What species would you ban from zoos?

[Tea_and_Biology]

It goes without question, cetaceans respond poorly to captivity. In one instance alone (bottlenose dolphin; see Jaakkola & Willis, 2019) do captive dolphins have an equivalent life expectancy to their wild counterparts. Otherwise all captive cetaceans die disproportionately young.

This likewise speaks nothing on captive morbidity, nor quality of life. When one has to routinely administer psychotropic drugs to manage cortisol levels (i.e. stress) and reduce aberrant behavioural phenotypes in captive cetacea, maybe one shouldn't be keeping the animals in the first place. Not that I would support re-release into the wild or anything; attempts at re-wilding captive cetaceans have always been met with failure. Rather, a ban on captive breeding should be enforced (as is currently being passing through the statute books in many countries, if not already so) and the remaining populations of captive individuals allowed to naturally die off (perhaps transferring the last to oceanic open-water 'netted-bay'-style enclosures, to live out their 'retirements').

The exception would be for the last-resort captive breeding of particularly threatened species - i.e. what we should have started with the vaquita years ago (Alas, too late. RIP). As it currently stands however, no currently held captive cetacean species benefit from an ex-situ breeding programme. There is no conservation argument for keeping, say, bottlenose dolphins in captivity, and there certainly isn't a scientific nor ethical one.

The second exception would be for instances where beached / rescued animals require veterinary treatment and rehabilitation before re-release. And only if individuals once rehabilitated cannot be released should they be kept on in captivity, and certainly not to breed.

Large pinnipeds (elephant seals, walrus etc.) are similar to cetaceans - they perform poorly in captivity and there's little rational argument to support captive existence. Pelagic sharks doubly so.

As for other groups, hmmm, elephants, great apes and polar bears are good examples of borderline cases - if institutions can more than adequately provide for their care, sure, feel free, but as far as I'm aware, there are few regulatory legal mechanisms to ensure good standards are met in most places. We could generally do with better legal requirements, even in the West.

 

[birdsandbats]

It goes without question, cetaceans respond poorly to captivity. In one instance alone (bottlenose dolphin; see Jaakkola & Willis, 2019) do captive dolphins have an equivalent life expectancy to their wild counterparts. Otherwise all captive cetaceans die disproportionately young.

This likewise speaks nothing on captive morbidity, nor quality of life. When one has to routinely administer psychotropic drugs to manage cortisol levels (i.e. stress) and reduce aberrant behavioural phenotypes in captive cetacea, maybe one shouldn't be keeping the animals in the first place. Not that I would support re-release into the wild or anything; attempts at re-wilding captive cetaceans have always been met with failure. Rather, a ban on captive breeding should be enforced (as is currently being passing through the statute books in many countries, if not already so) and the remaining populations of captive individuals allowed to naturally die off (perhaps transferring the last to oceanic open-water 'netted-bay'-style enclosures, to live out their 'retirements').

The exception would be for the last-resort captive breeding of particularly threatened species - i.e. what we should have started with the vaquita years ago (Alas, too late. RIP). As it currently stands however, no currently held captive cetacean species benefit from an ex-situ breeding programme. There is no conservation argument for keeping, say, bottlenose dolphins in captivity, and there certainly isn't a scientific nor ethical one.

The second exception would be for instances where beached / rescued animals require veterinary treatment and rehabilitation before re-release. And only if individuals once rehabilitated cannot be released should they be kept on in captivity, and certainly not to breed.

Large pinnipeds (elephant seals, walrus etc.) are similar to cetaceans - they perform poorly in captivity and there's little rational argument to support captive existence. Pelagic sharks doubly so.

As for other groups, hmmm, elephants, great apes and polar bears are good examples of borderline cases - if institutions can more than adequately provide for their care, sure, feel free, but as far as I'm aware, there are few regulatory legal mechanisms to ensure good standards are met in most places. We could generally do with better legal requirements, even in the West.

I do enjoy reading these debates whenever they come up, I don't yet have an opinion one way or another on cetaceans in captivity. But I do want to note here that river dolphins preform well in captivity - better than bottlenoses in fact.

 

[lintworm]

But I do want to note here that river dolphins preform well in captivity - better than bottlenoses in fact.

There are far to few River Dolphins that have been in captivity to establish that and even far less in recent times. Don't forget that most of Duisburg's Boto died within a few years of captures and only two were kept successfully long-term. The longevity of these 2 individuals does however suggest they did crack this nut eventually, but there is far to little data to say that they actually do well on a population level.

 

[Tea_and_Biology]

I do enjoy reading these debates whenever they come up, I don't yet have an opinion one way or another on cetaceans in captivity. But I do want to note here that river dolphins preform well in captivity - better than bottlenoses in fact.

Do you have a reference / source for that claim?

According to a review by Curry et al. (2013) on the management and breeding of small cetacean species (estuarine and freshwater species), all attempts thus far at captive management and breeding of river dolphin species seem to have been met with failure. Granted, we're talking about the fates of individuals captured between the '60s and early '90s - almost all died in short course - and we've since addressed much of that overwhelming mortality caused by capture, transport and acclimitisation to captivity. But even so, several hundred dead individuals later and it seems all we have to really show for it are a small handful of (many lone; see Duisburg) long-lived individuals, few of which have bred, of which only a single (?) captive-born individual survived until sexual maturity (at Valencia Aquarium, Venezuela). And none of this addresses captive chronic morbidity nor quality-of-life.

So yeah, I dunno', I could do with some convincing they've been 'okay', paha, to say the least.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Otherwise all captive cetaceans die disproportionately young.

Except for the Orinoco River Dolphin, wherein both the first and second-place for world lifespan record are/were captive animals and also, I believe, the Tucuxi - the last survivor at Munster had been in captivity since the late 1960s, and therefore was at least 40 years old at the time of his death.

There are far to few River Dolphins that have been in captivity to establish that and even far less in recent times. Don't forget that most of Duisburg's Boto died within a few years of captures and only two were kept successfully long-term. The longevity of these 2 individuals does however suggest they did crack this nut eventually, but there is far to little data to say that they actually do well on a population level.

The theory I have heard - which seems pretty well-founded - is that the vast majority of the Boto which have been held in captivity were kept in pools which were too steep-sided and lacked extremely shallow areas where the inhabitants could beach and sleep; apparently river dolphins are unable to sleep properly whilst afloat, as oceanic dolphins can, and therefore exhaustion takes a toll.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Except for the Orinoco River Dolphin, wherein both the first and second-place for world lifespan record are/were captive animals and also, I believe, the Tucuxi - the last survivor at Munster had been in captivity since the late 1960s, and therefore was at least 40 years old at the time of his death.

Knowing nothing about this subject, (but having some experience of spp dismissed as inappropriate for captivity), such dramatic records do seem to imply that with appropriate conditions results could be different. 'Border-line' cases, will always be dependent on who sets the borders, what their motives are; and be susceptible to 'shifting-goal-post' syndrome...

 

[Tim May]

... also, I believe, the Tucuxi - the last survivor at Munster had been in captivity since the late 1960s, and therefore was at least 40 years old at the time of his death.

According to Weigl's book on mammalian longevity (2005), the two longest-lived Sotalia dolphins at Munster Zoo were wild born about 1972 and were received by Antwerp Zoo in June 1977.

Long lived, indeed, but not quite as old as you stated.

 

[Tea_and_Biology]

The theory I have heard - which seems pretty well-founded - is that the vast majority of the Boto which have been held in captivity were kept in pools which were too steep-sided and lacked extremely shallow areas where the inhabitants could beach and sleep; apparently river dolphins are unable to sleep properly whilst afloat, as oceanic dolphins can, and therefore exhaustion takes a toll.

Ooh, seems interesting - have a source? The only reference I can find r.e. their captive sleeping behaviour was "a frightening habit of resting upside down at the bottoms of their pools...They were so immobile that they appeared to be dead (startling visitors)". Eek!

From what I can tell from the literature, the majority of captive Inia deaths resulted from inter-specific (mostly sexual) aggression, and stress-associated morbidity. The former partially due to captive social groupings failing to allow for the dynamic social structures of wild Inia (i.e. males spending much of their time alone, coming together socially for infrequent cooperative hunting and mating, season and mood-dependent), and partially boredom. Otherwise, gastronintestinal ulceritis and other stress-associated disease was common, alongside nephrosis (kidney damage; poor water quality) and a suite of skin and other environmentally and self-induced wound infections (poor water quality, zoochosis, poor enclosure design).

In any case, anomalous individuals aside, few of them lasted long. During those decades when we attempted Inia in captivity, the mean longevity, as given by Caldwell et al. was ~32.6 months (not counting those dead on or before arrival).

Again, as mentioned in my previous post, I agree with the above sentiment by Andrew; much of the cause of this mortality can now be more adequately addressed. I'm sure we could keep freshwater dolphins alive in captivity, many into the decades. All this to say though, even if we could keep a significant number of them alive long-term, i) to what end?; and ii) at what cost? Both financially and in terms of welfare. The question (as of this thread) is really should we keep them?

Longevity in and of itself is not a good indicator of quality-of-life, and I balk at the level of behavioural micromanagement that would be required to ensure they don't kill each other off as happened through the mid-late 20th century and/or otherwise keep them socially engaged. Furthermore, from a zoo mission and conservation point-of-view, surely the tens upon tens of millions required to keep a river dolphin or five alive for a few decades could be much better spent elsewhere? As quoted by Caldwell et al. (1989): "We no longer believe that a social breeding colony of this species in captivity... is possible". That was thirty years ago, and as far as I'm otherwise aware, nobody in the field has since changed their minds nor suggested an ex-situ captive population will benefit their future survival.

As much as the zoo nerd in me would love to see happy, healthy river dolphins in zoos, I still fail to see a good argument supporting future captivity (unless it was as last resort). Throw that money at in-situ conservation efforts or the husbandry of other more deserving beasties at any given zoo; it'd be far more effective!

___

References:
- Boede, E.O., Mujica-Jorquera, E. & De Boede, N. (1998) Management of the Amazon River dolphin (Inia geoffrensis) at Valencia Aquarium, Venezuela. International Zoo Yearbook. 36, 314-222
- Caldwell, M.C., Caldwell, D.K & Brill, R.L. (1989) Inia geoffrensis in Captivity in the United States. In: Perrin, W.F., Brownell, R.L, Kaiya, Z. & Jianking, L. (eds.). Biology and conservation of the river dolphins. IUCN.
- Curry, B.E., Ralls, K. & Brownell, R.L. (2013) Prospects for captive breeding of poorly known small cetacean species. Endangered Species Research. 19, 223-243

 

[Tea_and_Biology]

Except for the Orinoco River Dolphin, wherein both the first and second-place for world lifespan record are/were captive animals and also, I believe, the Tucuxi - the last survivor at Munster had been in captivity since the late 1960s, and therefore was at least 40 years old at the time of his death.

Hmmm, given we have no reliable data on lifespan from wild populations I don't think we can make any claims about whether or not their captive lifespans are proportional to what we ought to expect and thereby good indicators of success or not (not that longevity is a strong indicator of welfare) - though, yes, true, technically the winning (albeit only) longevity records for these species are from captive individuals!

 

[Crotalus]

I agree with many on this thread in saying that no species really should be outright banned from captivity. Again aside from baleen whales, which no one keeps long-term anyway, and actually a few oceanic birds in my opinion (albatrosses mostly), I firmly believe a zoo with sufficient resources (money and space) should be allowed to keep whatever species is feasible, provided governments allow it and husbandry requirements are met. I can agree that present conditions for certain groups of animals are not at their best, and I think Orcas should have access in general to larger pools simply for space to roam, but part of having animals in captivity is acknowledging that it's a learning process. Our knowledge about the requirements in terms of space and exhibit for gorillas, bears, and big cats are far beyond what they once were, for example, and now zoos can build more spacious exhibits, or at least ones catering more to the needs of the species.

In experimenting with cetaceans, large birds, deep-sea fishes, yes there are going to be casualties. It's somewhat of a series of trials and errors. While unfortunate, these are also sometimes helpful to determine what this species needs to thrive. It's necessary.

And lastly for wild-caught animals, yeah, I generally am in favor of keeping captive bred animals, but for many you first need to have wild-caught animals to set up breeding programs, and with many species of birds, small mammals, fish and such it can be difficult to find captive populations. Still, this would not be banning an entire species, as eventually a captive breeding population would exist.

So to put it simply, besides pelagic birds, certain ocean-going fish (the basking shark comes to mind) and baleen whales, no I don't believe any species should be totally banned from captivity.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

According to Weigl's book on mammalian longevity (2005), the two longest-lived Sotalia dolphins at Munster Zoo were wild born about 1972 and were received by Antwerp Zoo in June 1977.

Long lived, indeed, but not quite as old as you stated.

Ah yes - having checked my copy of said book you are indeed correct! From memory I didn't think Antwerp had received any individuals after the initial 1968 import, and knew they had not bred there, so assumed the individual in question must have come from said import - but as you note, it seems Antwerp received further animals mere weeks before sending them to Nuremberg and ceasing to keep the species!

Ooh, seems interesting - have a source? The only reference I can find r.e. their captive sleeping behaviour was "a frightening habit of resting upside down at the bottoms of their pools...They were so immobile that they appeared to be dead (startling visitors)". Eek!

Haven't read much of the scientific literature on river dolphins in captivity - although I had read the Curry et al paper you cited earlier - but I've heard the sleep deprivation claim/theory from a few sources both in the UK and on the continent when discussing the matter. The earliest mention I can find on this forum of the theory is this post from 2011.

Hmmm, given we have no reliable data on lifespan from wild populations I don't think we can make any claims about whether or not their captive lifespans are proportional to what we ought to expect and thereby good indicators of success or not (not that longevity is a strong indicator of welfare)

I think there *may* be good figures for Tucuxi lifespan at least - the handful of books I have on the subject cite lifespans of 30-35 years and it seems a relatively well-studied species. But generally speaking, you are correct that accurate lifespan figures for wild cetaceans are often hard to come by and estimates often unfounded; I was merely noting that your initial blanket claim that barring Bottlenose Dolphins, "all captive cetaceans die disproportionately young" was equally unfounded rather than making any particular statement about the correspondence of longevity/welfare.

 

[Jurek7]

Otherwise all captive cetaceans die disproportionately young.

This is a mistake which new members bring every few months to this forum.

The mistake is that you are joining the good husbandry of cetaceans now and much worse husbandry decades ago. One way to avoid this mistake is to count annual survival of cetaceans. In the recent decades it is high, much higher than averages quoted from many decades ago.

One example is long life of the only recent tucuxi in Munster and boto in Duisburg.

You can read a collection of answers to such common mistakes from Loro Parque:
https://www.loroparque.com/pdf/encyclopedia.pdf

The exception would be for the last-resort captive breeding of particularly threatened species

You may not understand that captive breeding needs understanding the basic biology of an animal first. So it always 'stands on the shoulders' of experience gained before.

The second exception would be for instances where beached / rescued animals require veterinary treatment and rehabilitation before re-release.

You also seem not to know that cetaceans are washed ashore after they are too sick to swim normally. So they are animals which get to dolphinaria in extremely poor condition in the first place, and would have very shortened lifespan and chances of survival.

An example is the killer whale Morgan, which was stranded and brought to a dolphinarium because she was very undernourished, and the basic condition was that she is deaf. For an animal using sonar it is like blindness. Nevertheless, there were people and a whole organization who wanted (and probably still want) to release her to the wild in this state.

The question (as of this thread) is really should we keep them?

Do you and unknown others (we) keep a number of cetaceans (them)? Otherwise don't infringe into freedom of other people.

Another part of such discussions is usurping a right to decide what others should or should not see. I find it annoying, and also giving bad example in general. Anti-cetacean bans and protests are an example of nannyism of the worst kind, that is simultaneously not solving real problems, in this case saving vaquita and other endangered cetaceans in the wild.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

The exception would be for the last-resort captive breeding of particularly threatened species - i.e. what we should have started with the vaquita years ago (Alas, too late. RIP).

Of course, it also needs to be noted that one of the many things that sealed the fate of the vaquita (along with a few other non-cetacean species I could cite) was the hand-wringing about whether it was wrong to even *try* to capture animals for captive-breeding purposes, and the suggestion by some that it would be better for a species to go extinct than to be taken into captivity and the resulting delays until the day was far too late.

 

[Tea_and_Biology]

I was merely noting that your initial blanket claim that barring Bottlenose Dolphins, "all captive cetaceans die disproportionately young" was equally unfounded rather than making any particular statement about the correspondence of longevity/welfare.

Ah, fair! I should have made the caveat 'for those species for which we have records available for comparison' explicit, or something, haha.

I think there *may* be good figures for Tucuxi lifespan at least - the handful of books I have on the subject cite lifespans of 30-35 years and it seems a relatively well-studied species.

Yeah, decided to have a wee rummage and not found much hard data, alas. Every single reference cites 'estimated (at least) 30-35 years', none sourcing the claim, except a few which cite the captive lifespan of ~31-32 years as reference (at time of publication; said individual eventually died at 36). After some digging, the only solid information I can find is from this paper, which estimated the age of a dental sample from a single Tucuxi as being around 30-35ish years - which supports the 'at least' 30-35 year claim, but not much else. As the AnAge database puts it, 'maximum longevity not yet established'.

As someone with a professional interest in cetacean longevity for research purposes (at least, at the moment!), I often find genuine data on cetacean lifespans difficult to pin down, maximum natural longevity for most species remaining largely a mystery (the spectacular example of the bowhead whale a wonderful contrast, well documented up to ~240 years... woah!).

Anywho, to bring this wee meander into cetacean biology back to the topic at hand, it's unclear whether any cetacean species bar bottlenose dolphins live as long in captivity as they do in the wild, and for most we know they don't. As much as longevity is not a good indicator of good welfare, poor longevity (relative to wild populations) is a good indicator of poor welfare.

 

[Batto]

Furthermore, from a zoo mission and conservation point-of-view, surely the tens upon tens of millions required to keep a river dolphin or five alive for a few decades could be much better spent elsewhere?

The very same question is always asked by zoo critics whenever a new multi million dollar / euro / pound zoo exhibit for elephants, polar bears etc. is built. Quite rightfully so, if I may add. Some potential answers to this have been brought up in various past threads.

 

[Echobeast]

Oof this topic got a lot of attention lol. Sorry but this gets long because there are so many long posts to respond to.

It is not better for Orcas to be in captivity as their lifespans are dramatically shortened.Female Orcas in captivity only live around 29 years while female orcas in the wild are expected to live up to 50 with some reports even exceeding this.Male orcas are supposed to have a similar expectancy but in captivity they rarely live longer than 15 years.Yes, an Orca lived to be 52 but that was just one.All these others live incredibly short lifespans.It is wrong to say they have never had it better because they certainly have.Your claim that they have higher lifespans in captivity nowadays is correct but there has still only been one case of it exceeding the average in the wild and no cases of it exceeding the maximum in the wild of 80 years.

he issue that I have a really hard time with is the longevity of captive orcas. If you look at a list of all captive orcas the vast majority die very young, and they also have an incredibly high infant mortality rate. Pretty much every other species has a longer captive lifespan than their wild counterparts, why is the opposite true of orcas?

There are lots of numbers AR groups like to throw around like max ages and comparing them to average lifespans which is disingenuous. Most of these wild max age estimates are made based on photo id projects and aren't always 100% correct. Max ages of 80 should be taken with a huge grain of salt. While indeed possible, it is also possible for a human to reach 120 years but people won't go off on a person's family if they only reach age 70 and die of natural causes.I can also think of at least two orcas over 50 living currently in human care.

Current data shows there is no difference in life expectancy of orcas in at least SeaWorld parks after calves reach 6 months. This last part is important. Cetaceans have high infant mortality rates. In human care, we have data and can see that calves early on have it rough. We do not have any data from wild populations to show their infant mortality rate is any different. Like I said lifespan data is mostly received through photo id projects. If a calf passes after birth and the mother wasn't identified in the months between photos, it's impossible for scientists to know if a calf was born or not. For this reason, data on calves is only taken after the 6 month mark. It is disingenuous to compare them without this in account.

As far as depth goes the pools are deep but they are nowhere near as deep as they should be meaning in the wild they had it much better when there were almost unlimited depths to go hunting.They do not go too far but they go much deeper than they possibly could in captivity.

Keywords "to go hunting." They also dive to avoid threats in the wild. In human care, there is no need to dive deep. Doesn't mean their welfare is bad.

If we are going to keep Orcas in captivity we must stop doing the shows because while it does provide exercise it is also performing against their own will.There are very few if any zoos with orcas that do not encourage them to perform in captivity.

This shows a complete ignorance of what it takes for these animals to exhibit these behaviors. In no way are any animals in accredited institutions today forcing animals to perform against their will. Many times, I have gone to animal shows including orca shows where the animals refuse to participate, do the wrong thing, etc. and they are never punished or deprived of food. As a keeper I'm frankly insulted that you believe this.

Also there are many signs that they do not enjoy it such as some of the sounds they make when being taken from the wild, the fact which most captive orcas have a lop-sided dorsal fin and the blunt teeth that they get from chewing the glass panels.

Of course an animal is going to be distressed if it's taken out of the wild. That is why orcas and other cetaceans have not been harvested for western zoos in decades. The cause of lop sided fins is not known. Lots of hypotheses but no studies as far as I can tell. Again, it is disingenuous to say it's caused by captivity when it's been seen in wild animals as well. Worn teeth is the same thing. Can it be caused by chewing? Sure but it is also caused by diet and is seen at the population level in many wild orcas.

The simple answer is they did not like these trainers standing on their noses or luring them randomly onto land encouraging them to splash their flukes.This is not natural behaviour for an Orca!

Except it does not do any of those things.If it was demonstrating natural behaviour then it should have them in a spacious pool hunting and vocalising, nobody standing in their noses and throwing food at them, no random swimming on land and splashing their fluke as they will starve otherwise.If it was simulating it they would have to at least hunt and do more movement in a larger pool than what has been provided.It is not for the benefit of their own health either.It has resulted in strange behaviour and lop-sided dorsal fins, neither of which are natural.

Both splashing their tail fluke and beaching themselves are natural behaviors as mentioned before. Also cetaceans have been shown to receive natural reinforcers (brain chemical signals) that are connected to happiness when they see their trainers or are expecting a training session. Also there is no proof of your last sentence of a connection to odd behaviors or lop dorsal fins to training behaviors.

It goes without question, cetaceans respond poorly to captivity. In one instance alone (bottlenose dolphin; see Jaakkola & Willis, 2019) do captive dolphins have an equivalent life expectancy to their wild counterparts. Otherwise all captive cetaceans die disproportionately young.

You need to look at the differences between decades and the vast improvement over time. I see you like articles so here is one. Comparisons of life-history parameters between free-ranging and captive killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) populations for application toward species management

Basically it looks at annual survivor rates (ASR) and other metrics of both SeaWorld orcas and two populations in the Pacific Northwest (Northern resident and Southern resident). There is a significant difference in the average calf survival rate to 2 years between the captive and wild populations (0.966 for SeaWorld calves and 0.799 for SR pop). Now you might say that this is because the SR population is highly endangered with many issues affecting their calf survival rate which is true. But if you look at the improved ASR for SeaWorld animals over time, there is a significant increase. Wild populations did have a higher ASR until 2000 where after there was no significant difference in the studied populations.

This likewise speaks nothing on captive morbidity, nor quality of life. When one has to routinely administer psychotropic drugs to manage cortisol levels (i.e. stress) and reduce aberrant behavioural phenotypes in captive cetacea, maybe one shouldn't be keeping the animals in the first place.

Correct lifespan data should not be the only metric on welfare but it is a pretty good one. Lots of people need to take psychotropic drugs. Also not all orcas need to take them either. With an increase in focus on environmental enrichment and positive reinforcement training, the need for these types of treatments will decrease.

(perhaps transferring the last to oceanic open-water 'netted-bay'-style enclosures, to live out their 'retirements').

Lots of issues with these "sea pens." An animal that has lived in a controlled environment its entire life with little changes in acidity, pollution, temperature, face to face human contact and reliance, and other factors could face a lot of issues if placed in a sea pen. It will be interesting if any of these issues happen when the National Aquarium moves their dolphins to one.

There is no conservation argument for keeping, say, bottlenose dolphins in captivity, and there certainly isn't a scientific nor ethical one.

Very wrong. Nobody cared about orcas until SeaWorld had them and that is a fact. They were considered pests and were not studied by scientists until 50 years ago. The animals at zoos and aquariums are also used as baselines for studies on wild populations. Everything we know about orca biology comes from captive whales. We still know very little about wild orcas and without the captive ones, we would know next to nothing. Whales in captivity save whales in the wild.

And only if individuals once rehabilitated cannot be released should they be kept on in captivity, and certainly not to breed.

What about the social needs of rescued animals? I would be nice to have a captive population that rescued whales could join so they could have a full life with social opportunities.

I don't have much interest in debating. I just wanted to respond to points I thought needed it so facts could be presented. In my opinion, I'd rather see increasing welfare over time for animals rather than ban them from captivity and lose opportunities to learn from them and conserve them in the wild from what we learn about them. This is the case for whales and also animals like white sharks which have never been known to do well. We just don't have the capability to keep one yet. Pangolins are another one. We used to not be able to breed them or even keep them alive in zoos but thanks to research, we have been able to fix the issues we had (mostly their diet) and now there is a budding population reproducing in American zoos.

 

[lintworm]

In experimenting with cetaceans, large birds, deep-sea fishes, yes there are going to be casualties. It's somewhat of a series of trials and errors. While unfortunate, these are also sometimes helpful to determine what this species needs to thrive. It's necessary.

Why is it necessary, noone states that people have to keep everything out there in captivity? With ex-situ conservation being just one part of a global strategy, why invest

You also seem not to know that cetaceans are washed ashore after they are too sick to swim normally. So they are animals which get to dolphinaria in extremely poor condition in the first place, and would have very shortened lifespan and chances of survival.

But seriously, this is just a tiny proportion of cetaceans currently kept, the vast majority were either CB or purposively caught.

The Morgan example is a typical example of an animal that should never have been caught in the first place and the only logical conclusion was that it would remain in captivity in either Loro Parque or Antibes.

Do you and unknown others (we) keep a number of cetaceans (them)? Otherwise don't infringe into freedom of other people.

Don't take it personally, it was a philosophical question on what amounts to a group discussion, that has nothing to do with freedom.

Anti-cetacean bans and protests are an example of nannyism of the worst kind, that is simultaneously not solving real problems, in this case saving vaquita and other endangered cetaceans in the wild.

At least I think we can agree on that.

Keywords "to go hunting." They also dive to avoid threats in the wild. In human care, there is no need to dive deep. Doesn't mean their welfare is bad.

But it also doesn't mean their welfare is good. Many large predators seem to have an innate need to roam, regardless of whether they get enough food (Polar Bears and Leopards as prime examples). Even in most modern enclosures this innate need is not completely fulfilled, but at least the symptoms are much clearer in predators than in cetaceans. There are some things that can be done (and are done in many zoos), but the bottom line is that they need a lot of space, which is often not provided. With Orca especially, but also Dolphins this is much more in its infancy and from experience there are many individuals that just swim in circles.

I personally think that cetacean husbandry is many years behind that of Great Apes and Elephants. We have cracked the nut, for some species, on breeding them and keeping them alive long-term. But from an enclosure point there is much to be desired. Zoos in the 50ies and 60ies could breed Lions by the 1000nds (Leipzig....), but the enclosures would not be acceptable today. The question is what will an acceptable enclosure be in 20-30 years for cetaceans (and to a lesser degree even pinnipeds). Currently most cetacean enclosures are on the small side and basically very boring tanks with little structure. Looking at what it already costs to create and maintain such a facility, I don't even want to know what a real world-class facility would cost, but looking at the stalled Sea World plans that would be massive. To me that begs the question whether it is worth it to keep Orca (and maybe even Dolphins) in captivity as the costs of keeping a large enough population is so insanely high a lot of other stuff could be done with it. I think that a cost-benefit analysis is the key to this cetacean debate.

What about the social needs of rescued animals? I would be nice to have a captive population that rescued whales could join so they could have a full life with social opportunities.

This consists of only a very small percentage of all cetaceans in captivity and begs the question whether there is a need to rescue them in the first place, apart from human sentimentalism. I am not saying we shouldn't try to bring stranded whales back into the water, but I personally doubt whether rescuing is the best option.

 

[Merintia]

I wouldn´t ban any species, but I´d be more exigent with the minimum standard required to any zoo to keep any species.

Regarding the eternal debate about cetaceans, just two things: their supposed shorter life expentancy in captivity only match because anticaps always compare longevity records in the wild (even if are later denied, like with the famous orca Granny) with average in captivity (including data from the first times). If you compare records and average on both, in actual times, the results are very similar.

Their needs, or the real need to keep them, are questions that could be made for almost any other species keep in zoos. No cage will ever allow a raptor to spend hours soaring at 300 metres high, and I don´t see nobody complaining about it. If the problem is their mind, then we shouldn´t keep elephants, parrots, corvids or primates.

 

[The Speeding Carnotaurus]

In regards to comments about the inadequacies dolphin enclosures and their future, I feel that sea pens could be a fairly cheap(maybe?) option especially compared to a millions of dollar tank. Obviously there are fairly substantial issues with moving the captive population into such exhibits but beyond that I can’t really think of any drawbacks. Are there any other drawbacks to sea pens? Please do note that my opinion is not the most informed and I’ve learned a great amount so far from this thread. I’d love to be corrected

 

[taun]

Interestingly last weeks zoo logic podcast talks about the misleading papers regarding the keeping of cetaceans in captivity.