That's a false equivalence. The blue whale is spectacular in that it's literally the largest animal to have ever existed. By virtue of that, it's bound to be in textbooks and record books and whatnot. By contract, bottlenose dolphins are less conspicuous, and they were 100% brought to the general public's eye by shows like Flipper the Dolphin, which in turn wouldn't have existed without the Miami Seaquarium. Orcas were similarly brought to general public awareness by dolphinariums. In fact, before the practice of keeping orcas in captivity, orcas were considered a pest species; the US Navy literally used to use them as target practice, and plenty of countries like Norway and Canada considered culling them to reduce their impact on fishing operations. They were considered to be worse than value-less before the dolphinarium industry turned their efforts towards them.
All the people that hate to see cetaceans in captivity because no pool will be ever big enough to fullfill their needs, have ever seen a Griffon Vulture gliding on the sky during hours? Hundreds of Cranes on migration? What cage on what zoo allow that? What cage allow a Cheeta to run at their maximum speed? Not to mention all the waterfowl with mutilated wings. What about other intelligent and social animals usually kept in zoos that nobody complaints about? How many parrots, or corvids, have enough mental entertainment? How many parrots live in cages that are basically, well, a cage with two perchs? Bats also use echolocation, why nobody complaints about keeping them? The only difference between cetaceans and another hundred of species is the marketing around them by animal rights activists.
I think you are wrong - animal rights activists complain about man keeping everything - zoo animals, cetaceans, pets, farm animals - everything. Many even put animal 'rights' above human 'rights'... the only area they don't seem to stray into is the 'rights' of wild animals - the 'right' to be hunted, starved, permanently stressed, riddled with disease, exterminated; and all the other aspects of 'freedom'...
Or the sperm, humpback, or gray whale? Whales are definitely an ABC species people are aware of without individuals in captivity. That being said, it's a tragedy something small like the vaquita was never in captivity. Those are quietly going extinct now.
I heard about a recent attempt to capture wild vaquitas to save them which ended in failure. One died, and the other was released due to stress, and b/c of it no other attempt to capture them for captivity has been done since then.
Problem is, that attempt itself came far too late, after decades where the mere suggestion that doing so would be advisable would inevitably meet with immediate bile and stonewalling. It says a lot that the 2017 attempt you mention was also the first time anyone had tried to capture the species for captivity, despite calls for this to happen having started in the 1980s. By the time the aforementioned attempt did come, populations were already far too low to allow for *any* losses in the process - and those making the attempt needed little pretext to drop the idea.
I agree that marine parks do fantastic research, but when you consider how long cetaceans have been held in captivity, that research could have been used to save the Baiji if it was going to justify the captivity of other species
There's no need to feel embarrassed to present a conflicting viewpoint. I too was reticent about expressing my opinion originally but Cetaceans are one group that are highly contentious in respect to the ethics of captivity. In addition, I despise performing wild animals and find no educational value in that kind of induced behaviour.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Relatively speaking cetaceans have been in captivity for a short time compared to other species such as rhinos that are also facing perils in the wild. Because the Sumatran and Javan rhino are absent in captivity but facing extinction, does that mean other rhinos aren’t justified to be in zoos? Also the extinction of one species does not mean its impossible to have quality care of others in the same order nor did the extinction of that dolphin have anything to do with dolphins in captivity. In fact, I’m positive when there were still Baiji around we were using research developed by work done with captive dolphins to try and save the species. Such as was attempted with the Vaquita although too late. The research done in marine parks, zoos, and aquariums is helping a multitude of cetacean species in the wild. Full stop.
By the time we even realized they were endangered, it was already really too late. The rapid industrialization in China lead to an extremely rapid decline for the species.
Of course they do - but my comments are specifically related to performing animals in marine parks - so how do these circus performances actually contribute to research and to the animals' counterparts in the wild?
In the case of Orcas, the circus performances made them popular and loved by public so ended their massacre on the Pacific Norhwest. In the case of dolphins, made people more concerned about them, what lead people to take actions like look for "dolphin safe" tuna, avoiding more dolphins to die in the wild. I think Bottlenose Dolphins also were usually harpooned in the Gulf of Mexico waters before their popularity. This being said, I personally don´t like those performances, but to have wild animals with that level of training allow to make many studies with them that would be impossible in the wild. All the veterinary procedures made with them are also used to recover wild cetaceans. Also, not only a cetacean became extinc in the Yangtze River. The Chinese Paddlefish also dissapeared, and the Yangtze Shoftshell Turtle will join them soon. I don´t see nobody complaining about why have turtles or fishes if that didn´t help those species. And anyway, there is still hope for the other cetacean that remains there: First Yangtze finless porpoise bred in captivity released into the wild
I don’t think you mentioned performances before so I didn’t think to talk about them. It’s pretty simple. People love seeing animals do behaviors. People give money to the park. Money helps fund research and animal care. Although most places are starting to move away from the “circus” behaviors and starting to do more education based shows which is great imo.
Of course - but the point is that marine parks cannot provide a situation where the animals can be viewed in anything like their natural state thereby negating any educational value - hence the only way they can make money is to have a circus
You're moving goal posts here. Having them in captivity lets many, many more people learn about them, making people want to donate to conservation matters for the species.
