Zoomaniac: this is a battle you can't win so I wouldn't bother further. It's an animal rights activist who won't listen to any argument, regardless of how good it is, and is only here to argue, not to discuss. 'Diani Beach, Kenya'? I googled it and it's not even a city, town or a village but a beach resort in Kenya: Diani Beach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Is this the best thing you could come up with? Just putting in New York or London would have been more convincing.
@Baldur: Regretfully you are right. Anyway: Because obviously none of the animal rights activist cares about, I will jump in by saying: Freedom for all cockroaches!!!! Let them no longer suffer in zoos, where hundreds if not thousands of them were kept in to small enclosures just for the satisfaction of humans or for food for other captive animals. Please help and donate money to roaches-have-feelings-too.org PS: Yes, the Diani Beach is a part of the coast of Kenya, about 45 km South of Mombasa, and there is a resort with the same name. I wonder how often non-natives are traveling from there to Europe or America and back in a year and destroying natural resources by taking the plane. And I wonder too, how many of them are using solar panels instead of diesel aggregates at their chosen(?) domicil, renounce of water wasting swimming pools, using only the public transport system instead of driving with their own car and eating and drinking only local products. Or is helping to destroy a natural environment of an animal less "cruel" then keeping them in captivity?
That is the basic objective of the site. It’s information and fan site for those interested in zoo and aquarium around the world and I would further say their role in conservation, education and research. From what I have seen it contains an eclectic group of people some who are interested in zoos and their work and some people work in zoos. I am sorry to delude you but are you familiar with the rule and regulation as regards the import and holding cetaceans in the USA and EU? Have you heard of CITES? If you did you would understand how nonsensical your comments are. Tell you what. Go and buy a couple of these Japanese dolphins and try and import them into an EU country or the United States without anyone knowing. Actually try and transfer cetaceans that are already in captivity in these countries from one location to another and watch how the authorises will act with out proper permissions and paperwork. Ric O Barry (who appears in The Cove) knows this only too well when he found guilty of illegally moving animals. LINK HERE Yes, I am sure there are country which don’t have such strict animal import laws and welfare regulations but my comments relate to the US and Europe. Holding up the Japanese drive fishery as a reason for not having dolphins in zoos and aquaria is a poor argument and as I said there are none in the US or mainland Europe. The fact is that the USA do not need to import dolphins from Japan as their bottlenose dolphin population in captive care successfully bred and are self-sustaining and like-wise with animals in the established parks in Europe such as Harderwijk. I doubt if you have made any real progress with getting the Japanese fisherman to stop killing dolphins. Yes you may have caused concern in within the liberal middle classes in the west but I doubt if Japanese fishermen care and these are the ones you need to be taking to. See this comment on You Tube which I think is very interesting: Moreover, as I said the captivity issue in this debate involving the opportunist retention of a small number of animals spared slaughter isn't the main issue - even if O’Barry as his followers would clearly like to present it as such. The main point is that the fisherman would continue to kill these dolphins regardless if there was a ban on removing some of those animals to zoos. You could close down every dolphin pool in all the zoos of the world and they would still be killing these animals in huge numbers! They think they are pests and compete for their fish. What point of this argument don’t you understand? I don’t support animal cruelly. I have worked with animals (mainly marine animals) most of my professional life of over some 40 years and perhaps I have with respect a far better understanding of all the arguments than yourself for and against animals in zoos and aquariums. Whilst I agree that Lolita’s conditions are far from ideal by modern standards the idea that she is ‘suffering heartache’ and ‘too depressed to perform’ is frankly anthropomorphic nonsense. And releasing her and other long-term captive dolphins and whales is not viable as research on a number of these attempted projects has demonstrated. Anyway, as has been noted by the comments above from Baldur your agenda is clear and I doubt if my reasoning will have impact on you so perhaps that should be the last word on the matter and you either spend some time reading the various threads on this matter to educate yourself in an area you clearly lack total knowledge of or go and find a group more sympathetic to your views.
@ John Dineley: Thank you for taking the time to respond to the activists. I enjoyed reading your well researched posts. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with keeping Orcas in human care, as long as this is done by the highest standards. Regarding Lolita although, I have my doubts that this is the case. Just like no elephant should be kept solitary and/or in an enclosure of minimum size, neither should an Orca. Lolita probably should have been given to Sea World years ago. Under the conditions at MSQ, she keeps on being an unnecessary poster-child for the anti captivity movement.
Thanks. I sadly have to agree with everything you say. It would be interesting to see if they did move her - which is of course a risk for a number reasons least of all the transport - or when she dies whether the Seaquarium would be seriously effected. Despite the fact the park was constructed in 1955 it still could be an excellent zoological attraction but it needs serious investment from what I can see. Although some of the areas that have been recently renovated look fairly good in comparison to other collections of a similar age. As far as orcas are concerned MSQ like many others got involved in keeping these animals before we began to bred them etc. I don't think anyone really considered the long-term obligation in investment to keep them well at the time. Orcas where considered pest at the time they first came into captivity and there where plans to set-up machine points to cull them in the north Pacific. This would be unheard of now and I suspect having some on display in captivity may have help this change in public perception. To their credit places like SeaWorld and Marineland in France have spent huge amounts on their exhibits. I suspect that other parks might not want to take her particularly if she dies within a few years of arriving - she is not a young animal any more. There is no easy answer sadly which is not helped by the animal-rights people who just want to get their hands on her to experiment with a release project that is likely to end very badly paid for by a gullible public.
LOL!! I love the paranoia of this industry! This is my first posting this time around. I have posted previously but became tired of the extreme defensiveness and hypocrisy of some of the regulars here. I'm hiding nothing John, chill. Regardless of however many posts I have made, or how long I have been lurking, it's wonderful to be labelled and prematurely judged for an opinion I'm apparently entitled to. Would rather spend my valuable time reading more progressive industry folk on Aquaticinfo and Zoo-biology and actually learn something than amongst the scared types here. Oh and of course reading my Marine Mammal Science and dare I say Soundings. Can't have any of that anecdotal, media propaganda, 'animal rights' stuff can we now Oh, and for the record, never seen the Cove. I grew up with Nat Geo mags which documented places like Taiji when O'Barry was getting paid for Flipper, LOL!
In my opinion, you could, in theory, justify keeping absolutely any species in captivity, provided you can take care of the animals needs. Thats its behavioural, social, physical, psychological, gastronomical (you name it) needs. You could justify keeping a blue whale in captivity should you, by some amazing ability, have the political clout and finances to legally capture a number of them, fence off an enormous bay and somehow learn how to farm copious amounts of plankton. Thus this it isn't so much about whether one can justifiably keep an orca in captivity. Its about whether or not they are justifiably keeping one. Does Seaworld or or any other marine park of your choosing go far enough to ensure the optimum health and well being of their animals? Lets make one thing clear here. This argument is about ethics. This argument is about whether you feel that even the highest state of care that orcas currently receive in captivity is good enough. I don't. Orcas don't do what most rational people would consider "well" in captivity. I think the best deciding factor of that is the fact that their life expectancy in captivity is but a pathetic fraction of that of their wild counterparts. For me, that kinda puts the debate to rest. But lets consider some of the arguments we so commonly hear from the Seaworld* fans and look at them more realistically, without loosing our objective view and talking about how beautiful creatures deserve to be free. One can argue that the animals at times appear happy. Hardly surprising. you can raise a child without barely any kind of human interaction in a cell and they no doubt would still show "happiness" at times when you, for example gave them a new toy to play with or some kind of enjoyable food. One could also argue that the animals freely breed. However upon maturity, said child, introduced to a member of the opposite sex would no doubt also figure out that intercourse in enjoyable. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they are locked in a cell. or make that any more right. And of course then there's the old "captive bred" defence. Well likewise, in the likely event that all this boredom sex in our hypothetical pair of captive humans resulted in a birth, would it make it any more justifiable to treat that newborn child the same manner as its parents simply because it was born there? You see this little family we have of hypothetical deprived humans might very well appear happy in the only world they have known, with all their sex and ball games. But we know that they are hardly getting the most out of life. It doesn't much matter that they don't. Us outsiders know that they are getting but i teeny tiny taste of what its like to be a human being. and thats what make it unjustifiable and morally wrong. And then of course there is the "their keepers care for them" argument. Sigh. This would have to be one of the most nonsensical arguments of all time. I love it, therefore I am whats best for it. Well, in fear of sounding extreme - I'm sure Joseph Fritzl loved his daughter too, didn't make his actions any less selfish or ethically wrong. The simple fact is that the amount of love the keeper feels for their charges makes absolutely no impact on the facts surrounding the animals confinement. My friend was totally devastated when her rabbit recently died. She was genuinely upset as she really did love the rabbit. I didn't have the heart to tell her that it was actually her fault. She had not provided the rabbit with what was necessary for a baby rabbits survival on a freezing cold winter night. her ignorance killed the rabbit. Love was little help to it. So since breeding, what the animal has always known, and even moments of joy is entirely irrelevant when considering the overall quality of life of the animal - what are those in favour of Seaworld left with? Well, some very unfit animals in a very small space with a very short life expectancy and a lifestyle that we know doesn't even remotely equate to that of their lifestyle in the wild. Captive orcas need the same sort of renaissance that elephants are currently experiencing in zoos. I have little doubt that their low life expectancies are due to stress and boredom caused by ridiculously small, and inappropriately designed enclosures and the effects that also has on their physical health. The worst is that it need not be that way. Such is the enormity of the orca drawcard, one would think only ignorance on the part of those who keep them stands in the way between captive orcas and the massive, sandy bottomed saltwater and fish-stocked lagoons that they so deserve. And something we would no doubt more enjoy to see them in. * I use the term Seaworld here to represent all zoos and marine parks with orcas.
This would only apply if killer whales engaged in sex for recreation rather than just as an instinct to procreate. I agree that 'they're breeding' is not really the best argument in favour of cetacean captivity as a lot of animals will breed in unsatisfactory conditions, but the way you've invoked it just highlights the anthropomorphism of your arguments - in every case comparing the whales' captivity to a human equivalent. I do not accept that this is necessarily a valid comparison. Put simply - whales/dolphins ain't people. I don't know the details of the Miami SeaQuarium case, and I wouldn't argue that there is bad practice out there, but I think the state of cetacean-keeping in captivity is definitely improving and will continue to improve. If you ever get the chance I strongly recomment visiting Harderwijk Dolphinarium in the Netherlands, whose Dolphin Lagoon is by far the best cetacean exhibit I've ever seen.
I was under the impression that dolphins are one of the known animal groups that engage in sex for fun? However ignoring this fact, it still doesn't change the principals of the argument. So the orcas mate for some innate desire to procreate, not enjoyment - my point is that just because an animal displays certain behaviours in captivity, it doesn't necessarily make it ethical.
Have not read the above in detail so this is more of a general comment but humans are animals and I think it's too easy to reply 'anthropomorphism' to sometimes valid concerns about captive animals.
I've never heard of this occuring in dolphins but I'm no particular expert so you may be correct. On your last (which I've bolded) point I agree, as I said above. A level of anthropomorphism is inevitable when discussing other species' behaviour simply because the English language doesn't give us words to separate the two, so a bit here and there is no crime. That said, saying something is bad for a killer whale because it would be bad for a human child (or vice versa) is taking it too far to my mind, and seems to me to be an attempt at emotional manipulation* rather than debate. As to your dog, he benefits from the walk in similar ways to you (exercise, fresh air, socialisation opportunities etc) which will have similar biological responses (in terms of endorphins, overall health etc) but again I would question whether an emotional term like 'enjoy' can strictly apply - it's something we could debate and reseach for ever more and possibly never know for sure. *this is too strong a word, really, because I don't think this is intentional, but I'm struggling for a more appropriate one. Influence, rather than manipulation, may be better.
So the similarities in responses animals and humans give to the same conditions are but a case of convergent evolution rather than them actually being triggered by "feeling" the same way we do? If that was the case why did humans evolve any kind of feelings at all? Our ancestors obviously operated just fine without them. Whats more unrealistic - to assume that emotion is a uniquely human trait that somehow reared it head in our species and ours alone or that like so many behavioural and physiological traits, we likely share it, in one form or another with many of the mammals in which we share a common ancestor? Orcas might not be humans, but make no mistake about it. humans are animals. Many animals appear to enjoy. They act like they enjoy. Isn't it more logical to assume that they do?
As for the anthropomorphism, we have got to realise the very depths of each species and their natural behaviours and needs. For example: What people often fail to realise is that 'confinement' does not necessarily mean zoo walls - it can mean the edge of their territory (and many species will not leave their territory all of their life if everything they need is catered for) - so [I'm no good with area, so no idea how big 1,000m squared is] is 1,000m squared in the wild really different to 1,000m squared in captivity? Reasons a species may leave it's territory are food (provided by keepers), mating opportunities (females/males are brought into the territory by the zoo) and water (again, provided by keepers). Every species is different, and I would agree that some species are less suitable than others to captivity.
I never said they were convergent evolution; as you say, us, dogs and dolphins are all mammals at the end of the day. But I'm not convinced by the idea that the "feeling" causes the biological responses - I would think it's more likely to be the other way around and then clearly the brain pattern and complexity would affect the degree/type of "emotion" produced. A very good question - to speculate wildly for a moment, maybe it was a side-effect of selective pressures leading to greater brain development. Conceivably, increasing the brain's capacity for problem solving or forward planning could have laid it open to producing stronger emotional effects it had not had to deal with before. I have no idea if the evidence would support this idea, incidentally, but I just wanted to make the point that not everything produced by evolution is a direct response to a selective pressure. Sometimes there can be things that just happen. Scientific theory (null hypotheses and all that) would suggest you should always assume no connections between anything and nothing present that hasn't been strongly supported by evidence. A further thought - out of interest as much as anything - do you think all animals feel emotion as we do? Is it just mammals, or would you include birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, arthropods, corals, even Amoeba? It's hard to see how a single-celled Amoeba would (logisitically) create or process the response, and it's clear that humans do experience emotion. Is it a sliding scale between the two? Is there a cut-off point? Or is it just certain groups (perhapsgroups considered 'more intelligent' - primates, cetaceans, elephants, maybe parrots or crows from the birds)? It's an interesting question but I'd imagine very hard to actually quantify for research purposes.
Your points about animals and emotions - of course other animals have emotions. Look at various case studies in social groups (chimps, elephants etc) where one individual has died and the other individuals clearly understand what has happened and are clearly 'upset' for want of a better word. I don't know how far down the scale that this goes, but there are several instances of animals pining after losing a family member or 'friend.' I'll go all out and even say that (I think it's condors) will fly as high as possible and then just drop to their deaths if their partner dies.
For the record (as I realise I haven't actually spelt out my full views yet), I think that at least some non-human animals do experience some types of emotion (in particular examples like grief, fear or affection) - so I'm not arguing against that concept per se. But I do not believe there is a proven case of non-human animals having emotions as complex as humans or (as was suggested in another thread) sentience, and I don't think we can make direct comparisons to human reactions to deduce other species' reactions - that is anthropomorphism.
That's a point, I think that since humans have the bigger brains we are simply put, more capable of complex emotion. And anybody that's a fan of Doctor Who will know that emotions are far from a bad thing...they are what make us human (This is all coming from somebody who has philosophical beliefs that the human mind and the soul are one and the same ) Speaking of evolution, it's amazing how this thread has evolved . For the record, I have no problem against orcas and other dolphins in captivity, but I think it's the one area I'm least comfortable with - if that makes sense. It is the one area we haven't got brilliant, outstanding husbandary and enclosures for.
While I sympathise, it can be very difficult to have logical discussions where one part of the argument is bascially just 'oh, but they look so sad...' (which is not, I stress, the case with the current discussion!), so I prefer to keep this to a minimum!
I never said i believed they felt emotion such as we do. I said that I believed some animals surely feel emotions such as joy. I don't find it likely that many animal groups feel the complex emotional range that we can, however apes probably do. I'm not going to list all the species I suspect feel a range of emotions and I am certainly not going to sink the conversation to the level where we start talking about the (unlikely) emotional range of fish or frogs let alone amoebas. Could i flip the question however and add another? So you believe that humans are the only species to have an emotional range and feel even the most simplistic emotions such as joy and sadness? Also, are you religious? I ask because you appear to be well versed in evolutionary principals, yet have some rather "divine" opinions on the human brain. To bring it back to point - I think zoos regularly underestimate the importance of experience for an animals well being. I don't and never will subscribe to the behavioural enrichment is better than space argument. space is behavioural enrichment. Second only to social interaction its the best kind there is. And I genuinely think many animals feel joy when they experience something new and exciting. I think my dog, like me, "enjoys" his walks. I think he plays because its "fun". I think he sticks his head out the car window for the same reason I do. But he humps peoples legs because he's a dog and he's stupid. but stupid doesn't equate to pre programmed response unit. He is not a robot.
I assume you haven't read my last post yet: I think we're closer to agreement than you think! Not even slightly religious. There's nothing 'divine' about the human brain, but it is highly developed (arguably (but not definitively) more than any other species'), incredibly well-studied compared to any other given species' brain, and we are more familiar with how a human brain works because we all make use of one daily! We know its complexity. I don't think any other animal's brain has yet shown that level, but I can't say it never will. Social interaction would be very much species-dependant given the solitary nature of many species in nature. As for space vs. behavioural enrichment - I do think that a smaller complex area is often better than a huge but barren area (though obviously an exhibit that provides both would be the ideal).
