happen. I also wonder if the captive orcas have their own kind of language borne from different pods being forced together, or at the very least if the younger ones do. The pods of their grandparents might be confused by them, at the very least!

"Lauren, that's not a solution. That's a pipe dream."

Yeah. Kind of. Honestly, it doesn't seem like there's any way to right a lot of these wrongs. It seems that it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing; we don't want the whales left in stagnant pools of glass and concrete; if nothing else, they don't have the room they're used to as migratory animals, and they don't have the ecosystem to interact with. We can't release them, they don't know how to be a wild animal anymore. And we aren't kind enough to the natural world to let them figure it out as they go along because they have lost the time they would have otherwise spent learning those skills.

"But Lauren, we know so much more about them now!"

I mean, I guess? Like I said, I am suspicious of the conservation efforts of teaching them tricks for our amusement, and how the captive breeding program that SeaWorld was running seemed to be more for SeaWorld's benefit than for bringing more orcas into our seas. I also don't know how much we can learn if the variable of captivity is there. Does this orca prefer fish because it was from a resident pod, or because they were primarily fed fish by their humans? If they were originally from a transient pod, was the transition to a fish-based diet difficult for them? Would it be difficult to go back? It seems so individual that we cannot possibly know.

BUT I acknowledge your point. Would we have cared to learn as much about them if we didn't have this experience? This capitalist push behind them? I don't think we actually would have. Look at sharks. They have less than 150 marine biologists dedicated to them right now, counting post grad students if I remember that YouTube video essay correctly. We wouldn't know to love orcas if we hadn't done this; hell, they might have been treated like the Great White Shark! It's good that we love orcas and we care about them! It means that we might make better efforts regarding the Chinook Salmon that the Southern Pacific Resident pod thrives on, or reducing pollution, or any number of things. I can't say what knowledge we have lost or gained because of specific actions. Again, it seems so variable that I cannot say. How many marine biologists today were taken to SeaWorld as a child? That seems quantifiable, but how many people didn't go into marine biology as adults because their experience wasn't as good; the weather was bad, their parents fought, the whales weren't performing as well as they did some other day? That the experience was coloured in some way in their perception, pushing them from the field? That's less quantifiable.

So that's my opinion on it. It's not good, and quite honestly it shouldn't have come this far in the first place. But there's really not much we can do about it now, except maybe letting them die with their loved ones.

[swirlingyouintomypoems]

listened to thad lacinak's interview on the roach show and that's all good and informative until my youtube recommended is now flooded with videos like "the DOWNFALL of seaworld😱" "is seaworld still KILLING orcas?????" and they all have dawn slapped on thumbnails. because how else are you going to get views if not by exploiting a woman's death?

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Unfortunately, Lori Marino et. al is back at it again publishing self-referenced, biased papers claiming that cetaceans are better off in sea pen environments - "sanctuaries" (which currently don't exist and that Lori Marino actively profits from the idea of)

Dr. Jason Bruck (who, full disclosure, is a close friend and mentor of mind) discusses how this scientific malpractise is occurring due to a weakening of the peer review process (thanks late stage capitalism) and the rise of unethical "pay to play" scientific journals publishing papers that are more likely to get media attention.

As Jason says - we have the means to do habitat preference testing with bottlenose dolphins! We both worked at a facility that would be ideal: it has a internal lagoon connected by a tunnel that goes out into the open ocean.

And, consistently, only a few dolphins actually want to go out there! No matter how much fish we gave them to do it!

Anyway, this is a good listen and I highly recommend listening to it - no matter what side of the fence you're on.

[namu-the-orca]

Have there ever been any privately owned cetaceans in captivity? Some rich asshole must have tried keeping a bottlenose in a swimming pool at least once right? Maybe before the capture and transport of cetaceans for captivity became so regulated/restricted in many places?

That is an interesting question! One I've been chewing on a little while. I must admit that my first response was "yeah of course" - as you say, some rich asshole somewhere must have done something.

And honestly, I still believe that. But it's hard to find any (modern) records of such a thing happening. Somewhere in the back of my mind floated an old internet story of a woman keeping sea lions in her basement. For some reason I also associate that story, or a similar one, with a privately owned beluga whale. Somewhere in the far east/Russia. There was also a time when you could access a Russian website where one could order any kind of animal, from a cheetah or a zebra to yes, indeed, killer whales and bottlenose dolphins.

However in trying to find any of this back, I've come up empty handed. Doesn't helpt that the internet is currently overrun with anti-captivity propaganda concerning cetaceans, and any exhibit is currently labeled a "swimming pool." I did find some references to dolphins being kept in a hotel swimming pool in Armenia. But it turned out those too belonged to an associated dolphinarium (which ultimately answered to a parent seaquarium in Russia).

Perhaps the real difference is to be found in legislation. The dolphins used in John Lilly's experiments for example; were those owned in his name? Or under some scientific institution? If the first, they may be considered privately owned dolphins. There have been more hotels with dolphins in pools; nowadays that would not be considered private ownership because the dolphins belong to the hotel/associated marine park. Maybe some 20/30 years ago a dolphin like that would have been bought under private name.

It is an interesting subject though and I wonder if any of my followers here perhaps knows more substantiated examples! @local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti, perhaps you can shed some light?

[fisheatingorca]

The believing-in-the-good-of-humanity side of me (mistake number one) thought for a minute that others were exaggerating when they said people were celebrating the blocked move of the 2 orcas and 12 dolphins at Marineland Antibes to Loro Parque. Today, i was proven wrong while scrolling through the #dolphins tag.

Some people care way more about the ending of captivity, not the improvement of welfare. It is downright disgusting and incredibly embarrassing for the anti captivity movement. A lot of anti caps i know have common sense and support a move to Loro Parque (at least a temporary move, until a sea pen is actually built) that will save these animals' lives.

Don't call yourself an animal welfare advocate if you're okay with or even celebrate letting these animals die a slow, sad death so you can feel better about yourself. These animals do not deserve to be waiting in a degrading tank (that certainly will not last long enough) so you can have your "sea pen sanctuary" dream.

[a-minke-whales-tale]

Originally this was just meant to be a size reference for a piece I have been working on featuring Sonar (@swims-n-spins) and I. But then I was having just a bit too much fun and instead made something like an infographic you would find on the wall of an aquarium by our exhibit. My (Kala) flippers are a bit longer than standard, and Sonars are both larger and further back as though we were both wearing the whale suit concept I have been working on and playing with as it needs to be able to conform to a human body and human arms are proportionally longer than most cetaceans flippers (humpbacks are the possible exception). I dream often to make such a whale suit and to swim forever. I do not think I could have any way to survive in the wild, nor engineer a solution which would allow to even if I could. So I often dream to be in a large tank swimming round and round, and I hope someday maybe Sonar could join me, and others if we find them.

Also I have only drawn a couple times between the picture of myself, and that of Sonar. Despite that I can see my mechanical skills with my tablet improving a lot and I am getting much better at keeping my hands steady.

Someday I will swim forever, return to the water where I belong~

[orcinus-veterinarius]

This piece by Dr. Jason Bruck, published just today in a special issue of the journal Animals, explores the logistical and philosophical challenges surrounding the proposed use of "sea pen sanctuaries" for zoological cetaceans. Dr. Bruck addresses the issues of space, human contact, birth control, and funding, as well as the prioritization of "ending captivity" above individual welfare and continued conservation efforts.

Dr. Bruck is a professor of biology and PhD research scientist focusing on dolphin communication, cognition, and welfare, both in the wild and in human care.

The full text can be accessed free of charge by downloading the PDF provided at the link above.

[tohruies]

what if… karasu were a false killer whale… and i were a bottlenose dolphin… and we were in love………

[ihazyourkitty]

Morgan and her calf deserve better

And by that I mean, they deserve better than the Free Morgan Foundation's blatant lies and self contradictions (links to their Facebook post).

I have to wonder what kind of gall one has to posses to take it upon themselves to post something like this. They've decided to name Morgan's calf CODDA, because: "In recognition of the 2021 film “CODA” which told the story of a Child of Deaf Adults and with deep respect and appreciation for the contributions of the deaf community, we have named Morgan’s new calf CODDA because it is the Child of Deaf & Deceased Adults."

How interesting.... in honor of the deaf community, they are on the one hand acknowledging that Morgan is hearing impaired (which they have been trying to downplay if not outright deny for years), while simultaneously saying this:

"...Loro Parque has always insisted that Morgan is deaf and therefore will never be able to communicate and socialize properly with her calf."

The latter part, that Morgan will never be able to properly socialize with her calf, is something Loro Parque has never claimed to my knowledge. That is what FMF is claiming.

So let me get this straight... the Free Morgan Foundation wants to liberate Morgan from LP, ideally back to the wild, but is also now claiming that Morgan won't be able to properly communicate or socialize with her calf...... so let me get this straight.... allowing her to breed is not in her best interests, but setting her free.... is? I'm sorry, would being in the wild or a sanctuary somehow magically give her the ability to socialize properly?

Also, they're taking it on themselves to name her calf in honor of the deaf community, while simultaneously saying that Morgan would be an unfit mother because she is deaf. Just........ let that sink in!

Yeah, orcas don't have hands with which they can sign. Do these "orca experts" not realize that orcas also communicate through visual and body language cues? What an incredibly egotistical, anthropocentric mindset to take here, to assume Morgan can't be a good mom because she can't communicate like deaf humans do.

They continue: "Loro Parque claims they are breeding orca for conservation, but no responsible facility would breed a hybrid offspring (mother and father of the calf come from different genetic populations and therefore the calf has no conservation value)."

Conservation value is not measured simply by genetic purity, nor by whether or not you can release a certain individual back into the wild. Loro Parque does scientific research, and several papers on their orcas have been published. Whether you like them or not, that is a fact. Conservation is achieved through scientific collaboration between ex situ and in situ efforts. To claim this calf has no conservation value just tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, Loro Parque is an entertainment venue as well. Entertainment, education and conservation are not mutually exclusive things.

They then go on to say the Loro Parque has said the calf's father is Keto. No, they have not! To claim that they did is a bald faced lie, but why tell it? Because it gives them an excuse to shoehorn in Alexis Martinez's death:

"No other animals which kill humans are used for breeding – and this once again shows the lack of any moral standards by Loro Parque and its owners and management."

Okay, but they're not breeding these animals to select for specific traits. They aren't being bred for domestication. That's not how these zoological breeding programs work! They breed to maintain genetic diversity, not to weed out aggression.

For as much as they talk about animal welfare, are they going to talk about how socio-sexual behavior and breeding are actually important parts of cetacean welfare? If they want to ban LP from breeding, there are only two ways to do that: hormonal birth control, whose long term effects on orcas are poorly understood, or through separating males and females. In Morgan's case, that would mean keeping her in isolation since she's the only female there right now. Explain to me how either of those options are supposed to be kinder than allowing her to breed naturally? (And yes, it was natural breeding, because LP doesn't use artificial insemination).

But that's not what FMF cares about. They will actively lie and sacrifice animal welfare for the sake of getting what they want for an orca they have never worked with.

It should be noted that third party studies from the US Navy have confirmed Morgan's hearing impairment, and multiple court cases in Europe have dismissed FMF's claims. And yet these grifters press on, because you know what sells better than an orca show?

The aesthetic of an orca suffering.

In fact, the idea sells so well, that people on reddit can post stuff like this and no one bats an eye:

The shameless anthropomorphism in the first three comments are bad enough, but that last one....

Imagine hoping the calf dies. Just imagine hoping an otherwise perfectly healthy animal... dies. And for what? Because you think animal welfare should be measured against the human construct of "freedom?"

Blackfish, Free Morgan, etc. This is not based on animal welfare, and it never was. It's based on the morbid aesthetic of an animal suffering for likes, clicks and donations.... donations that, ironically enough, have little to no conservation value. The biggest threats orcas and other cetaceans face today is not the captivity of a few individuals. Emptying the tanks does not help their wild counterparts... but it does certainly hurt the ones that are in human care.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Hi I read in one of your reactions to a question I asked about Ric O'Barry & I am quite interested in that book you mentioned where he bragged about developing a cattle prod to hit the dolphins when they misbehaved. Do you have any idea which book it is & approximately where that information is located?

Hi there, I believe it was Behind the Dolphin Smile and To Free A Dolphin as the main sources of some pretty nasty stuff. Also a lot of gross racism.

Ocean on Twitter took these screenshots while going through the books:

I think this is Behind the Dolphin Smile

Ric asks his buddy to make a “dolphin prod” for Patty who had “gone too far”:

Then he brags about the time he punched Patty - literally no one is making him do this and he seems to actually relish it yuck:

I mean it’s no surprise the guy thinks dolphins get abused in human care - he seemed to enjoy punching a dolphin in the back!

Then in his other book about freeing dolphin he bragged about breaking laws, cutting nets and called dolphins in human care “chubby little clowns” that were all overweight and that’s why he didn’t think the ones he threw out into the wild with no prep weren’t emaciated.

So what is it Ric? Are dolphins in human care starved to perform or are they overweight and getting free food for nothing?

This is Buck after he was rescued btw

Then he implies that it’s easier for the dolphins to just “escape accidentally” rather than get permits ti release

He knew the dolphins who had “escaped” were hungry, he knew they were dependent on people. He thought he could starve them out.

Ah yes 4 days of being forced out into the wild is totally enough time to evaluate whether they can make it out there or not. Not like dolphins have massive blubber reserves they can use if they can’t feed themselves for a few days.

Also he has beef with the Sarasota Dolphin Research project that Randy Wells is in charge of because he doesn’t like that they’re getting data of dolphins dying in the wild

It’s wild to me that people read his book and still worship him. So so gross.

[namu-the-orca]

Regarding the anti-zoo post I have a question: wouldn't roaming be considered a form of enrichment tho?

Surviving, planning, hunting, thinking for themselves and having new experiences every day, family, herd dynamics, etc. I can't imagine an animal that is "built" to travel long distances and taking care of itself being happy with lying around all day with little to nothing to do. Prey animals might be content, but I can't imagine the same for predators.

Yeah for sure! But this is exactly why a strong enrichment programme is such a crucial part of any good husbandry plan. What kind of enrichment, and how much, depends of course on the needs of a species. But caretakers and trainers work very hard to make sure both the physical and mental needs of their animals are met.

To focus on cetaceans, this can start with the environment itself: some oceanic habitats have the influence of waves and tides, and are often filled with live fish and other naturally occurring wild animals. These provide ever-changing surroundings with lots of "entertainment" and even hunting options. But also a seemingly boring plain tank environment isn't always the same. The weather changes, birds may perch on the edge, there could be cleaning activities going on or special visits from groups/tours.

In a more barren environment the use of EED's (environmental enrichment devices) can be an important part of keeping its occupants entertained. At the Dolphin Academy in Curacao where I volunteered for a short while, the EEDs weren't very exciting and only seldom used because the dolphins could entertain themselves all day within their natural enclosures. But in other facilities, making EEDs for the animals has been turned into an artform. (See for example these contraptions!)

Training, husbandry sessions and shows are all a form of enrichment too! It allows the animal to get a physical workout, while putting their brain to work at the same time. It's also very rewarding for dolphins just for the social interaction of it: I've seen fully milk dependent calves desperate to join a session, without there being any food reward involved for them. And, not to forget: they still live in a social grouping. The interaction between their peers, social structure and hierarchy, play, fights, cooperation... this enriching aspect of social life still exists in a zoo or aquarium.

So in essence, animals under human care definitely "lose" some enriching aspects of their wild life. However, if cared for well, this void is filled up with new and different activities that keep them physically and mentally healthy. There's a whole science dedicated to making sure animals under human care lead interesting lives! Sea World Australia has a great page about all the ways they use enrichment to keep their animals happy and shows examples (plus many more) of the things mentioned above.