Marineland of Canada has one of the largest collections of Belugas in the world...yet they continue to import wild-caught individuals.
Niagara Falls Review - Ontario, CA
Niagara Falls Review - Ontario, CA
Marineland Canada Beluga Import
- Thread starter okapikpr
- Start date
Leptonyx
Well-Known Member
When I visited this summer they had two calves, both just a couple of months old. Based on the coloration of the others in the tank, there were a couple of immatures as well...so I don't think breeding is a problem. Then again, I don't understand why Marineland would feel the need to import EIGHT more from Russia- I found their tank to be extremely crowded for the number they had already- (unless of course...some of them sucummed...
)
the article says that with the eight new ones Marineland would now have THIRTY belugas. I think the reason is best supplied by John Holer (owner and founder of Marineland) when he is quoted in the article as saying "We have a large demand of people who want to feed and pet the belugas".When I visited this summer they had two calves, both just a couple of months old. Based on the coloration of the others in the tank, there were a couple of immatures as well...so I don't think breeding is a problem. Then again, I don't understand why Marineland would feel the need to import EIGHT more from Russia- I found their tank to be extremely crowded for the number they had already- (unless of course...some of them sucummed...
And his ridiculous response to Zoocheck's outcry over the import: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but look at how many animals are kept in zoos that would otherwise be extinct"
Leptonyx
Well-Known Member
Perfect reasoning...last time I checked bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, and belugas were down to their last numbers...it's a good thing Marineland is stepping in to save them
On a lighter note, I am happy to report that Marineland no longer allows people to touch the killer whales, they now offer a "splash session" (which is what most of the people wanted anyways). They also seemed to have considerably downsized the pod, in the "arctic cove" tank there were only 3 whales (one adult, two immature)- though for all I know the others could be housed off-site somewhere. If anyone remembers the main stage area? No more killer whales in the shows!!!! WUHOO! The bottlenose dolphins have been moved to the outdoor tanks now, which (although not ideal) is much better than the tiny indoor tank they used to perform in.
I remember being 13? or so when I paid to touch the killer whales, and remembered being horrified by the trainers yelling at a particular whale because she had had enough and had swam off. They wouldn't stop harassing her, and eventually she was forced to come back. I confess that I did pay to touch/feed a beluga whale this summer, but I was extremely impressed by how the trainers handled them. The beluga I had decided at one point that she had enough, and swam off. I braced myself for an outburst from the trainer to force her back, and all the trainer did was laugh and say that the beluga would come back in due time (which she did eventually, and me and the trainer had a nice chat amongst ourselves until she did
)Anyways, I'm still confused on whether I support marine mammals in captivity (for the most part, I'd say no-), but on the positive Marineland has made improvements...I could go on for awhile on the whole topic but I'll stop now haha
Marineland has been at the forefront of breeding belugas. From that perspective I would not have any qualms for further imports. Splash sessions seem a well conceived and value-for-money alternative to expensive whale watching trips on the Arctic (go figure the environmental impact of that) in order to sensitise people to wildlife conservation and beluga conservation in particular.
Where I am not wholly convinced is the overall management of belugas at Marineland. What data or information do we actually have on beluga breeding and performance pools? If so, we can have a more informed discussion of the various aspects involved in this new import.
What is shocking to me is the counter-argument by the animal activists that people do not wish to be educated ... rather be entertained. It is OUR duty to educate and second perhaps to entertain people so much so that they feel the NEED and MORAL DUTY to conserve these marine mammals in situ. There is definitely a need for ex situ education, research and conservation breeding.
Where I am not wholly convinced is the overall management of belugas at Marineland. What data or information do we actually have on beluga breeding and performance pools? If so, we can have a more informed discussion of the various aspects involved in this new import.
What is shocking to me is the counter-argument by the animal activists that people do not wish to be educated ... rather be entertained. It is OUR duty to educate and second perhaps to entertain people so much so that they feel the NEED and MORAL DUTY to conserve these marine mammals in situ. There is definitely a need for ex situ education, research and conservation breeding.
Leptonyx
Well-Known Member
http://www.cmeps.org/pdf/CaptiveBelugaReport.pdf
This is a really nice overview of the history beluga exportation, and current issues regarding breeding, and management issues that have arisen in North America (Marineland, Vancouver Aquarium, Shedd Aquarium, etc.). I also read "THE CASE AGAINST MARINE MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY" report by HSUS- which covers practically everything and anything you would want to know about the problems cetaceans can face in captivity...it's not a pretty picture
Leptonyx
Well-Known Member
Some points to ponder:
Education:
- " Despite arguments that such entertainment makes the experience of seeing marine mammals more memorable, in a survey of 1,000 U.S. citizens by researchers from Yale University...four-fifths of the public in this survey stated that marine mammals should not be kept in captivity unless there are major educational or scientific benefits. In a 2003 survey of members of the Canadian public, 74 percent of respondents thought that the best way to learn about the natural habits of whales and dolphins is by viewing them in the wild, either directly through whalewatching tours or indirectly through television and cinema or on the Internet. Only 14 percent felt that viewing cetaceans in captivity was educational"
(Given with my personal experiences, I'm within this 14%)
Research/Conservation:
- "A 1999 study showed that aquaria (and zoos) belonging to the AZA, despite recent increases in conservation expenditure, only spent a tenth of one percent of their operating budgets on direct and indirect conservation-related projects...Sea World Incorporated, spends a stated US$3 million a year on conservation-related projects, which sounds like a large amount of money until one realizes that this is less than one percent of the revenue generated by Sea World Orlando alone (more than US$250 million a year from entrance fees)...When one adds in the income of Sea World facilities in Texas and California, the contribution is a mere fraction of one percent of revenues...it has been stated that if a zoo or aquarium is to make a serious contribution to conservation, at least 10 percent of its operating income should go toward conservation and research."
- If conservation is working- why is the continued import of animals required?
- If the goal of conservation is breeding, why not focus on the endangered populations IN CANADA (St. Lawrence, Hudson Bay)? Have any successful reintroductions occured?
- Would research being done on captive animals be viable? Are animals in captivity reflective of wild counterpart physiology and behavior? Marineland has a large enough population of belugas now that research done might be acceptable (sample size being 30)- but would research be accepted on populations less than this at other institutions?
Overall:
"In a recent poll, approximately two-thirds of those surveyed did not
support the captivity of whales and dolphins and thought that the use of captive whales and dolphins for commercial purposes in Canada should be stopped. In addition, more than half of those interviewed said they would support laws that prohibit the importation of live whales and dolphins into Canada.49"
Animal Activists:
- Considering the above- maybe they're onto something?
- Is the welfare of several individuals in captivity worth the larger-scale population, if aquariums were to improve on the above?
- I'm an animal welfarist, I apologize firstly if anything above may have upset/angered people and secondly for the extremely long post I'm more than open to feedback/angry posts...*preferably the former *
**Quotes taken from the HSUS/WSPA 2006 Report "The case against marine mammals in captivity**
Education:
- " Despite arguments that such entertainment makes the experience of seeing marine mammals more memorable, in a survey of 1,000 U.S. citizens by researchers from Yale University...four-fifths of the public in this survey stated that marine mammals should not be kept in captivity unless there are major educational or scientific benefits. In a 2003 survey of members of the Canadian public, 74 percent of respondents thought that the best way to learn about the natural habits of whales and dolphins is by viewing them in the wild, either directly through whalewatching tours or indirectly through television and cinema or on the Internet. Only 14 percent felt that viewing cetaceans in captivity was educational"
(Given with my personal experiences, I'm within this 14%
)Research/Conservation:
- "A 1999 study showed that aquaria (and zoos) belonging to the AZA, despite recent increases in conservation expenditure, only spent a tenth of one percent of their operating budgets on direct and indirect conservation-related projects...Sea World Incorporated, spends a stated US$3 million a year on conservation-related projects, which sounds like a large amount of money until one realizes that this is less than one percent of the revenue generated by Sea World Orlando alone (more than US$250 million a year from entrance fees)...When one adds in the income of Sea World facilities in Texas and California, the contribution is a mere fraction of one percent of revenues...it has been stated that if a zoo or aquarium is to make a serious contribution to conservation, at least 10 percent of its operating income should go toward conservation and research."
- If conservation is working- why is the continued import of animals required?
- If the goal of conservation is breeding, why not focus on the endangered populations IN CANADA (St. Lawrence, Hudson Bay)? Have any successful reintroductions occured?
- Would research being done on captive animals be viable? Are animals in captivity reflective of wild counterpart physiology and behavior? Marineland has a large enough population of belugas now that research done might be acceptable (sample size being 30)- but would research be accepted on populations less than this at other institutions?
Overall:
"In a recent poll, approximately two-thirds of those surveyed did not
support the captivity of whales and dolphins and thought that the use of captive whales and dolphins for commercial purposes in Canada should be stopped. In addition, more than half of those interviewed said they would support laws that prohibit the importation of live whales and dolphins into Canada.49"
Animal Activists:
- Considering the above- maybe they're onto something?
- Is the welfare of several individuals in captivity worth the larger-scale population, if aquariums were to improve on the above?
- I'm an animal welfarist
, I apologize firstly if anything above may have upset/angered people and secondly for the extremely long post I'm more than open to feedback/angry posts...*preferably the former ***Quotes taken from the HSUS/WSPA 2006 Report "The case against marine mammals in captivity**
The HSUS statements should be taken with an entire bag of rock salt, mainly because it's possible for anyone to say anything they like with statistics. Case in point -- a Harris Poll from a year or two ago found overwhelming support (something like 87%) for zoos and oceanariums among the group surveyed. Who is correct?
It is a sincere hope of mine that we, as a species, will grow up to the point where we no longer need the perspectives and experiences that zoos and oceanariums offer. That will be the point where we (finally) recognize our inherent and inescapable responsibility to take a lot better care of this world and the critters we share it with.
Until that time, captive exhibits are necessary because of the way people learn and remember things. More specifically, where people tend to remember (accurately) only about 20% of what they hear (say, during a lecture), they tend to remember (and care more about) 82% or so of what they experience.
The question of education vs. entertainment has been going back and forth for as long as there have been captive animal exhibits, and it is a thorny one. While there is certainly truth in saying that people want to be entertained, there is also truth in saying that people want more than entertainment, and they're inherently curious about the animals involved.
On the one extreme, you have parks and shows which are no more than circus acts, delivering pure fluff without any educational content whatsoever (Sea World!) On the other, you have parks which take education so seriously they tend to put their audiences to sleep with too many dry facts.
The best parks are those which find a 'happy medium.' Like everything else, balance is a Good Thing.
If Marineland has the resources to properly care for 30 belugas, and to use them in a well-balanced "edutainment" environment, then more power to them. I don't know much about oceanarium conditions in Russia, but I've seen some pictures that don't thrill me overmuch.
Happy travels.
It is a sincere hope of mine that we, as a species, will grow up to the point where we no longer need the perspectives and experiences that zoos and oceanariums offer. That will be the point where we (finally) recognize our inherent and inescapable responsibility to take a lot better care of this world and the critters we share it with.
Until that time, captive exhibits are necessary because of the way people learn and remember things. More specifically, where people tend to remember (accurately) only about 20% of what they hear (say, during a lecture), they tend to remember (and care more about) 82% or so of what they experience.
The question of education vs. entertainment has been going back and forth for as long as there have been captive animal exhibits, and it is a thorny one. While there is certainly truth in saying that people want to be entertained, there is also truth in saying that people want more than entertainment, and they're inherently curious about the animals involved.
On the one extreme, you have parks and shows which are no more than circus acts, delivering pure fluff without any educational content whatsoever (Sea World!) On the other, you have parks which take education so seriously they tend to put their audiences to sleep with too many dry facts.
The best parks are those which find a 'happy medium.' Like everything else, balance is a Good Thing.
If Marineland has the resources to properly care for 30 belugas, and to use them in a well-balanced "edutainment" environment, then more power to them. I don't know much about oceanarium conditions in Russia, but I've seen some pictures that don't thrill me overmuch.
Happy travels.
Leptonyx
Well-Known Member
but it was a YALE survey!- haha. All jokes aside- I see your point- and I too look forward to the day when animals no longer need zoos/aquariums for protection. Until then, I'm crossing my fingers that facilities holding cetaceans will improve both in education and husbandry practices. Can't say anything more on the topic really, great post kc7gr Of course:
Average citizen knows too little about dolphins and whales. They need educating, isn't it? So why HSUS asks them about the best method of conserving cetaceans?
But what percentage of visitors who visited dolphinarium was more concerned about dolphins and whales - the answer would be 99%. Including Leptonyx
HSUS, stand up. How much money you pass for conservation of wild cetaceans?
I doubt any general animal welfare society or whalewatching tour spends 10% of income on conservation and research of wild cetaceans.
About wild whale watching:
- 99% of people live inland and cannot be educated this way,
- total amount of people whalewatching is a tiny fraction of those educated in zoos and aquariums.
- Whalewatching may be more interesting than dolphinarium, but it is reaching very few people.
- and it is also criticised by animal activists.
Leptonyx
Well-Known Member
Ohhh the public DEFINETELY needs educating on certain issues
haha. However I re-quote; "four-fifths of the public in this survey stated that marine mammals should not be kept in captivity unless there are major educational or scientific benefits." This seems perfectly understandable and logical to me- and it applies to ALL zoological/aquarium animals. What other purpose should there be to house wild animals in captivity if not for education, conservation, or research? Even if the stats are a bit skewed (HSUS has a bias, I won't deny it), and it may have been with "average joes who knew nothing"- I felt the public hit the nail dead on for this one (in the same survey a large number also said they would also have "preferred to see captive marine mammals expressing naturalbehaviors rather than performing tricks and stunts, have to agree with the public yet again
)But what percentage of visitors who visited dolphinarium was more concerned about dolphins and whales - the answer would be 99%. Including Leptonyx
Can't argue with you there
It's ironic because before I got into school here, my other plan was to study public perception of whales in captivity (...probably should have mentioned that earlier- my other bias). Then again, are people who go to see dolphins and whales getting anything out of it education wise? People might go there with the right intention to learn...but instead might leave with wrong perceptions (especially the young kids), learning little to no biology on the actual animal.Practically none- would be my guess
. Then again, HSUS is a non-for-profit organization, and Sea World is a for-profit company(in my mind: they can spare the extra couple million dollars ) Additionally, I've never viewed HSUS as the authority and forefront on dolphin and whale conservation, as SeaWorld often has portrayed (In other words, I would not get angry at SeaWorld if they decided not to fund a spay or neuter program)People at least remember that dolphins and whales exist.
Modern people get interested in cars, sport, spaceships, dinosaurs... and wild animals can become quietly extinct.
Practically none- would be my guess
Opposite. Non-profit organizations get tax deductions and things so they can spend more on conservation.My general point is: non-profit organizations are as ineffective and badly managed than many zoos. Before criticising zoos, they should see the beam in own eye.
And second point: for several decades it is claimed that non-profit organizations, TV shows etc. can replace zoos for fund raising and education. This is not real, it didn't happen. We don't see a flood of money for conservation coming from non-profit organizations, whale watching tours, tv shows etc.
Leptonyx
Well-Known Member
Fair enough
I'll give you that-
How big are tax deductions for non-profit organizations? I have no idea (I hate banking)- I just have a hard time picturing those tax deductions equalling more than a for-profit company revenues after their tax deductions...
That's news to me- it certainly doesn't seem realistic or feasible. I'm not against zoos or keeping animals in captivity- I just want to make sure that before we do that there's a valid reason for it (education), and that animals can be cared for adequetely without diminishing their welfare. I still argue that whale-watching tours and tv shows at least provide more information on my personal account
, but that will be the last argument from me-