Now this changes things - I've been interested in the Vaquita since 1990, when I spent a summer working with Dr. Barbara Taylor (who's been working to help the vaquita for over 30 years). [SIDE NOTE: Wow, it's been a long time since that summer. At the time, I was working on a paper on northern spotted owls. Remember when that was all anyone was talking about?] I do think that the vaquita may require some extraordinary effort. I don't think we should blame Blackfish or anything else for dooming the effort to save the vaquita. People have known about the situation for so long, I can't help but think that captive breeding must have been discussed and ruled out. I don't know if there has long been animosity against captivity amongst cetacean researchers or not (anyone have any info), but with the exception of the last-ditch attempts by the Chinese to rescue the baiji, I'm not aware that captive breeding has ever been attempted as a conservation tactic for cetaceans (and please correct me if I'm wrong). It's interesting, because while I have been a fan of zoos as long as I can remember, I've become less enamored with the idea of zoos as a last-ditch conservation tool, at least in a traditional zoo model - in situ sites that are not open to the public or closed breeding centers seem to be the model now for critically endangered species that are the subject of intense conservation efforts. If it were cetacean experts who were establishing and running a program to save the vaquita through captive breeding, I personally would have many fewer problems with it (much as I would have many fewer problems with Sea World's orca problems if it were cetacean experts truly running the program, but I doubt it anyone seriously believes that - not that Sea World doesn't keep experts in captive cetacean management, just that they are not the primary decisionmakers). Breeding for conservation with no cetacean shows, run not for profit but strictly for conservation, overseen by scientists - I could see such an endeavor being accepted, as it's very different from the situation with orcas, and even post-Blackfish, I don't think as many concerns would be raised. I don't know that any but the most extreme PETA activists would oppose a program that seeks not to maintain a captive population of a species but merely to use captive breeding as part of a larger concerted effort to save a species from extinction (Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in this; as I have said before, I'm not a PETA member and disagree with many/most of their claims and tactics). But is anyone really working toward such a plan? Keeping cetaceans is a much more difficult and costly proposition than keeping other animals, and it may have been determined that the cost is not simply not warranted. As I was typing this, I thought, why not do a quick google search and see if there's anything out there... Sure enough, a 2007 article titled "Saving the Vaquita: Immediate Action, Not More Data" (published in Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 6, 1653–1655; available at "Saving the Vaquita: Immediate Action, Not More Data" by Armando Jaramillo-Legorreta, Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho et al.) contains the following: "Captive breeding will not be a solution. Although some species have been saved by captive breeding when very few individuals remained, captive breeding is not feasible for vaquitas. Safely capturing these small, cryptic, solitary, and elusive animals in relatively deep water would be extremely difficult, and even if it were possible, maintaining other marine porpoises (Phocoenidae) in captivity in good health over long periods has proven difficult. Captive vaquitas would likely have a high rate of initial mortality, as seen with other small cetaceans such as baiji, Delphinus, and Platanista, and, as with other wild species taken into captivity, some of the survivors would not reproduce. Furthermore, experience with other species has shown that captive-bred individuals often lack behaviors needed for survival in the wild and consequently have a poor survival rate when reintroduced. Thus, an in situ approach has the best chance of saving the species because the food base is still excellent, and there are no serious threats other than bycatch." Sadly, it seems that if the vaquita is to be saved, it salvation does not lie in captive breeding. But I don't think Blackfish is the reason.
If you want to set this issue aside,@jibster, you shouldn't have replied to my previous post - and agitated yourself about the phrase "anthropic, emotional criteria" (twice). A zoo that is losing money won't be open for long. As depressing as it may sound, it's a commercial enterprise. Even zoos that charge no entrance fee like the National or Lincoln Park Zoo can't act uneconomically. In Sea World, the cooperation aspect is more obvious to the naked eye; but looking at "event" zoos such as Erlebniszoo Hannover or Disney's Animal Kingdom, which are frequently promoted as the future of zoos, there isn't much difference left. There are different examples of negatively connoted behaviour in various species; especially in popular species like great apes, elephants,bears, parrots (chronic feather pluggers, for example), this might be even obvious to common visitors and make the headlines now and then. What Sea World can do (and is probably doing) is what all the other zoos do: try to find out the problems leading to the issue, and solve the problems/improve the husbandry conditions. Animals, at least some, can show behaviour and neuronal activity that we can assess in connection with the emotion "joy"; insofar as this can be compared 100% to our human definition of "joy" (which varies also among ourselves) has yet to be evaluated for the species and specimen in question. However, several indications (among others, the voluntary display of said behaviour at given context by the animal, hormone levels, the exterieur...) can be used as indicators. I can agree with you that orca husbandry is "special" insofar that they are the largest cetacean species currently kept in captivity over a longer period of time; but I can't see any "orca-specific" special aspects you mention (strength, size etc.) excepting their husbandry, when all necessary husbandry parameters are met. Indeed, we have to agree to disagree here. As for the vaquita, I agree with jibster (from an owl paper to Vaquitas and from there to law; interesting occupational pathway ); ex-situ conservation might only be the very, very last resort, if at all useful. For serious conservation, local in-situ conservation projects have significant advantages-as long as the local political and natural situation allows it. However, I disagree in regard to the quoted assumptions that capturing and keeping some of the other mentioned species would be doomed from the beginning. Most if not all of these capture attempts were undertaken several decades ago. Our knowledge, also in regard to cetacean medicine, husbandry, transport etc. has made significant progress since then; previous mistakes leading to issues and even the demise of specimens could be avoided. The political pressure, however, also fuelled by the anti-cetacea-husbandry lobby, was among the reasons that has dwarfed any such attempts so far.
I'm pretty sure that the main reason it has never been attempted in the past is a combination of distaste for the idea of wild-capture at a large scale of such an endangered taxon, and the politics and bureaucracy involved in dealing with the Mexican government; the negative publicity cast on captive cetaceans by Blackfish is by no means to blame - it has merely added another factor making it all the more unlikely to occur. Similar factors doomed the Baiji - the only individuals to be held in captivity were rescued individuals, but there was constant discussion about the need to actively take individuals into captivity in order to save the species..... but as the debate got caught up in bureaucracy and hand-wringing the species quietly slipped away. Of course, a handful of decades ago one could easily have said the exact same thing with "great apes" or "elephants" substituted in the place of "cetaceans". Of course, when that paper was released the population was estimated at c.200, more than double the current figure of fewer than 85 individuals my point is that despite the factors noted in that quote making saving the taxon through captive breeding a slender prospect, it is still better than the extinction of the taxon - and that is something I believe is now inevitable. I'd rather we lost the Vaquita having tried something rather than letting it slip away. As noted, I agree that it *is* a very last resort option - I just believe we have reached the point where the very last resort is all we have left. If we leave it too much longer, the population will have reduced to the point where even this is impossible.
Hence my decision not to respond to this, at least as refers to orcas. And I'm not agitated, don't worry - I just find this stuff fascinating. As for my interesting career history, for anyone interested - I was a biology major, and I've researched and written, primarily in the field of population biology. I intended to go into biology at first, but a last-minute job opportunity led me into professional theater(!). After that detour, I stumbled into law and found it suited me. Most of my focus now is on education, where I can incorporate my interests in many different areas. However, through it all I've been one of the most avid zoo buffs... While I am happy to move past the issue of orcas and other cetaceans in captivity, I am interested in the vaquita, so I wanted to continue that discussion. As to the issue with the vaquita, I'm sure there have been advances in the past 8 years of cetacean husbandry, but I think, contrary to TeaLovingDave, that the lower wild population makes it even more unwise to consider captive breeding at this point. The insinuation that those against captive breeding are "to blame" for the failure of captive breeding is the issue I have - when considering action, it would be folly not acknowledge the abysmal record of cetaceans in captivity in the past and the continuing difficulty in the present, even with vast improvements in husbandry. Any unknown species carries with it risks - take as an example, the Sumatran rhino - a species whose close relatives are (relatively) easily maintained yet attempts to establish a captive population have largely failed. Yes, there has been knowledge gained to help in future in situ conservation (or captive breeding in the future), but with the vaquita population so low, failure is not an option. Any attempt to secure sufficient vaquita for a captive population would likely doom the species in the wild. There are enough problems maintaining captive bottlenose dolphins in sustainable numbers (and zoos and aquaria have no notable success in keeping porpoises). While I am firm believer that captive breeding can and should be used to help species in danger, it doesn't make sense in the case of the vaquita and would probably hurt, rather than help, the continued survival of the species.
And this, I think, summarises the difference in our opinions; I believe the species is *already* doomed in the wild, and therefore we have nothing to lose in the attempt, whilst you do not believe it has reached this point yet and it goes without saying that even though I believe I am the one who is correct, I would much rather time proves you to have been correct. By the by, there *has* been success in keeping porpoises in recent years - at least here in Europe - but as they are small and not the "flashiest" of taxa there is little interest in keeping them beyond the rescue of stranded individuals.
I never thought of myself as the optimist here, but I appear to be. If I were to accept that the vaquita is doomed in the wild (which it may be - I may have to try to contact Dr. Taylor for the most recent info, in which case I'll be sure to post), I would consider a more pragmatic approach - if there is really no hope for the species, a vast sum spent to try to preserve a species which has no realistic chance of survival would probably be best spend trying to save some other species. It's unfortunate that so many species are so doomed that, as time marches on, conservationists will find themselves with more of these "Sophie's choice" dilemmas with limited funds. It may be that focusing our attention on the species that still can be saved preserves more species that last-ditch efforts to preserve species that are already gone. Of course, on a macro scale, species-by-species programs may not be not the best use of money in any case - conservation funds put toward large scale ecosystem protection may be the most effective way to combat the looming extinction wave... My, I'm depressing myself even thinking about this. On another note, I'm interested in hearing more about any success had with captive porpoises. I've been informally studying cetaceans in captivity for a while, but have not found much about any success beyond the limited success of the Yangtze finless porpoises (some of which are held in situ in semi-captivity, others of which are maintained in captivity ex situ). Has there been breeding success of long-term husbandry of other porpoise species? A 1991 IUCN report I read listed only a single successful live birth after conception in the wild, and the report paints a rather dismal picture of past attempts to keep the species (though it does note that not much attempt was made to keep the species in pairs or groups and that most individuals were kept solely for research). The most recent figures I've seen show two harbor porpoises in captivity in Europe. Anyone have additional information to offer?
Oops-clarification. I meant one successful live birth of a species (the harbor porpoise) other than the finless porpoise, and when I said "past attempts to keep the species," it should have more properly been "past attempt to keep porpoise species" (i.e., the plural of species; again, this does not count the finless porpoise, where there appear to have been a handful of births as of '91).
As I understand it, those individuals held in European collections are comprised of stranded individuals which cannot be returned to the wild for whatever reason; I am not sure how "official" the policy is, but I believe a policy of non-breeding exists. However, "accidental" breedings have occurred. Fjord & Baelt Center in Denmark achieved the first successful captive breeding in the world in 2007; according to Zootierliste the collection currently holds 1,2 individuals. Ecomare in the Netherlands holds 2,0 individuals and has never bred the taxon. Harderwijk Dolfinarium in the Netherlands has been keeping the taxon since 1957 in varying numbers, and bred the taxon in 2009. At the current time the collection holds 0,6 individuals - the last male passing away in 2011. I have a feeling that the latter two collections share the responsibility for taking stranded individuals, with the one taking males and the other taking females, in order to prevent another accidental breeding taking place now it is known to be possible.
but the reason for their predicament is not habitat destruction but by-catch. If they can be saved in captivity (just speaking theoretically) then the wild is still there for them to go back to. It isn't like saving a species in captivity but where its entire native forest has been clear-felled or entire island turned into a resort.
I agree with this point (I certainly agree that captive breeding for conservation purposes only makes sense if it is part of a concerted effort at in situ habitat preservation as well), but I think that given the difficulty in locating/capturing any remaining individuals, the high mortality rate of captured individuals, the expense and uncertain success of breeding if a captive population could be established, and the large number of individuals from a truly tiny population that would be required to establish a viable captive population, any hope that the species could be saved through captive breeding is a pipe dream at best. For an example of the population required, look at the baiji (I know - different species, different population structure, perhaps different number of founders required. But as a ballpark estimate, it probably suits our purposes). Back in 1991, it was estimated that at least 25 founders would be needed to maintain genetic diversity. Not 25 animals, but 25 genetically represented founders. Realistically, how many animals would have to be saved to reach even this minimal level? Say that 40 would have to be safely rescued to ensure genetic representation of 25. Account for mortality, which historically has been very high in most cetaceans. And after an appropriate number of individuals were removed from the wild, would there be any chance for any remaining wild population to survive? Reintroduction of captive cetaceans is a mostly unknown art. In the absence of a wild population, would there be any chance of reintroduction? Not to mention the enormous cost required to manage an captive population - it's much hard to house cetaceans that any other mammal (even a cetacean as small as a vaquita). The vaquita is in dire straits, but given the remote possibility of success and the higher probability that any action to save the species would actually doom it to extinction, I can certainly understand why no captive breeding has been attempted as of yet. It seems to me (and did to other cetacean experts, at least up until a few years ago) that working to stop by-catch is the only possible way to save the vaquita.
Thanks for the info, TeaLovingDave. As an American, I always forget that zootierliste still exists and is easily accessible online (ah, for the days when ISIS listings were available to all, even if they weren't the most accurate or current). Nice to know that there has been some success in keeping (and inadvertently breeding) porpoises, even if that success is limited (of course, it's necessarily limited in that only stranded individuals are maintained and breeding is discouraged). It certainly suggests that there might be a possibility of breeding if a suitable captive population could be established in the first place. I still doubt that a viable captive population could be established now - and feel that the funds needed to even attempt such an undertaking would be better spent on greater efforts to reduce by-catch.
Just to get your feet back on the ground, mexican enviromental agencies PROFEPA and SEMARNAT would never allow a captured vaquita ( in the unlikely event this were possible ) to be exported from Mexico and in our country there is no facility with experience in breeding cetaceans apart from dolphins. Vaquitas are endemic to Mexico, of course.
Indeed; and it was this stance to which I was alluding when I wrote the following: The sad reality is that even if captive breeding *were* the only hope for the species, and it *was* seen as a viable chance...... the Mexican government and environmental agencies would still have a problem with the concept, and would likely delay matters until it was too late. Similar issues, in a different part of the world, are behind the lack of any real attempt to take Northern White Rhinoceros into captivity until it was too late and poachers had killed all remaining wild individuals.
Too true. I don't think it's necessarily wrong for the Mexican government to have a problem with the idea (as I have noted in previous posts), but the political issues would stand in the way of taking any sort of quick action - which makes it all the more important that conservation actions be taken before species become so critically endangered. Honestly, even without the bureaucratic nightmares, the delays in adopting captive breeding programs in some situations has doomed species that most likely could have been saved (I'm thinking specifically of the Hawaiian endemics that have been lost in recent years; thankfully the Hawaiian crow has been saved from complete extinction). If these programs are to work, best to start them sooner rather than later. To be fair, however, any issue with the Mexican government would pale next to the problems of the governments of the northern white's range, as most of the countries that were home to the northern white have been the sites of recent civil wars, genocide, and other humanitarian emergencies. The civil unrest that contributed to the northern white's decline is (thankfully) not much of as issue with the vaquita. Not that it helps the vaquita much, though.
