Whale & Dolphin Captivity Ban in Canada

[snowleopard]

It's almost the end of the road for whales and dolphins in captive environments in the second largest nation on Earth. Vancouver Aquarium has already pledged to not have whales and dolphins any longer (the focus there is now on pinnipeds) but Marineland in Ontario has a huge collection of Beluga Whales and I have no idea what they have planned for the future.

Senate passes bill that would ban whale, dolphin captivity in Canada

 

[Yi Qi]

I honestly oppose this ban. Captive breeding is probably going to be the only way for many cetaceans to survive .

Also, the refrain that whales are disturbed by visitors banging on glass in my opinion that says less about animal cruelty then it does about unruly visitors not understanding animals.

 

[ZooBinh]

Sorry Canadians. I am grieving with you. People just don't understand, maybe there should just be restrictions!

 

[Jurek7]

Belugas at Marineland will be shot with a rifle, hauled, butchered and eaten by native Canadians.

Because there is now a situation that some Canadian representatives think whales and dolphins cannot be kept for education, but don't object to them being shot, butchered and eaten in the north.

Which leads to an interesting dilemma. Traditions, values and cultural choices of Canadian Inuits are rightly protected from meddling of Canadian senators. Why traditions, values and cultural choices of all other Canadians can be meddled with just because somebody thinks (wrongly) he is morally superior?

 

[Daktari JG]

Captive breeding is probably going to be the only way for many cetaceans to survive .

Other than bottlenosed dolphins are there any cetaceans that are even close to having sustainable captive populations?

There will never be an end to the bannings. Next will be pinnipeds for aquariums, Elephants apes bears big cats for zoos and on and on.
Surrender none!

 

[ZooBinh]

Basically saying bye to rare animals in captivity is saying bye to them on the face of the earth!

 

[SharkFinatic]

Do you think Marineland's belugas won't get transferred to any U.S. aquariums due to Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations?

 

[FunkyGibbon]

Because there is now a situation that some Canadian representatives think whales and dolphins cannot be kept for education, but don't object to them being shot, butchered and eaten in the north.

Which leads to an interesting dilemma. Traditions, values and cultural choices of Canadian Inuits are rightly protected from meddling of Canadian senators. Why traditions, values and cultural choices of all other Canadians can be meddled with just because somebody thinks (wrongly) he is morally superior?

I don't agree with the ban, but it almost seems like you're just arguing against the concept of laws here.

 

[TZFan]

I'm not so sure even though the bill will become law that this is the end of the story. Vancouver will do nothing about it but Marineland could fight the law through the courts. It could be an ongoing saga for years to come. The real question though now that Holler is dead will the new owners fight? He'd have fought through to the bitter end but do they have the stomach for the fight or do they just want to cash out and be done.

I'm not too sure the US would have a problem taking in some of Marineland's belugas. Vancouver has a couple on loan down there now. I don't know if they were south before any bans. And because they are privately owned if Marineland decided to call it quits they could sell them anywhere in the world.

 

[lintworm]

There will never be an end to the bannings. Next will be pinnipeds for aquariums, Elephants apes bears big cats for zoos and on and on.
Surrender none!

It would be nice if somebody could provide that such a cascading effect actually exists, because it just sounds like fear-mongering

If you can't explain the difference between an Orca and an Elephant in zoos, including their husbandry differences (and long-term success) then there would indeed be no place for Elephants in zoos.

I honestly oppose this ban. Captive breeding is probably going to be the only way for many cetaceans to survive .

Exactly 0 cetacean species have been saved by ex situ conservation and each ex situ project until now has been quite a failure. Additionally the only cetacean with a sustainable captive population is also one of the most widespread ones in the wild.

Keeping cetaceans in captivity is expensive, a cost-benefit analysis will probably show it is a lot more beneficial to try to preserve cetaceans in their native habitat. That is necessary anyway, as captive breeding often does not solve the cause of why these animals have become so rare....

 

[TinoPup]

Do you think Marineland's belugas won't get transferred to any U.S. aquariums due to Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations?

The USA doesn't really have anywhere for them to go. The few that might have room, like Baltimore, are all phasing out cetaceans completely. If it was just a few animals places like Atlanta might be able to fit them in, but Marineland has dozens.

 

[Mbwamwitu]

It would be nice if somebody could provide that such a cascading effect actually exists, because it just sounds like fear-mongering

If you can't explain the difference between an Orca and an Elephant in zoos, including their husbandry differences (and long-term success) then there would indeed be no place for Elephants in zoos.



Exactly 0 cetacean species have been saved by ex situ conservation and each ex situ project until now has been quite a failure. Additionally the only cetacean with a sustainable captive population is also one of the most widespread ones in the wild.

Keeping cetaceans in captivity is expensive, a cost-benefit analysis will probably show it is a lot more beneficial to try to preserve cetaceans in their native habitat. That is necessary anyway, as captive breeding often does not solve the cause of why these animals have become so rare....

In addition to your last point about redirecting resources to in-situ cetacean conservation, this is surely good news for a lot of underserved pinniped and fish species that will receive more focus from parks? I understand that the casual zoo audience prefers to see dolphins and orcas, but the cultural popularity of different species is relative and changes over time. Could we perhaps start creating greater interest in species that fare better in captivity, and could benefit more from the ex-situ conservation? It's a job for everyone across generations, I know, but it seems like a very worthwhile endeavor in general (and also for terrestrial species like ungulates that keep getting shafted by zoos with attendance concerns).

 

[Jurek7]

At the risk of repeating the obvious.

The main value of aquaria (as well as zoos) is raising public interest in wildlife. From the perspective of profit and entertainment, they might all change to theme parks with kraken rollercoasters, water slides etc. However the public would no longer be interested in wildlife and conservation. Public interest in dolphins started when they could be seen and interacted with in aquaria, and will go away together with aquaria.

Second argument is freedom in society. Everybody is entitled to believe arbitrary things about cetaceans without rational basis. However cannot force the rest of society basing on your false beliefs.

Cetaceans living in North American now have the same life expectancy as will ones and no objective metric exists they feel worse than wild ones. North American aquarium no longer catch wild cetaceans for display. These things happened in the past and still happen in other parts of the world, but not in North America. So there is simply no merit in welfare argument.

It is clear that stopping aquariums from keeping cetaceans will perversely harm animals. The biggest will be lack of public interest in ocean life. Second, it will stop aquariums from any improving their habitats. Cetaceans currently in aquariums will live for the next 40 to 80 years, unless activists propose to kill them, too. It will prevent taking any rescue cetaceans. Basically, there is no reason to help a sick wild cetacean if the only option possible to is euthanasia.

 

[FunkyGibbon]

However the public would no longer be interested in wildlife and conservation. Public interest in dolphins started when they could be seen and interacted with in aquaria, and will go away together with aquaria.

Is there any evidence of this?

 

[SharkFinatic]

At the risk of repeating the obvious.

The main value of aquaria (as well as zoos) is raising public interest in wildlife. From the perspective of profit and entertainment, they might all change to theme parks with kraken rollercoasters, water slides etc. However the public would no longer be interested in wildlife and conservation. Public interest in dolphins started when they could be seen and interacted with in aquaria, and will go away together with aquaria.

Second argument is freedom in society. Everybody is entitled to believe arbitrary things about cetaceans without rational basis. However cannot force the rest of society basing on your false beliefs.

Cetaceans living in North American now have the same life expectancy as will ones and no objective metric exists they feel worse than wild ones. North American aquarium no longer catch wild cetaceans for display. These things happened in the past and still happen in other parts of the world, but not in North America. So there is simply no merit in welfare argument.

It is clear that stopping aquariums from keeping cetaceans will perversely harm animals. The biggest will be lack of public interest in ocean life. Second, it will stop aquariums from any improving their habitats. Cetaceans currently in aquariums will live for the next 40 to 80 years, unless activists propose to kill them, too. It will prevent taking any rescue cetaceans. Basically, there is no reason to help a sick wild cetacean if the only option possible to is euthanasia.

As much as I doubt the Canadian government's judgement regarding this ban, I don't think banning cetacean captivity would doom the aquarium industry. There are plenty of aquariums that don't exhibit cetaceans at all, and still attract millions of visitors. Aquariums still have plenty of other high-profile animals to bring visitors in (sharks, penguins, sea turtles, jellyfish, etc.).

 

[Jurek7]

I don't think banning cetacean captivity would doom the aquarium industry.

Aquariums don't need dolphins, but dolphins need aquariums. As I told before, entertainment industry could profitably produce animatronic and VR entertainment focused on mermaids, krakens and pirates and get rid of all live animals. The loss will be conservation awareness.

Only one particular example is aquariums recently raising awareness of disapperance of vaquita. No aquarium critic organization does so.

Is there any evidence of this?

Yes. Read history of cetaceans keeping, and compare public awareness of related sea mammals which are kept in aquaria and those which are not.

It has been known since Antiquity that dolphins are clever. However they were seen simply as another fishing resource. The dolphin-mania in the West started only in the 1940s with aquaria, when the public could see dolphins interacting with people, either themselves or on the screen (Flipper and numerous followers).

To this day this public interest is limited to dolphins in aquariums only. Can you put a query of dolphin or killer whale on Google Images? 90% to 99% of high quality photos, those on posters and calendars, will show dolphins in aquaria.

Then do you know how these animals look like: ringed seal, southern right whale dolphin and dall's porpoise without searching? Everybody knows californian sea lion, bottlenose dolphin and killer whale. But the first three are equally widespread, small sea mammals. All three have very attractive shapes and patterns. But they have been never exhibited in aquaria, so don't exist in public knowledge. How many already knowledgeable people on Zoochat know all three?

Here you see: small cetaceans only exist in public imagination because of aquaria.

On a side note: there is a good opportunity to make a zoochat thread with a photo quiz - "name that animal".

Which is ironic: animal rights movement kills its own base by acting to eliminate dolphins from aquaria. But a parasite often kills its host. I see animal rights movement attitude to aquaria as parasitic: they suck money generated by public interest in aquarium animals but contribute nothing to wild conservation.

 

[ZooBinh]

Yea, if activists keep sucking out everything (like us humans are notoriously known for), what will be left for them to have a voice?

 

[Kakapo]

But how is that the brainless idiots that make such laws are not jailed for life???

 

[Chlidonias]

But how is that the brainless idiots that make such laws are not jailed for life???

On what basis?

 

[Kakapo]

On what basis?

In the basis that such big stupidity as the banning of captive cetaceans should be considered a heavy fault