Cetaceans in captivity

In a perfect world there would be no reason to have captive animals in zoos and aquariums. Unfortunately we do not live in that world. We live in a world where the majority of people have no interest in conservation of endangered species. Why? Is it because when they were young they never had personal contact with these animals, or any animal? How can they get this contact if their parents aren't interested? Through their schools from field trips to zoos and aquariums. Through visits to their schools from organizations hoping to educate them. Why is this important? So when they become adults they WILL have the interest to financially support the groups that do help protect those endangered species. That is why I view zoos and aquariums as necessary until that perfect world happens.

 

Very powerful message.

 

Any opinion on Discovery Cove and Dolfinarium Harderwijk?

 

Orcas and many dolphins live close to shore too, in fact. In British Columbia, homeland of a good part of the ancestors of the current captive population, orcas are know to enjoy rubbing their bodies with the smooth rocks at the bottom. They also enjoy playing with kelp. Bottlenose Dolphins in Florida (again, main origin of the captive ones) live in pretty shallow water and get part of their food by digging on the sand. I have seen the dolphins at Harderwijk and they spent lot of time rubbing with the rocky bottom, playing with algae and pursuing small fishes and crabs. There is also a dolphinarium in Spain, Mundomar, that have some fake rocks on the pool, and the dolphins also used them. A more natural environment is an enrichment that the dolphins enjoy, and even for those pelagic species like Pacific White-sided there are ways the pools could be improved. Open sea is not an sterile environment. A way to create waves, an area with a strong current, or some live fishes are changes I think should be tested.

 

Yes, it is totally subjective because of the years I spent actually working with highly endangered species and in dealing with the public's misconceptions on this subject. That is why I closed with the comment that this was MY view. Sorry if that upset you.

 

I share @Merintia and @lintworm 's views. It's totally possible to keep most mid-sized or small cetaceans and have them happy and healthy, but a lot of the time things aren't ideal.

Human contact and interaction is great and very important but I'd think that, as it is in the wild, having others of their species around is one of the most important factors of their mental and emotional health. Unfortunately this means doubled, tripled or bigger yet enclosure sizes, more complex in structure and with far more enrichment opportunities, as well as the availability to separate themselves from their tank mates if they require privacy or peace at any time - not to mention the other costs involved. Meeting their social needs also isn't generally as simple as just dropping another animal in with them regardless of where it comes from. If this crucial aspect of most cetaceans' lives can't be properly met, sometimes I'm not sure it's entirely worth it.

This is why I tend to draw the line with orcas. I haven't even seen Blackfish and I'm not sure many captive individuals are quite as miserable as they might seem but most of the time I just don't see a feasible way to contain enough of them in a given area, with enough resources for ideal care, enough space to stay physically fit (dorsal fin collapse is all too common) and in a healthy family-centric social structure. It's difficult enough with elephants for many institutions and those are more or less half the size of orcas.

I also think that, unless the species is in dire straits and needs our intervention to survive (which I think should have been at least attempted with the vaquita and baiji but it was likely too late by the time people might have considered this as a necessity), capture from the wild is unnecessary. I'm not sure how common this practice is now but the psychological damage it inflicts on both the captured animals and their wild families has a long lasting effect.

 

So, there's a couple things "wrong" with this that I'm not sure you're aware of.

1. You mention being in favor of small or medium sized cetaceans being kept in captivity over orcas, as they can be happy and healthy. The funny thing about that is orcas fare far better in captivity than all small and medium cetacean species that have been kept in captivity, barring of course bottlenose dolphins.
2. I'm unsure if you know this since you mention the need for the ability to separate tankmates, but interconnected pool systems with gates if the need for separation arises is actually the most common way, by far, to exhibit cetaceans.
3. Dorsal fin collapse has absolutely nothing to do with physical fitness. That is pure myth.
4. I don't know how large you think orcas are but there is no way the average orca is double the size of an elephant.
5. Wild capture is used to establish a founder population in most cases, just like non-cetacean species. It's still common in China, Japan, and Russia though. It generally ceases after breeding, since it takes time and a lot of permits. For example SeaWorld stopped wild captures 35 years ago. It might actually be illegal in the US (it's hard to find a source without wading through pages of anti-captivity propaganda) and some other countries.

 

Thanks for correcting me on where I got facts wrong or had false assumptions. My thinking was that smaller cetaceans fared better due to having much more readily available space for healthier social groupings, proper physical activity etc. as well as more resources to go around in general. I was somewhat aware of the usage of interconnected pools with gates but didn't know how common it was or how and if it was commonly applied to keeping orcas.

How do orcas fare better in captivity? And what is the true cause of dorsal fin collapse? Not trying to come off as confrontational, but I'd like to be able to form a more informed opinion.

(Also, you're right, elephants and orcas actually fall into the same weight range it turns out. My bad, that's really embarrassing - the length of orcas compared to elephants threw me off.)

 

Smaller cetaceans like harbor porpoises have actually done somewhat dismally in captivity attempts, in that no lasting populations have really been made. Really the only "success" in small cetaceans in captivity has been Commerson's Dolphins, and even so they didn't flourish.

Orcas had a semi-strong breeding program going for them, with births occurring somewhat regularly in SeaWorld's US population of 21 orcas. They didn't do as well as, say, giraffes, but still. We also saw (and are still seeing) orcas starting to meet and exceed average lifespans (30 years for males, 50 for females according to NOAA), which wasn't possible before because of how new orca captivity was and because young individuals started the captive populations.

Regarding dorsal fins, you won't find a scientific answer, as I don't actually believe there has been a study on the matter. However, we do know a few things. First, dorsal fin collapse does occur in the wild, second, it occurs with varying prevalence in wild populations, with one group of orcas in New Zealand where 23% of its orcas have dorsal disfigurement or collapse, versus in Norway where only 0.58% of individual orcas show dorsal collapse. There are a few hypotheses that dorsal fin collapse is due to captivity, and while it's more prevalent in captivity, that's obviously not the case since it's still seen in wild orcas.


SeaWorld claims it's due to time spent at the surface, and they are actively testing this as best they can. One of their males, Nakai, is the only male in captivity with a tall dorsal fin, and they've been trying to keep it that way by having Nakai perform exercises by going to the bottom of the pool. So far it's worked (though drooping is starting), so it really does seem like it's got something to do with time spent at the surface as SeaWorld claims.

 

Thank you Interesting. I had read that fin collapse in the wild was typically a result of injury or poor health but I don't know enough to feel confident in that. Reading about how many in New Zealand have it is surprising.

Regarding everything else, when it came to how well they fare in captivity, I had in mind more the animals' physical, mental and emotional health than breeding success and longevity, although of course there's correlation between the two factors. And it can be difficult to gauge the mental and emotional aspects, of which willingness to mate is potentially an indicator.

I do wonder if orcas found more breeding success partially due to more concentrated efforts to study them and improve their husbandry, since they're a significant attraction in any institution that would pay off in the long run much more than harbor porpoises for example.

Regarding wild captures I do know that the Georgia Aquarium here in Atlanta was attempting to gain permission to capture wild belugas off the coast of Russia but had no luck.

 

So, there aren't very many good studies on captive cetacean "mental and emotional health", but this might be of interest to you: http://zoonation.org/are-cetaceans-...ressed-than-those-in-the-wild/?jdfwkey=rg9of1

Highlights: "In Proie’s study, mean cortisol levels were significantly higher in wild Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) compared to dolphins in human care (Proie 2013)"
"This trend is mimicked in the beluga whale where mean cortisol levels were significantly higher in wild beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) than compared to samples collected from animals in human care during routine husbandry training sessions (Proie 2013)."
"Unfortunately, Proie could not compare cortisol levels of wild killer whales (Orcinus orca) to those in human care, as cortisol levels of wild killer whales were not evaluated. However, orcas in human care showed the lowest cortisol level compared to belugas and Atlantic bottlenose dolphins both in the wild and in human care."

As for Georgia, they weren't trying to capture wild belugas at all. They were trying to acquire already-captured whales, and the animals they were trying to import were all caught at separate times (2006, 2010, and 2011).

 

I have problems with this article, wouldn't a wild whale start producing more cortisol and stress if it was captured, for the blood samples required to measure its stress.

 

I can see you have not read the article, since it directly addresses that. They collected each set of samples, first with husbandry behaviors, the second without.
"When comparing samples of wild Atlantic bottlenose dolphins to those samples collected in human care without using husbandry behaviors, the data shows that the stress level is in these animals are nearly the same (Proie 2013)"
When we only compare samples of wild belugas to samples collected in human care not including husbandry behaviors, we can see that the stress level is nearly the same (Proie 2013).

Note that this also highlights the usefulness of husbandry behaviors in cetaceans.

 

There’s also the fact that most cetas in captivity are common species, the public doesn’t see a direct conservation benefit to keeping them in captivity. If a zoo decided to start a conservation breeding program for, say, the south Asian river dolphin I don’t think the general public would be too bothered. Really, I think elephant captivity would be far more controversial if they weren’t endangered.

 

If looking a bit closer at this, the case is more complex. The only porpoise species where reasonably large numbers have entered captivity are the harbour and finless, but the circumstances are very different than the well-established species, e.g. bottlenose, orca and beluga.

Of the several tens of harbour porpoises brought into captivity in Denmark, the vast majority were many decades ago (most some 50 years ago) and only two were actively caught. All others were accidental catches in fishing nets or strandings. Pretty much all were already sick or injured, and roughly half died in less than 4 weeks. Most were sent to marine centers (not open to the public) and fewer were sent to zoos where they typically were placed in pinniped exhibits of the time — not exactly optimum for any species if cetacean. One can only wonder how today's well-established cetacean species would have fared if almost the entire population had been based on accidental capture in fishing nets/strandings many decades ago rather than specific, pre-planned capture with the goal of bringing them into captivity. Sure such individuals have entered captivity for those species too, but they're a minority and mostly in recent decades. Accidental caught/strandings of those species from 1970s and earlier were almost always just as short-lived as the harbour porpoise from the same period. When the first place specifically designed for keeping harbour porpoise was opened in Denmark in the 1990s (a combined research center & public aquarium), they did much better: All three rescues reaching a higher age than the median age in the wild and world's first successful breeding in 2007. A rather similar pattern can be seen in the Netherlands, the other country where it currently is kept, which also has been restricted to rescues.

However, the place where there evidently still are serious issues is captive breeding: at the Danish facility one was stillborn, two were weak and only survived a few days, and the young from world's first fully successful breeding died after 6 years. A similar pattern can be seen in the Dutch facilities where the longest-lived young still is alive at 6, but another died after 5 years, 2,5 years and two a few months or less. But this is based on a small number of parent animals: one male and two females in Denmark (the current female is too old for breeding), and two males and four females in the Netherlands (sexes are currently split between the facilities in this country, which obviously prevents further breeding).

The only other porpoise where fairly large numbers have entered captivity is the finless at Asian facilities. They have relied almost entirely on individuals specifically caught for captivity and there have been very few births. However, even when looking at bottlenose, a species where the North American and Western European populations now can be considered essentially self-sustaining, there have been far fewer births in Asian facilities (a difference that has been discussed before on this forum).

 

Actually Finless Porpoises are actually doing rather well in Japanese facilities! There are 5-6 holders of the species in Japan, and three of them have regular breeding. There was a calf born just a few weeks ago, and I believe two were born last year. Calf survival rates are rather high, and there is usually at least one animal born a year. There are now also animals that are third generation captive bred! Which is quite the achievement, as there are only two other cetacean species that have achieved that (those being bottlenose dolphins and orcas).

 

Hyak (or anyone else),

Do you know how large the captive finless population is in Japan? Not necessarily exact figures, but just roughly. Which are the three with regular breeding? I know Toba is one of them; I believe they've had an average of 1 birth per year in the last few years, but their results/population alone is hardly sufficient. However, if there are two more Japanese with regular breeding, not just sporadic, that clearly changes things. I guess it could be Miyajima and/or Shimonoseki , but I have little knowledge of these two places (I've not visited either and my planned visit to Miyajima didn't materialize because I was sick that day) and don't know how regular breeding has been there.

How is the current breeding situation for finless in Chinese facilities? They did get a wake-up call with the baiji, but it seems Yangtze finless now mainly relies on the "semi-wild" in a couple of relatively well-protected lakes (although there are fully captives too and they have bred).

 

Just my two cents on cetaceans in captivity and animal activists:

Captivity is a very powerful tool to ensure the survival of a species. However, I feel that the utmost care should be given to cetaceans. Small Dolphins and Porpoises like the Commerson's, Bottlenose, and Pacific White Sided are generally ok with me. If they get the care they deserve at places like Shedd, I am completely fine. The Bigger dolphins and smaller whales, I feel, generally should be kept in sea pens over tanks due to size.

However, the real problem seems to be the two sides on the issue. The activists vs zoos. Two sides of the same coin. From what I see, the activists love the individuals within a species and the zoos love the species. Imagine if all those activists could direct their attention towards conservation issues rather than fighting against those that also support conservation issues. If we could have done THIS then we may have had a chance at saving the Baiji or the Vaquita.

Part of the solution to this problem could simply be communication. I recently spoke to a woman who was somewhat against zoos. I brought up the topic of how my zoo releases wolves into the wild as well as other conservation activities and she seemed rather surprised that zoos did that. By the time I brought up that the zoo was a non profit she seemed to be somewhat swayed. After giving a few examples of zoo conservation, I feel that most people can start to understand the purpose of a zoo. Some good things to bring up are generally, the amount of EW species saved by zoos, amount of species brought back from extinction by zoos, non profit zoos, and how species not seen in zoos fare.