Interesting point. I did get the impression when I watched the documentary about her that there was a sub-text going on with the comment that her actions (swimming with wild orcas) was consider controversial. I wouldn't doubt that other scientists do consider her a bit of a maverick and also she may have had run in with the NZ government agencies that deal with their wildlife protection and conservation. In some countries her behaviour would have to sanctioned by some form of permit. One could further say that being in the water with these animals actually changes the animals behaviour which then brings into question the validity of the research. The film actually came across as rather contrived and little 'science' seemed to be going on. Vague comments about unusual animal deaths were not supported by actual numbers. The section of the film where they were trying to re-float the pilot whales also came across as a bit weird and, of course, pilot whale standings are sadly quite common and well documented and do not relate to orcas as they never 'mass strand'. Moreover, the animal shown dying on the beach that went 'into shock' (i.e. displayed dramatic swimming behaviour) was actually normal post-death behaviour of cetaceans which sadly I have witnessed on a couple of occasions. The fact that she came across a half-eaten ray - these orcas predates on rays and also shark - and the analysis of the body showed an accumulation bio-toxins appears staged; knowing the prey species of these orcas it would have been easy to have caught a number of these fish and undertaken a broader analysis. Although, in fairness, this has now become the state of play with many so-called science documentaries which treat the viewing public as X-Factor viewing idiots with the attention span of a goldfish brought up on a diet of 'Crocodile Hunter' and 'Lion Man'. But that brings us in full circle as to the misguided thinking that releasing 'Morgan' back to the wild is a really good idea where she will end her days in some form of Disney fairy tale happy ending. Life, sadly, isn't like that. "Rescued" Dolphin Killed By Hungry Sharks | NBC Miami
As release options to the wild seem very far fetched and ultimately unrealistic, the best option for our young orca is indeed to move her to a facility with fellow individuals of her species and have her integrate into a more social setting and a bigger exhibit/facility options for housing an orca pod. Incidentally, mortality rates in orcas and elephants (another spp. with similar criticisms) have similar mortality rates post partum and ad partum as in captivity. It is all emotional hullaballooo .... what the so-called experts bring forward. I suggest you respect the professional opinion of our esteemed poster John Dineley in this, .... just the once
A very good point. We are now at a stage where a well-known circus company in the states has cracked the formula for churning out a large enough supply of young elephants to sustain its population, yet these are removed at a young age, must earn their keep as performing animals, through methods I do not respect. I see parallels with many of the sites holding orca, with mothers allowed to breed soon after giving birth, young animals removed from their parental groups and moved on to other facilities at a young age, AI becoming as commonly used as natural mating.
My understanding was that the most important piece of research she had conducted was to identify virtually all the the NZ orcas, resulting in data revealing how low the nunbers were, and directly contributing to the government reclassifying the status of the population. Do you really want the sort of authoritarian government that bans scientists from swimming in the sea to study their subjects? Why not the same suggestion for trainers going in the water with captive orca? If we are to use the same skewed criteria that others on here insist on using to compare captivity vs release, then surely the number of accidents and death involving trainers and captive orca vs no recorded attacks by wild orca should suggest there is no reason to ban her from swimming with them. I also get annoyed at the slightly staged plot of some documentaries, but I don't think this should be a reflection on the work of this woman. I have to say, we need to be careful about subjective interpretations of her work, yes she comes across as emotive, and not the dispassionate, logical, right-brain archetypal scientist, but I would say there is a risk of sexism within this, there is no proof that her demeanor detracts from her ability to produce good research. Whether or not her proximity to her subjects influences their behaviour is relevant, but then you can apply this idea to the majority of work done on animal behaviour. As for the stingray, I don't know if there are regulations preventing her from killing a ray for her research, if there is nothing stopping her doing so, then yes that part of the documentary was misleading.
Ringling Brothers. Center for Elephant Conservation It no secret. I can understand your concerns but frankly it seems that establishments like Sea World etal are damn if they do and damn if they don't. I don't think they move animals around that much any more anyway. And also bear in mind the issue of space limitations. Zoos move animals like elephants and gorillas around for the purpose of breeding, etc. no one seems very concerned about that. In any event animal groups in the wild (even orcas) have changing population dynamics as as animals died or are born. There is nothing wrong with AI. Moving semen around is a lot safer than moving animals which would be a risk and certainly disrupt the social groups now established. Can you imagine moving Tilikum around? He's the biggest mammal that has ever been held in captivity.
I respect her research, just the swimming with ... behaviour is somewhat over the top and suggests that despite her informed scientific judgment the swimming approach is the not so scientific part. The latter is unfortunate in that particularly so since the criticism of captive orcas and training regimes and attachment to human trainers ... Captive environments for whales and dolphins incidentally are similar to elephant habitats that they need to be of a sufficiently large size ... with different large pools for family pods et cetera. As for training et cetera .... personally, if done to enrich the captive experience of orca social / family groupings I do not see any issue .... as a challenge in the captive environment is to provide just that challenging exhibit for the orcas to exhibit the full complement of the social and cooperative social and reproductive behaviour and intellectual capabalities. I agree that the weaning at a very young age of captive orcas may in fact be detrimental to the social competence learning process of young orcas. However on impacts on sentient life and social competence of orcas I am not that well versed and my Cawardine guide on whales is a bit predisposed and perhaps a little biased on the captive component of whales and dolphins.
I think you will find that in the USA anyone undertaking research with marine mammals within US coastal waters has to have a scientific permit. This also applies to capture and release of animals. Marine Mammal Permits and Authorizations - Office of Protected Resources - NOAA Fisheries As to Dr. Visser research I have no problem with this at all. But I do have concerns regarding her involvement with the business with Morgan. A very comprehensive list of the papers Dr. Visser has published is here: Orca Research Trust | Scientific Articles
Certainly there is evidence for many social animals (not just orcas) that the exposure to the birth and rearing of young is considered a very important social eduction. There were a lot of very dysfunctional chimpanzees and other apes and monkeys in many zoos due to the habit of removing them to be hand-reared. Fortunately attitudes have now changed and this is considered the last resort by responsible zoos. Yes, you are right Cawardine isn't a fan of captivity
I don't think the US should be a good marker of reasonable legislation, however re-reading your earlier post it is clear all you meant was she would normally require a permit in other countries. I'm not convinced that a government agency, by its nature vulnerable to the trickle-down effects of various industry lobbying, should always be looked to for validation of conservation-related work. Yes, but saying 'would normally require a permit to sanction this kind of behaviour' is not the same as accepting her methods of observing her subjects are a part of the research she goes on to publish. Calling it a 'behaviour' IMO risks stripping the action of any integrity or intellectual purpose, rather than describing a methodical, planned aspect of her work.
I don't think they would be damned for limiting breeding to a level sufficient to enhance group cohesion. If you have a facility where the whales are not compatible or are split into 2-3 groups, I see that as a more pressing issue that should be resolved before breeding is encouraged/birth control removed. Yes, calf mortality is high in the wild also. Looking at the available transfer histories for captive orca, I disagree that the transfer rate has in any way slowed, in fact I would say it has increased as calf mortality rates have dropped, and young orca seem to have required moving on, presumably to prevent inbreeding. Zoos generally don't move gorillas or elephants in the same way these days, for example captive-bred elephant cows are usually left in their maternal groups, similar for gorillas. BUT, it is the need for more orca driving this, not necessity for their welfare. If groups were just allowed to have the occasional calf, and a move arranged once a group was comprised only of related animals, or if an individual was causing/experiencing problems, transfers would be less frequent. IMO the captive breeding of this species is to sustain and perpetuate ownership of captive orcas by their current owners, its not for conservation.
I hope you are not aiming the Keiko comments at me, as I did not mention him. I agree that the situation is far more complex than just that, but ultimately this is what their interference has done. As for the whole "lunatic" thing. We all know that negative publicity is always remembered by people over positive publicity. This means that when such anti cap. charities spread rumours and stories about zoos and aquaria, the public tend to remember these over the good stories they hear about the said places. This puts the anti-cap. message right in the public eye and also makes politicians etc feel like not supporting these people however qualified or not...seems like a crime against animals. My point being that many zoologists/animal specialists dislike such activists because often (not saying always) they consist of members of the public jumping on the bandwagon without specific knowledge of the animals etc involved. They are entitled to their own opinion, but it's when these opinions are forced onto others such claims begin. We must remember the endless names that zoos and aquaria and their visitors have been called by such activists. It works both ways.
I have just update my web site with a page of basic information on Morgan. With some links to various reports etc. Morgan - A suitable candidate for rehabilitation and release? The page by The North Atlantic Killer Whale ID Project is very interesting.
The Dutch government after further consideration has ruled that Morgan the orca will be going to Loro Park in Tenerife. DutchNews.nl - Orca Morgan to move to Tenerife, sea is too risky says minister
Morgan`s future is still unsure today the Orca coalition when to court to stop te move to Tenerife. The presented evidence by both Harderwijk Dolfinarium and the Orca coalition proved to be to elaborate to come to a verdict today. The judge will study the presented evidence and will decide in two weeks time. An link in dutch: Omroep Gelderland - nieuwsartikel - Nog geen duidelijkheid over orka
The date for the judges ruling is 21 November. Hopefully she will rule the animal can go to Tenerife and not into the hands of animal-rights activists - this emotional nonsense has gone on for far to long. The animal was due to be moved in July until the first court challenge by the animal-rights lobby who then had the cheek to then complain about Morgan living accommodation when they were instrumental in making stay at Harderwijk. But putting this aside the most worrying thing that struck me is that The Orca Coalition and it’s supporters who want to obtain this animal have one really big problem. They have very little money. Prior to this second court appeal regarding Morgan the Coalition have been asking for donations with a target of 10,000 euros to fund their presence at the hearing. It is very hard to find out how much money has been raised but it seems that by August they have raised just over 3,000 euros. The project they wish to undertake with Morgan will cost millions - Keiko’s failed release cost more than 20 million dollars. I sincerely hope that any arguments about Morgan and where she should go should also look at the financial situation as regards supporting the welfare of this animal.
Keiko`s failed release involved flying him from Mexico to the US and then from the US to Iceland. A release of Morgan would happen within Europe and be much, much cheaper just because of that. Here is an interesting account of the Keiko story: Orca Network - Keiko's life story I am not sure I agree that his release was a total failure, and it sounds like it could have been done for much less money. A helicopter and serveral boats have surely been helpful, but maybe not really necessary.
The Morgan project would still amount to huge amounts on money and I suspect it certainly would run into millions. If you look at the project plan it really leaves more questions than answers. A part of me feels that we should let the animal-rights groups go ahead and have the animal and then reap the damnation of the public when things go serious wrong which they will as they have no one working on this project with an experience in wild life rehabilitation - most of the experts are field biologist. The logistics of moving this animal safely to Norway and then reintroducing her to her pod - if they can find it - really compromises this animals actual welfare and that's why I am against the plan. As for Keiko, I based my opinion on the peer reviewed scientific report: http://www.marineanimalwelfare.com/images/From%20Captivity%20to%20the%20Wild%20and%20Back%20An%20Attempt%20to%20Release%20Keiko%20the%20Killer%20Whale.pdf The animal-rights activists can spin the Keiko story what ever way they like but the truth is this animal died in Norway while being care for by humans and was quickly buried in a near by field without a post-mortem.
The report is interesting, thanks. I don`t see how it supports the conclusion that his release was a total failure. He was not totally independend when he died, but does this mean the whole thing was a failure? Someone said before the project started that it would be a sucess if he went out into the ocean during the day but returned into the sea pen for feeding. So it would be necessary to conclude first what you consider a sucess and what a failure. Keiko spent increasing time with wild killer whales, had increasing long periods with no or very few human contact and apparently fed on his own and was healthy when he re-appeared in Norway after being on his own for a month. That is actually more then I had expected to be possible before his release. He may have had more progress if he hadn`t died. If it was worth 20+ million dollars is another question, but the money was there and as a result, he had a much better life then if he had been shipped to Seaworld (where orcas die frequently of phneumonia too). And the world learned a lot about whale rehabilition.
I think you will find that many animals die of pneumonia but that this may not be the underlying pathology of the disease process. Which is why it's unfortunate that no post-mortem was undertaken on Keiko.
